Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[Deborah]

Now... I didn't grow up in the 50s, but I think this "good ol' days" you're talking about never existed. We're usually nostalgic for the days of our childhood.

Since you weren't there then don't speak about what you don't know. They did indeed exist, and this was in California. No doubt there were places which were not so nice for everyone but that is just as true today as anytime.

[Deborah]

Must control self . . . mustn't give in . . . must not speak . . . AAARRRRRECCCCCBGGGGGHHHHH!

Ditto!

[maklelan]

Don't bother. selek believes that 100 years ago, when people were much more religious, life was much better than it is today.

Excuse me I need to go throw up.

The average person had more leisure time than they do today. Crime was lower then. Unwanted pregnancies were lower. AIDS did not exist then. Internet pornography was not a concern for parents. Do you consider life better now because of technology? Is material affluence your measure of happiness?

[SleepingWillow]

Don't blame me. I went to BYU.

Must control self . . . mustn't give in . . . must not speak . . . AAARRRRRECCCCCBGGGGGHHHHH!

I had a full-tuition scholarship too.

The average person had more leisure time than they do today. Crime was lower then. Unwanted pregnancies were lower. AIDS did not exist then. Internet pornography was not a concern for parents. Do you consider life better now because of technology? Is material affluence your measure of happiness?

Wrong. Wrong. Probably wrong. What the heck brought AIDS into this? Neither was the internet. Yes. No.

[maklelan]

Don't blame me. I went to BYU.

Then you must have wasted your time. Real students learn no matter where they go.

It's not showbiz. For example, I believe all humans are equal. Just because I prefer my own family doesn't mean my belief is showbiz. Likewise with the Church. I was raised in the Church, so I am uniquely suited to discuss and point out the particular problems with it to those familiar with its doctrines and practices.

How does being a member of the church make you unique?

You continue to ignore what I say about atheism not being a religion.

OK...

I believe in reason and rationality and science.

You have faith in them, or you believe they exist? One is a religious declaration, the other is a declaration of acknowledgement. Which one do you espouse?

I do have a system of thought. I believe in reason and rationality and science. I only reject God because I find the idea of your God to be irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific. If being reasonable and rational and scientific is religious, then you have defined religion very broadly indeed.

And your overgeneralizing and incredibly stereotyping view of God is a "broad" definition of religion. You're a hypocrite. Say something intelligent.

I had a full-tuition scholarship too.

Wrong. Wrong. Probably wrong. What the heck brought AIDS into this? Neither was the internet. Yes. No.

Now you a priori judge my statistics. Do you research anything or does omniscience reside within your skull? You're a joke.

Please refrain from personal remarks about other posters. -mods

[SleepingWillow]

Then you must have wasted your time. Real students learn no matter where they go.

How does being a member of the church make you unique? You're a hypocrite. Say something intelligent.

Do you research anything or does omniscience reside within your skull? You're a joke.

Please review the forum rules.

you a priori judge my statistics.

More leisure time? CFR

Less crime? CFR

Less unwanted pregnancies? CFR

[Outshined]

In the closed philanthropy thread below, one of our detractors asserted that the Church by developing real estate in downtown SLC was diverting charity and tithing to money-grubbing commercial activities.

This is not true.

When the initiative was announced, the Church went out of its way to assure everyone that no tithing money was involved; that it was being financed from the Church's existing commercial ventures. This assurance is even in this month's Ensign, which is a reprint of October conference.

They TOLD you this, over and over. And yet you do not bother to listen.

And if you ARE listening, you apparently do not believe the statement. Why not?

Moreover, as one other contributor to that thread hinted, rejuvenation of downtown SLC is important for the Church, if for no other reason than to make the downtown safe for visitors to Conference, Church Headquarters, and the Temple.

Seven or eight years ago, the Economist magazine wrote that downtown SLC was one of the most vibrant urban downtowns in America, named the Church as the reason for this, and then expressed optimism that this vibrancy would continue.

Surely, then, this is a worthy project, along the lines of charity for the downtrodden. (I can think of a number of American cities that would be green with envy to have such a downtown promoter.)

Beowulf

Thanks for clearing that up.

[saemo]

The December Ensign has an article under News of the Church on this. The purpose of the renovation is to "energize the economy of the city that houses its [the church's] headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment." The plan is outlined with schematic.

Sounds like a very worthwhile enterprise not only for the church but the community. But then the critics would like the whole area to just deteriorate so that visitors will not be drawn to Temple Square and members will likewise avoid the area. That would suit their purposes just fine and is what would happen if something is not done to improve the area.

I agree. If the scenario were the LDS church owning all of this property, and doing nothing with it, just letting it languish and rot, critics would be crying out against the church for letting downtown SLC go to h*ll. In fact, a local SLC paper did in fact accuse the LDS church of doing this. By letting the two malls go (as they have done over the last year or so), their (the paper's) theory is the price of real estate downtown is dropping, thus making the properties the church is buying a better deal. Then, when the church is done with the 2 block improvement, their cheap investments are worth more.

