Posted by H8War on June 21, 2007 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no problem with this if the church is willing to give up it's exemption from paying property taxes in exchange.

Posted by bruceski44 on June 21, 2007 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Will someone explain to me why there are so many new houses in the open space around the Reagan Library, but a church is not allowed?

Posted by deannaking on June 21, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with KingFan..HELL NO. Doesn't anyone get it?? Isn't our community overcrowed enough? Has ANYONE seen the 23 freeway lately? If you want to get closer to God get off your fat butts and hike to the top of Rocky Peak, try connecting with nature instead of destroying it.

Posted by rdean on June 21, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Because the houses were there before SOAR - just like the Reagan Library. The whole point it to preserve remaining open space...regardless of what organization wants to expand.

There's a reason they don't want this to go to the voters - because nobody in their right mind would let 140 acres get developed here for ANY reason.

Posted by kimberlybohac on June 21, 2007 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to put a negative spin on an organization trying to do good! Why is it ok to build shopping malls, housing developments and resturants in Simi but a church can't build something that will benefit so many? Has anyone driven by the space that Cornerstone is interested in? Have you seen the tacky paintball area, the dump that once was the bike tracks? I think for that reason alone a development that includes park space and some buildings would improve the area! It would have been nice to have gotten some more info or chose to put all of the info that you got from Pastor Chan in the article, I happen to know more of the church's plan and direction and it is more than a church trying to get around laws and make a big issue in Simi. Pastor Chan and the leaders of Cornerstone actually care about Simi and the impact it would have on the city, both positive and negative. It is just sad to me that people hear the word "church" and instantly throw up their defenses and prepare for a fight, try to open your minds and ask questions. Whatever religion you may be or not be, don't you think that having people interested in the welfare of the community building is better than some developer throwing up houses or retail areas?

Posted by wishingonastar on June 21, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right it's not a chapel. It's an opportunity to give to the poor. The people who live with nothing, who are more concerned with something to eat, than protecting some land. Can we give up a little something so that others can benefit. I've traveled with Children's Hunger Fund to Africa and what they are doing is truly amazing. Let Cornerstone make this happen.

Posted by Simicitizen on June 21, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's nice to sip our coffee cups while reading the paper in white Simi Valley while millions go hungry daily around the world. I applaud Cornerstone for building a grass amphitheatre in their desire to make the greenbelt greener and save the money that can go to starving kids.

Posted by sassysan on June 21, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a great idea Cornerstone has to help poor starving children in the world. Instead of building a church just for themselves, they are reaching out to help others including the community while keeping with the natural look of the greenbelt.

Posted by vandopsis on June 21, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cornerstone can feed alot of kids with the 40 million they are spending to build on that space. If feeding kids in poor parts of the world is the goal, what does that have to do with taking up 140 acres of free space in Simi?

Why not set up a Farm and raise vegetables and other foods for the poor children?

Why not build the new church, theater, and college in Africa?

Simicitizen, building a grass amphitheater that will require lots of chemicals and water we don't have is a far cry from Natural Open Space. Get real!

This is just building monuments to display wealth when the stated goal is to help the poor. Isn't that just hypocrisy? I think they should spend the money helping the kids, not showing off the wealth of the church.

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Before I even opened this article I knew it was Cornerstone Church. They have taken up every building on Winifred street. It is nothing but greed. If they want to feed the hungry children send them money, they dont need a 140 acres to do so. SimiCitizen how long have you lived here?. If you havent noticed this hasnt been "White Simi for years. You cant even drive down the street without getting road rage. This is a new San Fernando Valley in the making.

Posted by Coleen on June 21, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What an "impact" this project would have on our community and the others surrounding! To develope the eyesoar piece of land as it sits now into a santuary, an ampitheatre where the church can worship, soccer/baseball fields to be used by our community and creating an environment for our children to come and have a "tangible" learning experience about how the world lives. How exciting!

Posted by jthomsen on June 21, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can think of no better use for this land than to benefit the children of the world. We in Simi Valley are so blessed with riches beyond imagination. It is nice to be part of a community that thinks of others first and wants to use the resources we have to help others less fortunate. I have been to Africa and observed first hand the lives that are being changed due to the efforts of churches like Cornerstone SV. I vote YES.

Posted by vandopsis on June 21, 2007 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody please explain how building a church in Simi feeds poor kids in Africa.

This is a $40 million dollar pat on the back!

Posted by kimberlybohac on June 21, 2007 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not greed "karen sheets" that has made Cornerstone "take up every building on Winifred", it is amazing growth! The church needs more room to grow and how great is it that instead of being selfish and just building a church for themselves, the leaders of the church are wanting to incorporate serving and providing for others in their expansion! As the schools grow in the area they build more classrooms and buildings to accommodate the students and families, it is the same thing here. I would love to invite all the critics to one of the services and see what the Cornerstone family is actually all about. I am proud to be a part of something that will benifit so many not only in our own backyard but worldwide!

Posted by littlepowers on June 21, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Based on the amount of comments that I've seen here. The community Must have a say in this.

Put it up to a vote.

Posted by soccermom on June 21, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is being done with that land?? It's ugly! I think it would be so much better for Cornerstone to build there! I am a mother of six kids-all who play soccer, I think it would be fabulous to have better fields for our kids to play on. Cornerstone could use this land for themselves but instead they are using it to help and serve our community. Not to mention having a building for Children's Hunger Fund. I went to their website and got this quote.."Since 1991, Children's Hunger Fund has distributed more than $500 million in aid, bringing hope to children in more than 70 countries worldwide." Why would we not want to do everything in our power to support this organization. And I 100% agree with SimiCitizen with "white Simi". That's exactly what it is white suburbia. San Fernando valley?? Not even close. Everyone is centered on the cost. I'd like someone to show me a church in Ventura county or even California that cares about the poor as much as Cornerstone does. GOOD FOR THEM! I hope they start BUILDING SOON!

