Plans to condemn Southern Baptist church; eminent domain

As was seen in the feeble attempt to "acquire" Judge Souter's home for a Historical Motel...

The justices realize that they are totally immune from their own decisions...

Yet there is one in heaven who sees and they will *NOT* avoid His Sentence...

May *His* Justice be swift! Amen!

This decision was a bad one...

It only goes to prove the point that we are nothing more than feudal serfs in the the cogs of the rich and powerful...

Thinking that this one decision changed the landscape is stupid, IMHO, as we haven't really owned land ever since property taxes were enacted!

It was just a typically over the top assault by Satan through the Court...

Satan doesn't like Freedom...

How about that? The Supreme Court of a Nation with in God We Trust on it's currency is in league with the devil on this one!

Rant Complete...

Mike Sr...

 

This has nothing to do with the 9th circuit or the Supreme court. Can I request those discussions be taken elsewhere?

Regarding this church, I wonder if it would be possible for the city to have the condo developer draw up plans for having a chapel or church sanctuary of acceptable size and quality in the condo that would be available for use under a fixed lease agreement to the Fillopino church. Although it would be problematic to have an unsympathetic landlord.

How about if the condo created one floor as a conference hall that could be sold as a unit to the church. The church would then pay condo fix maintenance fees (adjusted for inflation) like any other condo owner and when it outgrows the hall, they could sell it back to the condo owner who could then either resell it or rent it out for small conferences. There would have to be acceptable reserved parking for that unit in the underground parking lot, proper sound proofing, etc.

Do my attempts a finding creative compromises sound reasonable?

 

They are reasonable *if* the larger issue of belligerent and arrogant town officials is ignored...

Consider:
2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
2Sa 12:2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
2Sa 12:3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
2Sa 12:4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
2Sa 12:5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
2Sa 12:6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man....

I don't think God's attitude towards this form of thievery has changed...

Nor, do I think our response to it should be accomodation...

King David was incensed, and rightly so...

And, when judged he had no choice but to accept...

I am not sure whether we accept this as symbolic martyrdom or fight tooth and nail...

In the end this church has to make that decision...

But, I fear, it will be one that has rather long lasting ramifications for all Americans...

Mike Sr.

 

I sounds like the church knew their current situation was going to be a possibility when they bought the location. I don't know if I would call it thievery.

The following quote is from the article in the OP.

The city has tried to work with the church for a couple of years. While the options presented have been unsatisfactory so far, it doesn't sound like they are being unreasonable.

[ March 26, 2006, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

This is a classic tactic...

And, being as harmless as doves many Christians fall prey to the con man whether it is a city official telling them that what is in print means something it doesn't, to the used car saleman...

A vacant lot is not a relocation offer unless the location is reasonable to the congregation and the building is ready for occupancy before they vacate the current location...

Rezoning as a known deal was closing sounds like a stop gap method to say, "well, we warned them..."

Everyone who finds themselves in this type of situation with eminent domain finds themselves losing far more than they get...

"Reasonable Offer" doesn't mean what you and I think it means...

It definately doesn't mean you get fair market value... That's the whole reason they hold condemnation procedures over your head... They never had **any** intention of being fair or honset about their intent...

BTW: I believe there are several laws available that make the Zoning at time of Contract Signing (not closing) the Zoning of Record...

"Asked to re-locate"? My eye!

Mike Sr.

 

Maybe it is a case of the city having no intent on being fair. But I think this may just be a case of lack of creativity from both sides in finding a reasonable resolution.

 

Squire,

Didn't the Supreme Court declare that law unconstitutional? I'm not sure at all but thought I've heard that somewhere.