.....Ok, we have the city demanding right of ingress/egress of said once public right of way, but in doing so has relinquished the rights freedom of speech of the citizens to travel through it? Which is puzzling? If the land swap had been done properly, the land would have been owned, free and cleared without the city's objections with it's deed restrictions. By doing so, the city maintained a right of public right of way, yet it is allowing freedom of speech to be dictated by the Church within said public right of way? This is ludicrous, it is either private property or it is not. If the city maintains a right of way for ingress/egress for it's citizens in a deed, then the rights of its citizens cannot be relinquished by the a church on said right of way.
In a nutshell the city has made a land trade with the church inclusive to allowing the public the right-of-way, but with with restrictions on their rights as citizens to traverse the once public domain.
Sounds communistic to me!