Government
Aug. 8, 2002
Judge Bars City of Cypress From Seizing Church's Land
SANTA ANA - In a potentially groundbreaking decision, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the city of Cypress likely violated the Cottonwood Christian Center's rights by trying to condemn church land that it wants for commercial development.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter granted a preliminary injunction barring the city from using its constitutional power of eminent domain to take 18 acres of church land for a big-box retail redevelopment project.
The church had planned to build a worship center with a gymnasium, classrooms and a bookstore on the property.
"The framers of the Constitution might be surprised to learn that the power of eminent domain was being used to turn the property over to a private discount retail corporation," Carter wrote.
The decision was the first in California to grant relief to a church under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Signed into law by President Clinton in September 2000, the act prohibits government from imposing land use restrictions that place a substantial burden on churches trying to practice their religion.
It was also the first ruling in the nation to use the act to block eminent domain proceedings. In other cases, the act has been used to strike down zoning and other land use restrictions, lawyers said.
Even though the preliminary injunction stops all parties, including the church, from developing the land until a trial resolves the issue, lawyers for the church immediately hailed the decision as a landmark in religious liberty.
"It is very significant in a positive sense because plenty of cities will be taking a look at Cypress," said Patrick Korten, vice president of communications for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C., group that litigates on behalf of religious organizations. "What we have found is that Congress was absolutely right. ... localities using land-use and zoning laws were freely trampling on church's rights. But eminent domain is kind of like trampling on Constitutional rights squared."
"I think this decision will be read across the country," Andrew Guilford, a partner with Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton in Costa Mesa, said, "because of its important analysis of how much government can interfere with the free exercise of religion and the property rights of its citizens."
Attorneys for the city said Carter's decision gave too wide latitude to the religious use act.
"From our perspective, he has made some new law," Cypress city attorney William Wynder said. "He has concluded under [the act] that any land owned by a church is subject to protections of that act. He is also saying that an eminent domain is a zoning and land-marking law. Our argument is the law does not apply to eminent domain, which is a constitutional power."
Cypress and Cottonwood have tussled for months over the 18-acre site near the Los Alamitos Race track at issue in the case.
The church, a nondenominational congregation with more than 5,000 members, purchased the parcel for $13 million in 1999 to use for a major expansion.
The city, however, envisioned a thriving shopping center that would both generate tax revenues and help revitalize the retail sector. Officials refused to give Cottonwood a development permit.
Claiming Cypress was violating the church's rights under the religious use act, Cottonwood filed a federal lawsuit in January. In response, the Cypress City Council, sitting as the redevelopment agency, voted in May to condemn the church's property. The redevelopment agency filed an eminent domain lawsuit the next day.
On June 24, the church struck back, filing a motion for an injunction against the condemnation.
In his ruling Tuesday, Carter agreed with Cottonwood that the proposed condemnation likely was an unlawful exercise of eminent domain.
Cypress not only burdened the church unnecessarily but also may have acted in a discriminatory manner, Carter also held.
"Although the city contends that Cottonwood is disturbing its long-planned development efforts, it was only after Cottonwood purchased that land that the City moved aggressively to find other uses for the property." Carter wrote.
A trial in the case is scheduled for March 2003, although settlement talks continue, lawyers say.
Jenna Bordelon
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com