Posted by JulieP on June 21, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is the TRUTH about Cornerstone? What are their intentions?

The Pastor of the Church makes about $38,000 a year for his full-time position. He hasn’t taken a raise since the foundation of the Church 13 years ago. This year, the Church is striving to GIVE AWAY 50% of its funds to missions to help the poor and the needy.

Instead of constructing a huge Sanctuary, the members of this Church desire to sit outside in an open amphitheater to hear the Sunday sermons, so that the millions of dollars saved by this will go directly to the needy.

By not dumping in millions on several buildings, this Church can offer their property to an organization who gives 99% of all revenue to children in need. This is a place for our children to actively and personally help millions of hungry children across the globe. What an opportunity!

With the extra space, this Church community can are offer their property for the use of the entire community. They do not want to be closed up from the community. They want to open up and share and give.

What is the TRUTH about Cornerstone Church? Love.

Posted by kimberlybohac on June 21, 2007 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Vandopsis", if you want to hear what the pastor of Cornerstone thinks of hypocrisy, and how against it in the church he is check this link out. You should do your research on those who you speak against first, Pastor Chan and the leaders of the church have no desire to "build monuments to display wealth", it is actually the opposite, they are wanting to build facilities to serve others and give. I can tell you that he can back up what the church is wanting to do and why it is biblical if he is given the chance.

http://cornerstonesimi.com/media_play...

Posted by simifamily on June 21, 2007 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The church is not being hypocritacal. They have submitted a detailed proposal and are being very open about all aspects of this. According to the article the reason we even know details is because they are going through the formal legal process that is required and doing everything requested and answering all questions and doing their best to address concerns. Are they entitled to the same protection under the law that you are? Why is your opinion for the use of that land more valid than the owner of the land? As a resident of Ventura County I cannot oppose this on the grounds of open space, I have no basis. After all, I already have my developed piece of land to live on. It makes me uncomfortable to tell someone else what should be done with their property knowing that I value the right I have. No doubt I would not understand opposition if it was me that offered all the leaders in the community to help me provide a beautiful location with amenities for the local children and families and would be supporting the feeding of hungry children. Before I can oppose this on open space grounds I have to ask if I care what the naturalists and farmers had to say about the land before MY house was built.

vandopsis - it is good that you posed your thoughts as questions. You especially will appreciate the answers. Many members of Cornerstone have not only sent money but have used their sweat to build schools, houses and vegetable gardens to feed and educate the poor in Africa. There are residents from Simi Valley currently serving the poor in Africa (and other countries). Cornerstone as a church specifically has spent significant time and resources to provide Bible education in Africa that has already reached thousands. In my opinion the reason to build it here is because there are people who are willing to help and this will be a place that can send out those that are willing. I don't see other proposals that support such a strong outward focus like the one you want to see. For that reason alone you might consider supporting this project.

Posted by Dancingstar on June 21, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We should be thankful for Pastor Chan and his vision

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it with you people? There is not enough buildings for you? You cant leave empty space alone? This used to be a great place to live. Now you can see what your next door neighbor is having for dinner. Geez! Ya might want to think about more lanes on the freeway before you go voting for building one more building here. There is plenty of land out in Palmdale, Lancaster. What's wrong with those places. Still don't get how it will help feed the hungry. How would you be able to feed anyone after that expense?

Posted by RC on June 21, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

who do they think they are? GOD?

Posted by Buck_87 on June 21, 2007 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this project going to better society or not? The non-religious object to more land being bought up and used for a "God" they don't believe in. The religious, of course, are going to do everything they can to see something like this through. I guess we all have to look at Cornerstone's track record, do they do well for Simi Valley and the world or not? We have a mall that hasn't helped the crowding and it reminds us of how much we want things. It's true this building won't help with the space issue Simi is facing but the Children's Hunger Fund building will be erected to remind us of the needs of people in Simi and around the world. The type of needs that our children will never face. Crowding will take place either way, but for what purpose?

If it doesn't go to a vote it won't be because they are doing something illegal but by playing by the systems rules. We might not like it, but we put the laws in place to protect religious groups.

Posted by mgraves on June 21, 2007 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah lets keep the open space on Tierra Rejada. It will be good for us. Who cares about the starving children all over the world. Come on guys, lets think about Ventura County and ourselves. I dont know about you but I would rather get to work 10 minutes early because of less traffic than care about the poor. This kind of thinking makes me scared. Its hard to deal with people who only care about themselves, but what I have seen in these statements seems a little absurd. I think its great what this church is doing. I support Cornerstone all the way.

Posted by gndnorton on June 21, 2007 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This project is all about serving others and how we as people learn to see beyond our circumstances and our superficial needs and give to others. Having World Hunger on site with a learning facility to not only teach others about the living conditions of those less fortunate but to actually do something about it has my vote! We continue to approve malls and housing that most people cannot afford but when it comes to doing somthing that is positive there is much opposition. What we really need is more people like Francis Chan that are willing to not just talk but live a life of service and challenge others to do the same. Thanks you Pastor Chan and Cornerstone Church!

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If struggling to get to work in the morning and not being able to even move in a city that you work to live in is "superficial" then whatever!. PLEASE TELL ME HOW ONE BUILDING THAT TAKES UP THAT MANY ACRES IS GOING TO FEED THE HOMELESS? DO YOU KNOW THAT STAMPS AND ENVELOPES ARE CHEAPER AND DONT TAKE UP ROOM WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO LIVE? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEVING IN GOD OR NOT! AN INFOMERCIAL ON TV IS CHEAPER ALSO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEND MONEY TO HUNGRY PEOPLE. SO DONT USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE.

Posted by gndnorton on June 21, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since this seems to be such a hot topic, maybe the Ventura Co. Star would like to do alittle more research on what this project is all about and possible see what Cornerstone and Children's Hunger Fund is all about.

