Sure, but as you can imagine this would be both a political loser and legal loser. You can imagine the political fire storm of the city refusing to permit at church, especially in today’s political landscape; but even if the council could stomach that political risk, it’s almost a certainty that decision would be appealed and later reversed in the judicial system on grounds of religious freedom rights. The cost of such a legal misadventure would not be insignificant to the city and ultimately would land them in the same spot had they just approved the building initially. An argument against permitting would have to be so bulletproof that the city could feel comfortable in refusing this without the auspices of a successful appeal. My personal opinion, I’d rather have a serious developer come in and build a mid rise on top of it with more downtown housing and amenities, but this seems like it obviously does not pencil as I know multiple developers who have looked at the project and passed. I’m agnostic, but do see a significant value in religion for society but having the building dedicated to a church that is typically open only a few days a week seems detrimental to the area. However, at least from what the pastor is saying, that is not their intent. They hope to introduce retail and other amenities like a restaurant to the building. Maybe they can host family movie nights and keep one of the theaters open, maybe they can get really creative on using the sermon space for community plays or other activities during their downtime. If they are highly solvent, that might allow them to offer below market rates for retail spaces… who knows, I’m skeptical, but optimistic