an Diego officials acted properly when they sold a 43-foot-high Christian cross and a sliver of real estate inside a municipal park to a private group for use as a war memorial, a U.S. District Court ruled yesterday.

   The cross is situated inside the 170-acre Mount Soledad Natural Park, and has been the subject of controversy and litigation for nearly a decade. An earlier cross had been erected in 1913, but was destroyed in a wind storm. In 1952, the San Diego City Council granted permission to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to replace the devotional structure, and two years later the new cross was dedicated to war veterans.

   A 1991 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the presence of the cross on publicly owned land violated the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution, which states that government may not prefer one religion over another. Hoping to keep the cross standing, though, the city tried to sell 222-square-fee under the cross to the Memorial association "in a negotiated sale for fair market value."

   The legal battle continued, when in September, 1997 the court ruled that the whole method of sale and the amount of land involved failed to resolve underlying constitutional problems. The city was faulted for conducting a private sale, and not opening the process to other bidders. "The court found that the method of sale made apparent that the city's primary purpose for the sale was to preserve the cross."

   Again, the city tried to find a way to keep the cross atop Mt. Soledad, and satisfy the requirements of both the court and the California state constitution. In July, 1998, the city decided to auction off slightly over half-an-acre of land on which the cross was positioned (approximately 22,172 square fee), and publicized the sale complete with an open bidding process. The "winner" turned out to be the Memorial Association, which offered $106,000.

   Atheist Phil Paulson had been a co-litigant against the Mt. Soledad cross since 1989, when he and Howard Kreisner first filed suit against the 43-foot high Christian structure. A similar case involving a cross on nearby Mt. Helix was similar to Paulson's action. "When I moved to San Diego in 1978," said Paulson, "I drove up to Mt. Soledad and Mt. Helix to confirm what my eyes were telling me from miles away. I asked myself, What is it? Where is it? I vowed to remove the unmistakable symbols of the Christian religion from those public lands..."

   Paulson insisted that the bidding process still favored the Memorial Association, and betrayed the City's desire to keep a huge Christian cross in the midst of a municipal park. Reacting to yesterday's decision, Paulson's attorney, James McElroy told the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, "If the winning bid was somebody who wanted to construct Buddha or the Star of David, I have a feeling the city council would have found some way to not approve of the sale.

   The Ninth Circuit decision could have an impact on another case now before the bench involving the 103-foot high Mt. Davidson cross, which resides on the highest peak within San Francisco and has been the site of frequent Easter sunrise services since its construction in 1934. The American Civil Liberties Union had sued the city, charging that the presence of the enormous Christian monument on public property violated numerous laws, including the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs and the city reached a curious settlement, though, with San Francisco officials agreeing to "privatize" the monument by selling it a private entity. In the summer of 1997, the cross -- which had been constructed with public money -- was "sold" to an Armenian heritage group. American Atheists California State Director Dave Kong and member John Messina filed suit against the sale, charging that it was a sham arrangement to keep the cross standing in the middle of a public park.

   "The only fair thing to do would be to comply with the First Amendment and remove the Mt. Davidson cross," Mr. Kong said.

   How does the decision in Phil Paulson's case affect the action regarding the Mt. Davidson cross?

   "I think this bodes pretty well for San Francisco," said attorney Peter Obstler, who represents the city in the litigation. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that municipal leaders followed all of the safeguards cited by the Ninth Circuit Court in yesterday's ruling.

   Last month, attorneys for Mr. Kong and American Atheists argued their case in federal court, and a decision is expected soon.

[text only]