[RGSpincich]

Would it interest anybody to know that the area in question was rezoned as a Redelopment Project Area nearly eight years before Cottonwood began bullying their way into the news. Cottonwood bought property that they knew was zoned for retail and that a comprehensive plan had been instituted by the city. They were able to acquire the land because other developers did not. Other developers knew that unless they had a big retail business or cluster of businesses the city would not allow them the use of the property.

As I said, Cottonwood did not own this property prior to the Redevelopment Agency taking development control of this property. The owner of the property at that time had every right to file suit because of the restrictions being put on his land use. He did not file suit and reportedly that owner actually encouraged the redevelopment zoning on the property. So now Cottonwood knowingly buys up property for a use that is not allowed. They have no right to build anything but retail on that property and they need a Conditional Use Permits to do so. Those were the rules when they bought the property and those rules remain.

Why should this out of town church have more rights than the citizens of Cypress who voted with a weighted majority (over 67%) to tax themselves to develop this property in the manner set forth by the Redevelopment Agency?

Why should this church have more rights than a developer who would not be allowed to build housing or industrial there?

The fact is they don't have more rights than others but they do garner more sympathy when they only tell their half of the story. IMO, they are trying to bully a community that clearly has a different plan for themselves and has been upfront about it.

[Poohbah]

However, the Cottonwood church DID get an OK on the land as a church prior to purchase.

Hugh spun up his "smart guys" (one liberal and one conservative lawyer) with the full information, including the "redevelopment plan," prior to his show, and they both indicated that Cypress was WAY out of line here.

[RGSpincich]

One further point, I do not favor the taking of this property by the city. Cottonwood should remain the owner of the property and they should either sell, trade or develop it in accordance with the existing zoning laws.

[AAABEST]

Your post is a long, well written bunch of bullshit.

Does a private entity own the land? Do the petty little s**tbag local tyrants want to take it from one private entity so that another private entity could use it?

If the answer to the above 2 questions are yes, you can save your typing. Take a step back and think about what the cosequences are when we start letting the local yokels use eminent domain to give property from one private entity to another.

Does this actually need to be explained to you?