Rejected church plans cost city $1.2 million

Rejected church plans cost city $1.2 million
Officials cited desire for tax revenue when building project vetoed

The city of Lake Elsinore, Calif., whose officials said they preferred tax revenue to worship services when they rejected a church's building plans, now has paid the Elsinore Christian Center $1.205 million for that decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in the church's favor in 2006, and the case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court when the city asked to settle the dispute, according to officials with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a national non-profit law firm working to protect religious liberties.

The appellate ruling found that the city violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which codifies the First Amendment and provides that governments cannot use land use regulations, such as zoning, to place a "substantial burden" on churches unless there is compelling state interest.

"Elsinore Christian Center stands as a great example nationally to religious organizations and churches that significant protection against religious discrimination by zoning and municipal officials is available," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

"Churches across the country collectively spend millions of dollars every year trying to get discretionary land use permits only to be rejected by the discriminatory and subjective whims of zoning officials – a quandary that has now met its match," he said.

This case, which began in 2000, was one of the first to use RLUIPA as the basis of its legal argument. When Elsinore Christian Center wanted to buy and occupy a commercial building in Lake Elsinore, city officials would not allow it because they believed they might lose out on tax revenue that could possibly come from a commercial business, officials said.

The building was located in a blighted area that the city had designated for redevelopment.

"We argued to the city council that our church would not only help bring people into the blighted area of the city and generate sales tax in neighboring retail businesses, but we would help to bring spiritual revival to a depressed area," said Pastor Jim Hilbrant.

Although the district court determined that the city violated RLUIPA because the city council denied a land use permit to the church to occupy the commercial building, it also held that RLUIPA was unconstitutional.

The ruling from the 9th Circuit, however, overturned that conclusion.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom was joined in representation by the Beckett Fund, Pacific Justice Institute, and Alliance Defense Fund.

Becket Fund officials said the church, after being denied permission to develop that location, "wandered around" for some time, then found another, much smaller property, to purchase. Members had been unable to develop their plans as they had intended because of the city's long, losing battle, officials said.