Judge to Rule in Battle Over Church Land

In a closely watched case that pits a city’s redevelopment efforts against a church’s property rights, a federal judge said he’ll rule today whether to grant a temporary injunction that would halt condemnation proceedings on a piece of prime land in Cypress.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard arguments Monday from attorneys representing Cottonwood Christian Center and the city of Cypress in the first courtroom square-off in the nearly 2-year-old battle that has gained national attention as a test case on religious freedom.

The two sides are fighting over 18 vacant acres near the Los Alamitos Race Course that the mega-church bought in 1999 and plans to develop as its new home. City officials rejected that plan in October 2000, and now say they want to put a Costco on Cottonwood’s property at the corner of Walker Street and Katella Avenue, the busiest intersection in the city’s 300-acre redevelopment zone.

Cottonwood filed a federal suit in January, accusing the city of discriminatory practices by stopping the church’s building plans in favor of businesses that would provide the city with tax dollars. In May, the church sought a temporary injunction in federal court after the City Council unanimously voted to condemn the church’s land.

Attorneys for the city argued Monday that the city has a right to enact its redevelopment plan, which includes seeking a “big-box” retail outlet for the property. They also told the judge that Cottonwood’s objections should more properly be addressed in eminent domain proceedings in state court.

“What this case is about is trying to move forward with a redevelopment plan,” said Michael D. Rubin, who represents the city. “The 18 acres is the key to transforming and revitalizing the 300-acre area.”

Were it not for the church’s ownership of the property, Rubin said the condemnation would be “a garden-variety redevelopment project.”

Cottonwood’s attorneys argued, however, that the city has infringed on constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The city also is violating a religious land-use act passed by Congress in 2000 to prevent cities from impeding the free exercise of religion, Cottonwood attorneys said. The only way to get those issues before the court is to halt the city’s eminent domain proceedings, they said.

“This is not a land-use case,” said Cottonwood attorney Kevin J. Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C.-based group that concentrates on religious freedom issues. “It’s a constitutional case that involves land use.”

Hasson said Cypress officials waited a dozen years to advance their redevelopment plans for the property and won’t be harmed by waiting until the constitutional issues are resolved in court.

The attorney did concede that Cottonwood’s ownership of the property was the only reason this redevelopment case is out of the ordinary.

“Religion is special under the Constitution,” Hasson said. “And [it] is supposed to be special under the Constitution.”