Posted by kimberlybohac on June 21, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You go ahead and put your stamp on your envelope with a check in it, somebody somewhere has to process it and pack the food and figure out where it is best used. If you read the article, it is not one building taking up that many acres that is going to feed the homeless. It is a vision of a church that wants to make a statement about how we in cushy Simi Valley should be willing to sacrifice a little comfort for the greater good. Although I would love to have you by my side serving, I understand that writing a check comes easier to some and that is always welcome.

Posted by soumyeah on June 21, 2007 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I'll start by saying maybe I'm a little biased. I have been around cornerstone for a few years now and yes I do want to say good things about this whole building thing. But I will say that I can see the other side of this deal. I remember when alot of Simi was open. I used to love hiking up the south end of sycamore and was pretty pissed when they proposed a bunch of buildings on the site and by the time I finally tried to hike to white face the had built a golf course and a bunch of million dollar homes. I'm really not a fan of all of that nore do I like the push toward increasing property values that has come with the heartless expaniding of simi valley. That was all good land, it was beautiful and I miss it and I hate to think that this would open the door for a new housing complex or whatever. So I understand that, and I understand that this all seems pretty questionable to alot of people because I've also asked myself how an expenditure like this can be helpful and not completely hypocritical when you consider the whole cost thing. I also feel like I am in an interesting position because I have seen the plans, I have talked to people on staff a the church and I have also seen the costs of the present facility and this is my conclusion, do with it what you will: I can at least say that I don't think anyone on staff has the desire to build a huge monument or just pat themselves on the back. I think they sincerely want to do some good and they have honest intentions. Sure there will be some costs involved (like the $40 million which I consent could go a long way in another country) but here's my take (and I think this is a fair portrait of the church leaderships intentions as well): First, they want their congregation to understand that the church isn't about building monuments nor should Christians be hoarding their wealth for their own personal satisfaction. Instead the church should be about helping the poor and serving each other and the community even to the point of personal expense (which may seem incongruous when one considers the subject here is the building of a facility that some of the community objects to but hold off for a second let me finish). Continued...

Posted by soumyeah on June 21, 2007 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Continuation...
Now the church ended up with this property because someone within the church sold it to them at a ridiculously low cost (which some might find questionable but they did what they wanted with it) and now they are trying to decide what to do with it. So they decided that they would build a facility for what is honestly one of the best non-profit organizations in the nation (thereby cutting their overhead even further and also aiding them in their operation because it is presently reaching its limits)and the staff of the church is hoping that by giving such a center stage to Childrens Hunger Fund (and with a good push in this direction) the members of the church (who are all pretty relatively wealthy) will start to sacrifice things for other people. So I'm pretty sure that's what's going on and you can feel free to question whether it will work or not and whether it is the best way to do it(though I guess nobody really knows what will happen for sure) but that's the motivation. And in all that remember that they are at least trying to be considerate of the open spaces initiative and from the plans I've seen are doing a considerably good job at not building a hideous monstrosity. They are legitimately trying to do something good and are really trying to please everyone and they are doing it without circumventing the law (I saw some people throw that out there so I thought I would refer to that. You may not agree with the Religious Land Use Act but I think it's hard to say that such a law should be repealed so that you can protect another law dealing with open space. I mean why can't that just be applied the other way around you know? Seems like at the heart of that is simply a fight for personal interests which can legitimately go either way. and I know that the motives behind this may not mean much to alot of people and some people will still probably be pissed at cornerstone for this but I hope that at least sets the whole "they're a bunch of greedy jerks" record straight for a few people.

Posted by soumyeah on June 21, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and just to say, I got an email on the subject of circumventing the SOAR vote from one of the people overseeing this project. He said they aren't opposed to thing going to a vote. Just to clear the air on that one too.

Posted by deannaking on June 21, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who say the land is an "eyesore" and "ugly" apparently need to move to a different region of the country or maybe another country entirely. This "ugly" land is indigenous to Southern California as are the plants, animals and reptiles that live there, "God's creatures", here long before this ridiculous "church" was founded. And "soccermom" how much water do you think it will take to keep all your dream fields green?Here's a news flash for you, we are in the middle of a serious draught with no end in sight. The people of this church give new meaning to the word selfish.

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok if the Church wants to help so badly, maybe they should help the HOMELESS PEOPLE that don't have anywhere to go in "CUSHY SIMI VALLEY" Ya know the ones that live in the back of Target or are at the entrance of Walmart with signs asking for food money. Where was Cornerstone when the Ventura County Star was looking for Churches to volunteer for the homeless people to sleep one night of the week? All those little offices on Valley Fair and Winifred that they scooped up could have helped them. Help the VETS that fought for us on the corners in Los Angeles. Why do you have to go to other Countries? You want to use Simi Land but you dont want to help Simi Citizens.

Posted by gndnorton on June 21, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cornerstone does participate in the outreach dinners and house the homeless one night a week

Posted by Coleen on June 21, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Karen.sheets: are you sure they have NOT been involved? Have you actually confirmed that? Have you talked to anyone at the church offices to find out what exactly Cornerstone is doing for Simi Vally/Moorpark/Thousand Oaks homeless and poverty stricken? Do you know for a fact that the congregation is not involved with the homeless?

Cornerstone Community Church number is 805-581-9532
2080 Winifred Street

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JulieP. Is it a habit of yours to go around telling peoples annual income? And who told you that? 13 years is a long time to not get a raise no matter what you do, especially when your Church makes so much money for hungry people. Our wildlife is hungry too, cuz they are being run out of their homes and into the streets to be killed. Wasnt there a Bear in someones front yard about a week ago? How sad! Think About it! The only logical answer is go to a deserted area and pack and distribute food for the homeless. That would be sensible.

Posted by karen.sheets on June 21, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well let me tell you they listed all the Churches that were helping them everynight and Cornerstone wasnt one of them. Why wouldnt they have listed them I wonder.

