| It’s time for
you to get the phone number of your state representative and
state senator – here is a bill that needs to be killed and killed
now.
House Bill 1939 would give cities and towns
in Oklahoma sweeping powers to take private land away from homeowners,
businesses and churches.
Eminent domain has always been available to
governments to take land for the greater public good for highways,
utilities, and such, but this bill goes much further.
The bill would amend an existing Act and says
that “no city or town shall exercise any of the powers conferred
by Section 40-101 et seq. of this title unless the governing
body of such city or town shall have adopted a resolution finding
that all or a portion of commercial, industrial, or residential
neighborhood to be redeveloped is unproductive, undeveloped,
underdeveloped, or blighted, and the conservation, development
or redevelopment of such area is necessary to promote the general
and economic welfare of such city or town”.
Who would determine what property is “unproductive,
undeveloped, underdeveloped or blighted”, or even what those
terms mean?
Apparently it would be a “redevelopment trust”
who would develop a comprehensive plan prior to acquisition
of land in the form of a feasibility study. This study would
purportedly show the benefits of the plan and prove its cost
effectiveness.
After the study is done, there is to be a public
hearing in which the plan for implementing the plan would include
a “summary of any feasibility study, relocation assistance plan,
(and) financial guarantees of a prospective developer…”. Even
though it would give the public a chance to voice an opinion,
the public would not be able to stop a bad measure.
The danger of this bill is that cities and towns
could begin condemning private property for the sole purpose
of bringing in new development that would generate more tax
revenue than the private property does. Since churches don’t
generate any tax revenue at all, they are at particular risk,
and it is not unprecedented that a city would try to take land
from a church in order to turn their land into a tax generator.
A case in point is the Cottonwood Christian
Center in Cypress, California. Cottonwood began in 1983 with
just 50 people, but by 2000 it had grown to 4,000. It spent
an entire year and $13 million to purchase six properties totaling
18 acres on which to build a new church campus.
In October of 2000, Cottonwood filed an application
for a Conditional Use Permit to build the church on their new
property. The City of Cypress responded by declaring a moratorium
on new permits in the area where their land was located.
By February 2002, the City admitted that they
had improperly rejected Cottonwoods’ application, but at the
same time approved an “Exclusive Negotiation Agreement” with
retailer giant Costco (which they developed during the moratorium).
In April of the same year, they accepted a proposal from Costco
to build a new store on the church’s property, even though the
church still owned it and despite the fact that the land was
not properly zoned for retail use.
In the meantime, Cottonwood had filed a lawsuit
against the City of Cypress in January of 2002, charging violation
of their rights by the US and state constitutions and by the
Religious Land Use Act.
In April of 2002, the City Council voted to
begin eminent domain proceedings that would allow them to take
the church’s land and sell it to Costco. The land was worth
more than the $13 million that the church had paid for it, but
the City reportedly intended to give the church less than that.
The court found the case in favor of Cottonwood,
and said that if the City were to pursue the case, it would
likely lose. The judge said that "preventing a church from
building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to
practice its religion. Churches are central to the religious
exercise of most religions. If Cottonwood could not build a
church, it could not exist".
The City of Cypress eventually negotiated a
deal with Cottonwood that allowed the City to purchase the property
for $18.8 million, provided that Cottonwood could purchase another
29 acre site nearby and be allowed to build their church there.
This story had a happy ending, but as we have
seen lately, judges do not always do what is right. It could
have just as easily gone the other way, and likely will in other
cases.
Cottonwood was fortunate to have had enough
financial resources to fight the City of Cypress, but what about
churches who don’t? How would they fare against a city with
deep pockets?
Please contact your legislators to let them
know that our House Bill 1939 has the potential to harm our
state’s churches, as well as many others.
|