Posted by vandopsis on June 21, 2007 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem with groups like Cornerstone is all the help to the poor comes only after bible class. Would they feed the hungry without the opportunity to recruit for the church? Probably not. They know that some starving family in a 3rd world country will gladly take the bible and the food.

I know that people who need the church and believe in it don't see the issue here. But those of us with the "inner light" see it as a mild form of coercion.

Not all religious people need a church to be close to their god. Christians cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this fact. Because it is their way or the highway. That is not Love.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

Posted by Jaq31 on June 21, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm praying for those that disagree with this building project-and that you are able to see the good in what Cornerstone is trying to do with this property.

God is good and His will will be done regardless of what any of us believe in or would like to see happen with this piece of land.

I think its great what this church and body of believers are trying to accomplish- to love God and to love others.

Posted by Raider_Fan on June 21, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like the land to be used to help hungry children around the world.

Posted by Marshmallow on June 21, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice flame war.

Classic California Nimbyism in action.

Ummmm, if I were some posters in this thread I would be more worried about the fact that God is reading this thread and taking names.

Cheers,
Capt'n Obvious

Posted by smh on June 21, 2007 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that overall this would benefit the community and all the people that benefit from Children's Hunger Fund - in the long run. Know that God is in control, and that if this is not pleasing to Him, it will not happen. $40 million is a lot, but I know for a fact that Cornerstone and its pastor are not seeking any glory. They are seeking God's glory, and to reach out to the world. I hope that people are blessed by this, if it comes to fruition.

Posted by hlynn on June 21, 2007 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it funny that everyone is arguing that ALL the open land and animal homes will be gone if this is approved, the article says that less than half of the land will be developed (60 acres will be developed and 80 acres will remain undeveloped) 80 acres is still alot of undeveloped land for animals to roam free. In my mind it looks like the church can help the poor and the people who still want undeveloped land still get 80 acres of undeveloped land...everybody wins and hungry kids get a meal that they would otherwise not get. You do the math...

Posted by stave1 on June 21, 2007 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank God for the wisdom of our fore fathers, The separation of Church and State.
I appreciate everyone's opinion and understand both points of view. There are many programs in place that help the needy here and abroad. ONE is one of these programs, MDG's, Heifer Project is another. We don't need to feel guilty about this....But, it was mentioned that we are in a drought. We have been before and it ain't pretty.
My solution to this problem is to plant the land, with whatever will grow, and feed the hungry. Maybe, a community garden or something hands on.... what a loving thing to do.

Posted by jzphi on June 21, 2007 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have lived in Simi since 1974 - there was barely 20,000 people here and lots of open land. Let's face it and be honest - look around this city. If this church doesn't build (and from what I understand only 60 acres will be developed which leaves 80 acres UNDEVELOPED) eventually homes will occupy that land. If you haven't checked out Children's Hunger Fund to see what it's about their website is www.childrenshungerfund.org. I can't imagine a better project coming to Simi.

Posted by rg on June 21, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no idea what Cornerstone is trying to build, but SOAR has to be the stupidest idea ever invented. It successfully stopped needed homes from being built because the developer needed to cut up too many hills so instead it will become a landfill and the hills will get buried instead. It doesn't allow us to build on hills because it will ruin the view, but instead encourages developing all the usable farmland.

By the way, stave1, whoever came up with the slogan "separation of church and state" was a real salesman. It wasn't our forefathers or the authors of our constitution. The constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". They simply didn't want another Church of England. They never intended to keep prayer out of schools or for Churches not to pay taxes, or prohibiting public religious displays or teaching the Bible. They simply did not want one official church.

Posted by chandeeo on June 21, 2007 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that what Cornerstone is doing is wonderful. I have lived in Simi for 35 years and no matter what anyone does, houses will go up and malls will be built. Using this land to do good in the world whether a church backs it or not is just another way to love those who are not as fortunate as we are. I am sooo blessed to live in such a beautiful place and to have this as an addition to those blessings, I am grateful. If anyone has a question about what Cornerstone does for the community, please contact the office any time before 1 on Sundays and I would love to share. I know that I personally cannot keep up with all of the wonderful things that this church does. They don't force anything on anyone except love. My vote is yes!! :)

Posted by jeff93024 on June 21, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Cornerstone Church is able to bypass the SOAR requirements, so will any other organization that can legally call itself a church. This would include the Church of Scientology and Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. If the community voted to approve the zoning changes for Cornerstone Church, I would go along with that. However, it would seem that Cornerstone is trying to bypass the legal process. If Cornerstone were allowed to do this, then any other "church" that was denied the same privilege could easily and correctly claim that they were being discriminated against. In such an instance, ANY religious organization could come to Ventura County, claim immunity from SOAR, and possibly get permission to build a 50 story high-rise on agricultural land in order to house what they could claim would be the world headquarters of their church.

If Cornerstone has a good idea, and they might, they should be willing to abide by the law, submit their proposal to a vote, and make certain that cults and financial institutions posing as religions do not get to claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do the same thing.

Posted by poppa_b on June 21, 2007 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very disappointing to see such hostility and mud-slinging based on a group of residents pursuing the legal process.

I believe in the laws we've passed, the governing bodies we have collectively put in place, and that this will draw to an acceptable conclusion based on the due process of those laws.

There is so much bad information posted here that there is not enough space for rebuttal. Please do some research, post facts, and stop bashing.

Posted by simifriend on June 21, 2007 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Karen.sheets, I was particularly interested in your comments and I'd love to invite you to check out Cornerstone for yourself. After attending a service you may still have distain for the church but at the very least you'll be better informed. The new service times this weekend are 4:30 and 6:15 on Saturday evening and 9:00 and 11:00 on Sunday morning. The invitation stands for all of you who are just curious about what goes on there. You might be surprised. Time (and God) will tell if the church ever moves to Tierra Rejada but in the meantime the door is always open for you. Perhaps one day we'll meet.

Posted by mama2ways on June 21, 2007 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simi Valley has been my home for 35 years. I fondly remember huge fields of orange and walnut groves and lots of open space to play in. Even as a child, I would cringe each time I would see the beautiful open space gobbled up by a new strip mall or hideous housing project. The new construction at Kuehner and the 118 freeway just makes me sick. Along with hundreds of people, our family went to the City Council meeting to oppose the building. It happened anyway. I love our open space and hate seeing it destroyed.

However, I have to say that this project makes sense. How can I, in good conscience, drive by this open space knowing it could be used to change children's lives for the better. Not just world wide but even in our own county?

I agree with whoever said there are enough buildings around here. It sure is getting crowded. But this church is proposing something that will benefit our entire community and in turn the world. I'm sure that if Cornerstone could find a 60 acre piece of property between Kuehner and Madera to accomdate it's needs, they would. Why would they want to go through all the hassle SOAR would bring? There simply isn't enough room anymore. It has all been gobbled up by the multi-million dollar homes and the mall.

Posted by suttonnic on June 21, 2007 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My family and I have been part of the Cornerstone family for over 10 years.

We are thrilled about the "plans" that have been submitted and what the possibilities are for our community. More importantly, Dave Phillips and Children's Hunger Fund have a vision that surpasses anyone's imagination - we can't wait to see how we can be part of changing peoples lives, especially our own children!!

We've seen, firsthand, the difference that regular people have made in the lives of children and families across the world. I encourage you to participate.

God's will WILL be done...for that, I am sure.

Posted by ambooklover on June 21, 2007 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wake up every body. This is a plan for the entire community, not just a church! Don't you think Simi could use a venue that can seat 5,000 people??? Especially one that's not an eyesore? You bet we could!! And the world HQ for a worthy charity in our own backyard so all who wish could volunteer and give back a little? This is private property designed to be as useful to the entire community as possible. Anyone who thinks this is a selfish plan just doesn't know the plan. This should not be controversial. It's a gift people!

Posted by ywilber on June 22, 2007 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I had mixed feeling when I first heard about this project. I love open space, and spend many hours a week hiking and mountain biking. I knew Cornerstone would take a big hit for proposing development in the Tierra Rejada corridor. But seeing how much of it will remain open, and how we will have an ampitheater for community events, and much needed athletic fields, has changed my perspective.
I hate to see people bashing the church as being "selfish" and building "monuments." 40 million sounds like a lot, but what did the mall cost, and how much of its income benefits the poor? Maybe some are uncomfortable with posting salaries, but Cornerstone posts salaries of all our pastors, in order to be accountable to the people who give. These are not people who live large. These are people who want to give to the community and to the world, to manifest God's glory, and not the glory of man. This is not a "Crystal Cathedral" or "Your Best Life Now." This is people sitting in 100 degree weather for service so that other people can sit in service without their children starving, or so children who have lost their parents to AIDS can eat and have an education.
50% of of the money Cornerstone members give is earmarked for the poor and needy of the world. Eternity Bible College charges $50.00 a unit instead of $250.00. This is not greed and monument building. This is changing the face of the church in America.

Posted by karen.sheets on June 22, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all Simifriend I have no disdain for your Church or any other Church. I truly believe in God and I go to my own Church, and furthermore Marshmallow your saying God is taking down names is that what you learn at your Church? My God doesnt judge or "take down names". You are all missing the issue. I too think its sad watching every corner inch of space being built on. There is new buildings that arent even being used. Its just a waste.

Posted by Marshmallow on June 22, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Karen.sheets, Thats the thing about the internet, its hard to tell who is being sarcastic and who isnt.

Yes there are new buildings not even being used but apparently even residents (Ventura at least...and apparently only a few) are opposed to even those being revamped for sustainable purposes (ie. saving our open spaces and farmlands by building from within the city core and into the open arms of preexisting pavement and infrastructure and thereby easing the pressures on our open spaces).

In addition, building improvements cost city money (at least the ones the city is involved in) and if that particular city doesnt have any money because they've exhausted it all fighting lawsuits from SOAR......

Many people with divergent viewpoints coupled with a lack of leadership from our "conventional" (dated) forms of govt (city councils, schoolboard, supervisors), increasingly becoming less influential at policy implementation and conversely seeing the rise of the non-profits is a sign of the times, and a welcome one at that...

Posted by mdiddy on June 22, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm amazed at the goal and vision of cornerstone's idea. To feed countless children and families around the world is something that deep down makes sense and feels right. I don't think there's any better use of the 60 acres of land. After all, all of the world's major religions would agree that taking care of the homeless and starving children is a priority. The benifits far outweigh the drawbacks of building on the land.

Posted by littlepowers on June 22, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Back to the problem at hand,

there needs to be a vote.

A church shouldn't be able to get around the vote because it's a church.

I am indesisive on whether or not the project should go ahead, but the people of Simi need to have a say, and if they don't, then I'll be having a talk with my friends/leaders at the church.

Posted by mary4227 on June 22, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After drinking some Kool-Aid, I’ve come to the conclusion that Cornerstone does have quite the number of members, and boy do they come together and post for their cause. I wonder how many of them voted for SOAR but yet find it so easy to exploit legal loopholes for their own interests.

A building in the hills is ugly regardless of who built it and how much money was spent on it. Frankly, a 5,000 person theater will only benefit the church, and not the community. Even if it were utilized by local schools for secular purposes, there would still be prostilizing occurring on behalf of Cornerstone (covert and overt). I’d rather see trashy paintball fields then a Seven Building Facility.

Cornerstone obviously can’t purchase all of Winifred Street, but they have somehow amassed 40 Million for this wonderful complex. How much of their charitable funds they collect from members are going to be spent fighting for their cause?

Simi Valley has so many hungry children, what a great and impoverished community to build a location for the Children’s Hunger Fund. The hills of Malibu could benefit from this as well, and they have a better view.

Maybe once Cornerstone gets the SOAR land and circumvents the intent of the Law, the Church of Satan (which is a legally recognized organization) will be allowed to build there too. I bet Pastor Chan, who is making only 38K a year, will have an excellent view from his quarters located at the new facility, overlooking the beauty below laid out at his feet. I’m beginning to think I know what his raise is going to be!

The 4,000 members of Cornerstone should not have the right to throw out the vote taken on behalf of the 750,000+ residents of Ventura County.

Unfortunately, since Habitat for Humanity is not a “religious organization” they would have no right to use that land to build needed homes for local needy people. To bad the county can’t build a permanent shelter for all of the local homeless people who were recently, and rudely, thrown out of their encampment in the wash.

Posted by mary4227 on June 22, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and they better not have more than four animals on the property if/when they aquire it!

Posted by stave1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you mary4227, I was wondering if we were going to have to reinvent the wheel. There are soooo many programs going and way to much need. We help feed the hungry through church, food share, and project understanding.

What we really need is to get some of these singles and families off the street. Maybe habitat for humanity could help them with a homeless shelter?? That way they would only be NIMBIEs with the Presidential Library.

If they start raising their own food, and ranching the land, that shouldn't upset the ranchers in the area. What do ya think....a good solution???

Posted by Coleen on June 22, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check it out - found this on Cornerstone's web site

http://www.cornerstonesimi.com/files/...

Posted by Marshmallow on June 22, 2007 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the pics,

That is the property in question?

Seems just about "anything" created on that property would provide aesthetic relief, but I can understand the opponets viewpoint(s) that this specific situation is not just about this particular property, and may ultimatley decide who replaces Gallegly when his service is done.

Good luck Cornerstone, youre property rights are being violated. If the defeat of the VC Open Space District is any indication, few opponets of the project will back up their words with their own $$$ but those that do should be applauded.

Hopefully an outcome will be reached that is best for those directly involved.

Posted by mary4227 on June 22, 2007 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stave1, you're right. My point is that if exceptions are going to be made solely on the basis of a Federal Law protecting religious organizations, let's make exceptions for every other worthy cause out there, because churches aren’t the only organizations capable of charity. The church is only marketing their good deeds to justify their circumvention of a voter approved measure, the "it's okay for us to break the rules, because we are good people doing it for a good cause;" very much the “Robin Hood” way.

Cornerstone - find a piece of land that is rightfully and legally for sale and stop trying to circumvent voter approved measures for your own self-interests. Maybe something centrally located where all of the down and out homeless people could reach without hiking.

I bet Cornerstone wouldn't be fighting so hard find a loophole in the law if the land they are interested in wasn't in such a nice location with such a great view. If they were truly righteous, they could do their ministries anywhere. I’m sorry but the Religious Land Use Act was not designed to allow churches to build in the hills where others cannot, frankly Cornerstone has plenty of space to assemble as it is now! The RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/rlui...

Posted by WTF on June 22, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mary4227,

Thank you for your intelligent and researched insight regarding this matter. We can pray that our City Council is not asleep at the wheel and sees this circumvention of the law for what it is – a special interest group attempting to bypass the law by inferring that the peoples’ law does not apply to them.

Posted by JulieP on June 23, 2007 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the Pastor's income, his salary and all finances of the Church are made open to the public. Some churches offer this "open book" policy.

With the many opinions offered here, I thought some facts would help us all come to better informed conclusions.

Thank you for your concern, but no worries...it's all good.

Posted by poppa_b on June 23, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Last month, Santa Paula voters approved a project that includes as many as 496 homes in the Adams Canyon area."

I support the proposed project to prevent this voter supported type of development, if for no other reason. The actual buildings footprints are small, open land is preserved.
The land was legally purchased, and use related to development also has to be run thru the legal process. The 500 home development went thru the same?

I fail to see how using federal and local laws in conjunction with due process is construed as subversive.

Related to the 40m number, the last building I worked on Simi cost 15 million, and that was a 180,000 sq ft commercial warehouse in 1994 stuck up on the east end. Keep the finance aspect in perspective.

Posted by mbc on June 24, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

God is Sovereign. If this proposal is a part of His plan, He will provide the money and the way. "For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?"
Isaiah 14:27

Posted by juandeveras on June 25, 2007 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To see what one church has done in a similar setting since 1980 in Southern California, please view the website of Saddleback Valley Church in Lake Forest, home of Pastor Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven Life concept. They have already done in spades what this church in Simi is proposing. Read their posted statistics, which dwarf those proposed here. Read what they have done for their adjacent communities and the rest of the world to date.

Posted by smh on June 25, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The church is NOT trying to "bypass" any law, whatsoever. The were poorly represented in this article, when they said clearly in the interview that they weren't even sure if this was possible, but they would see if it could be done. The integrity of a church that loves people and God is at risk, and unfortunately, it's being bashed because of misrepresentation. Cornerstone will in no way, shape or form, seek to skirt the law. I can 100% guarantee that.

Posted by mary4227 on June 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read the article:

"Cornerstone Community Church is the first religious group to try to skirt the county's Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative. The 4,000-member church wants an exemption from the SOAR requirement of voter approval for zoning changes involving open space or agricultural land in unincorporated areas."

"Church leaders are invoking the federal Religious Land Use Act, which restricts government from imposing land-use regulations that "substantially burden" the religious exercise of churches."

SMH – this article reads as though Cornerstone IS trying to bypass a voter-approved initiative. I recommend reading the Religious Land Use Act, and tell me how Cornerstone is being discriminated against, and how Cornerstone is being “substantially burdened” by not being allowed to build on the land in question.

"The RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

If you read the RLUIPA, the intent is to make it illegal to allow a secular organization to build on land and not allow a religious organization the same freedom to build in the same or similarly zoned area as the secular organization. SOAR PREVENTS ALL BUILDING – SECULAR AND OTHERWISE!!

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/rlui...

As for Cornerstone's being bashed, it appears as though it is their intention to circumvent the rules and regulations imposed by the community in which they reside, and it is easy for one to interpret their actions (regardless of reality) as Cornerstone really not caring about the community, just Cornerstone. Regardless of the organization, secular or otherwise, I would feel the same way about this issue. It doesn’t matter to most people in the community if it was Cornerstone, Walmart, or Habitat for Humanity trying to build on the land in question, it is wrong either way and goes against the wishes of the voting community at large.

For those out there invoking, “God’s Will,” I don’t feel that you are wrong, but it would be nice to hear a non-Religious argument for Cornerstone’s proposal and how SOAR is a violation of the RLUIPA.

Posted by h_romero411 on June 25, 2007 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it will be interesting to see what will happen eventually with that piece of property (It's demise could not be too far off in the future given growth statistics).
So, whether it's a church, soccer field, over-priced houses, a strip mall, or remains indigenous brush with some trash and or some paint-ball junk I think people should take into consideration the big picture and REALITY when they are making comments about slow growth and "open space". I personally am for open space and fighting to keep what little open space remains is worth fighting for but the year is 2007, we are only miles from Los Angeles and there are bigger issues at hand than a Church and it's facilities, or a strip mall or traffic implications for a particular part of the city or even saving a few acres of brush. So, I say let there be due process and put it to a vote and if it's voted down it is certainly is NOT going to stop what Cornerstone is doing now, or tomorrow and or what we as Christians beleive in. And as for the people who are getting upset over slow growth and open space and laws and ordinances well, I certainly hope the fight they EVENTUALLY WILL loose on down the road for this particular area will be over a better proposal or project than a church that wants to give to the community and help hungry children all over the world.

Posted by mary4227 on June 25, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

H_Romero 411 – I fail to see how SOAR is violating Cornerstone’s rights under RLUIPA. Could someone please explain this to me? This is the issue at hand, the people voted, decided in favor of SOAR, and now SOAR is accused of violating the RLUIPA.

SOAR’s inevitable demise, and the inevitability of building on the hills, doesn’t provide a valid legal argument as to how SOAR is violating RLUIPA.

Posted by h_romero411 on June 25, 2007 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By eventuality I meant, inevitable. I don't know for how many years SOAR can stop or slow development for that particular plot of land but I could not imagine it would be forever. Someday it will be developed and it is my OPINION that it will not be as benefial as Cornerstone's proposal. That was my statement.
It was not Cornerstone's intention to "skirt" or by bypass any laws or ordinance and in fact sought out as many meetings and city council information as they could. So that being said if it is still determined that Cornerstone should not have even PROPOSED the project then so be it and the brush and animals on that land will continue to flourish...for a while. Cornerstone's vision and function as a church will certainly also prevail and most likely for far longer than that percfel of land.
My statement did not mention that Cornerstone's rights were violated. The leaders had an idea and a vision for the community and Children's Hunger Fund and because SOAR was created then that idea may not let that happen but the point I was trying to make is that of the development that has taken place so far and the deveopment that will happen whether by leaps and bounds or one small parcel of property at a time, it just seems to me like this is a project that is worthy compared to strip malls and expensive housing developments. If that open space is saved that will be good but If Cornerstone's proposal happens then that will be better.

Posted by mary4227 on June 26, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But in order for Cornerstone's proposal to be heard, in order for consideration for exemption from SOAR, Cornerstone is invoking their rights under the RLUIPA - read the article. How are Cornerstone's rights under RLUIPA being violated?

I don't care how great their proposal is, I think it is outragous that Cornerstone is claiming that SOAR is violating RLUIPA and I want an explaination directly addressing the specifics of SOAR's violation of the Religious Land Use Act. I don't care that eventually the land may be used for something far less worthy, because there are people out there who would much rather shop than feed the children of Africa.

H_Romero411 - I know your statement said nothing about Cornerstone's rights, the article did.

Posted by bomb on June 26, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All of you negative people are crazy. Maybe you should all go to church and learn how to care about other people rather than yourselves. You are all talking about over crowding and things like that. How much traffic is this one church really going to ad. There is no traffic on Sunday anyway. All you talk about is greed. Look at yourself, there is nobody out here that is not sitting in a house that is less than a half million. Your house was not here before either, what makes your greed and house better than a church that will actually do some good. You all need to open your eyes a little and see how much good will actually come of this. It will eventually be a cluster of town houses or another 50 houses anyway. Why not make it something good now before its to late.

Posted by mary4227 on June 26, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bomb - you obviously don't get the point, How are Cornerstone's rights under RLUIPA (Religious Land Use Act) being violated?

You speak of greed, but yet you can not provide a VALID LEGAL (laws of man, being that we are all still here on Earth) REASON FOR WHY SOAR IS VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF CORNERSTONE UNDER THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE ACT!!! I truly want to know how Cornerstone's rights are being abridged!

Frankly, it is not very Christian to pass judgment on other people and other people's beliefs - being judgmental of other human beings is about as bad as being selfish and greedy! Name calling won't solve anything or help your position. What's good for Cornerstone may not be good for everyone. I personally don't care what is built there. I want to hear a VALID LEGAL ARGUMENT, and not propaganda about God's will and how it is better to build a church then a mall.

Posted by tortoisethunder on June 27, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't want to start any blastphamous rumors but I think that god's got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing. Come on people, we are silly, silly, people. Let them build, if you don't like it don't go. If you really don't like the new scenery move.

Every bulding or land purchase/transaction should include a "intent" letter, which can be reviewed before the transaction is completed.

Posted by serious on June 27, 2007 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mary - Here are the only two Cornerstone quotes that the Star chose to use in reference to SOAR: "The time and cost associated with the (SOAR) election — the church is hoping to avoid that process," Parkinson said. (and) "We believe there are similarities to this project and the Ronald Reagan Library," Parkinson said. "And based on provisions (in the Religious Land Use Act), there could be an opportunity for us to be able to do this."

This person does NOT say anything about Cornerstone's rights being violated. I think you are either reading between the lines (incorrectly) or taking the overall slant of the article and applying intentions and feelings that just aren't there. Keep in mind that the person quoted was basically saying he wasn't sure whether the provisions applied or not. I don't know why this article had such a negative slant to it. Perhaps the author is a strong SOAR supporter, or perhaps the editor is not a fan of Cornerstone and its vision to help cure world hunger. I really don't know. What I do know is that it is sickening to think that people would rather go shopping than feed people in Africa (a quote from YOU). Religious views aside, you have to admit that we are so blessed to be living where we are living with the amenities that we have. The leaders and families at Cornerstone are aware of that. You may want to check out the website for both Cornerstone (http://www.cornerstonesimi.com) and Children's Hunger Fund (http://www.childrenshungerfund.org) to get an idea of why it would be great to be able to use the property in question to further the vision of these two groups. This development will not line the pockets of the rich. If this project doesn't go through and the Cornerstone's purchase of the land is in vain, then (as someone else stated), eventually strip malls, housing projects, or whatever else that brings in tax dollars WILL be built in that space or someplace nearby. I've heard a statistic that someone dies from starvation every 3 seconds. BUT who cares? I think I'd rather stare at my rolling green hills and dream nice happy dreams that only involve me and those I love. SOME may think that (consciously or unconsciously), but that's NOT why we are here. We are here to bless those that are less fortunate than us.

In closing, Cornerstone is NOT trying skirt an existing ordinance. It is merely trying to ascertain its options. IF you want to know how a church could do this, maybe you could ask a law professor or someone better able to explain it. I don't have the answers and I doubt anyone else here does either.
God bless you and your family.

Posted by mary4227 on June 27, 2007 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Serious – Thank you for your coherent response. I have taken an opportunity to visit the sites you have posted. I have also taken an opportunity to look into the Religious Land Use Act. I am failing to see a connection between SOAR, Cornerstone, and the Religious Land Use Act. I was hoping that someone affiliated with the church could explain their legal perspective, versus contacting the LA Times. I appreciate your response, and agree that no answer will come of this. I am tired of hearing the “God’s will argument.”

I don’t feel any differently about Cornerstone than I do about any other church. You are correct, it is sickening to think that people would rather go shopping, but it is true. The United States has thrived as a result of Capitalism, and that is what will sustain us materially. I don’t think that any organization can make any real progress in solving the hunger problem in Africa by building a structure in the United States, let alone Simi Valley; that is my personal opinion, but I wish Cornerstone the best of luck in their endeavors. I think Christian missionaries throughout the World do a lot of good work, but the governments in that region of the World are corrupt, and many of the organizations there who are claiming to help are just as corrupt. I supported President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative, only because I believe that churches are better at social work than the Federal Government is, but at the same time the idea of help in exchange for religion (no matter which) isn’t fair to the people in need either. I am a firm believer in Relative Deprivation, and I will not admit to being “blessed” as you have suggested I do. I’d prefer homes in those hills, I may pay a penalty in another life, but so be it! Tortoise makes an excellent point – whatever, let them build.

Posted by lrc92carol on June 30, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To comment left by KingsFan:

If you've ever been to Cornerstone you'd know that our church is always about our beliefs first. Cornerstone has done many things to help our city, state, country, and now we're trying to help the world. Of course its not easy and it's God who decides whether or not anything happens.
This project of ours is to benefit people in ventura county who don't know Jesus, and in my opinion and the opinions of many others its a great project and deserves to be encouraged.
If you have not been to Cornerstone, or any of the churches in Simi, then you should not be one to judge. But, if you have been to a church here and did not enjoy it then that does not mean you should judge all of them.

Besides I highly doubt that space could be put to better use.

God Bless,
lrc92carol

Posted by meleemel on July 12, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I keep reading people's comments that say this will be a benefit to the community. My question is that if I am not a member of Cornerstone, how do I benefit? I don't see how it would be a benefit unless you are a member of the church. I vote NO!!!!

Posted by ccrider77 on December 27, 2007 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read a lot of comments here from people who obviously read this somewhat tilted article but haven't seen the plan nor do they appear to understand the history behind it. Sadly a lot of people are also making incorrect assumptions about Cornerstone Church itself.

1st - it is precisely because Cornerstone has outgrown it's present location on Winifred and has had to resort to buying a lot of the surrounding property that this is now necessary.

2nd - Cornerstone already has built a church and school in Africa, New Guinea and other places around the country and world. Cornerstone currently donates a larger percentage of their budget towards providing shelter and food for the needy than any other church in Ventura County. Does this sound like greed or charity?

3rd - If you will look at the proposed plan, you will see that the vast majority of the land remains open space. Even the church "sanctuary" isn't an enclosed building - only an outdoor amphitheater using grass. This was specifically done to minimize land impact and cut expenditures to send more money overseas to those who need it.

4th - This benefits the community by providing free facilities such as a park and sports fields maintained by the church - not by tax dollars. Access to the land will not be limited to church members, in fact the public will have greater access to this property than they do now and nothing in the plan interferes with wildlife passage.

Rather than make assumptions, I encourage everyone to go to Cornerstone's website at: http://www.cornerstonesimi.com and read their open financial statement and then check out the proposed plan - then decide. It's not about greed and Cornerstone has openly sought & followed the guidance, direction and advice of city and county government in this matter. They have not "pushed" this at all nor do they have any anti-SOAR agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of Cornerstone members and leaders were SOAR supporters, as I am.

CC