However, the counter point to "The purpose of the renovation is to "energize the economy of the city that houses its [the church's] headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. " is, if the church did not buy up these properties, there would be no need for the church to improve them. Secular business interests could buy and improve, rather than the church. And the church could spend its money on helping the needy.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. If the scenario were the LDS church owning all of this property, and doing nothing with it, just letting it languish and rot, critics would be crying out against the church for letting downtown SLC go to h*ll. In fact, a local SLC paper did in fact accuse the LDS church of doing this. By letting the two malls go (as they have done over the last year or so), their (the paper's) theory is the price of real estate downtown is dropping, thus making the properties the church is buying a better deal. Then, when the church is done with the 2 block improvement, their cheap investments are worth more.

Are you willing to identify the local Salt Lake City paper?

This theory ignores the reality of preparation that must go into a project of this magnitude, including design development, negotiation with potential tenants, etc. The theory hardly seems credible to me.

However, the counter point to "The purpose of the renovation is to "energize the economy of the city that houses its [the church's] headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. " is, if the church did not buy up these properties, there would be no need for the church to improve them. Secular business interests could buy and improve, rather than the church. And the church could spend its money on helping the needy.

Pardon, but wasn't that the whole point of the property purchase by the Church? The central commercial district has been dying for years. Secular business interests, not to mention the current and previous city administrations, have utterly failed to turn the situation around. During the 2002 Winter Games, there were many buildings available on Main Street to accommodate international visitors. The reason: they were already sitting vacant.

My sense is the Church would be more than happy to leave the job to secular business interests if that were a realistic expectation. The Church got out of the luxury hotel business a decade or two ago after a plethora of hotels emerged in Salt Lake City. And it shut down U&I Sugar Company when economic conditions changed such that local farmers no longer needed sugar beets as a cash crop. It divested its hospitals when outside interests clearly showed a capability of managing viable hospitals.

There are other examples. Several institutions of higher learning -- including the University of Utah and Weber State University -- were founded by the Church but were conveyed to the state after it attained the capability of operating colleges and universities.

The Church sold off ZCMI (now part of the Macey's chain) a few years ago when it found a viable buyer and it no longer seemed to serve a useful purpose for the Church to own a department store.

On the other had, the Church has retained the Deseret News and extensive broadcast holdings because it makes sense for a church to own instruments of mass communication.

[saemo]

Are you willing to identify the local Salt Lake City paper?

The paper is the Salt Lake City Weekly. I tried to find the article on line, but was not successful. It may have just been an editorial or even a letter to the editor. It used a picture of the ZCMI Center sign...it has many lights out and no one is replacing them, even though there are tenants still paying on leases.

This theory ignores the reality of preparation that must go into a project of this magnitude, including design development, negotiation with potential tenants, etc. The theory hardly seems credible to me.

Pardon, but wasn't that the whole point of the property purchase by the Church? The central commercial district has been dying for years. Secular business interests, not to mention the current and previous city administrations, have utterly failed to turn the situation around. During the 2002 Winter Games, there were many buildings available on Main Street to accommodate international visitors. The reason: they were already sitting vacant.

Main street died when it was closed from S. Temple to 400 South to build Trax. It opened just in time for the Olympics. That is why it was empty at the time. Before the Trax closures Main was thriving. It has come back since, especially between 200 and 400 South where it is alive and well. 200 to 100 South isn't so bad, though it still has many vacancies. The mall block, 100 South to South Temple is dead, retail-wise. The office spaces were full until the church emptied them out for demolition. And the ZCMI food court is probably the busiest spot in that 2 block area.

From what I read the malls lost customers to the malls in the burbs, and to the Gateway mall. Burb-dwellers in the SLC area don't go downtown much, and when they do, they want easy access and free and easy parking. All of which can be found at the malls that are in the suburbs. Gateway is very popular because it has a lot of easy accessible parking, good restaurants, a movie theater, and interesting things to do besides shopping. And it is all open to the outdoors. The "box" malls are dying across the country.

To say that the city and businesses has failed Main street is not accurate, in my opinion. Businesses are doing quite well downtown, just the 2 malls were dying, and now they are all but empty.

My sense is the Church would be more than happy to leave the job to secular business interests if that were a realistic expectation. The Church got out of the luxury hotel business a decade or two ago after a plethora of hotels emerged in Salt Lake City. And it shut down U&I Sugar Company when economic conditions changed such that local farmers no longer needed sugar beets as a cash crop. It divested its hospitals when outside interests clearly showed a capability of managing viable hospitals.

The Hotel Utah renovation was another "controversy". It was an old and run down building that many saw as not worth sinking the money into to renovate. But, the church uses it mainly for office space. I understand there is a chapel in there somewhere. The 2 restaurants at the top do ok I guess as they remain in business, though I think the food is not all that good (just my opinion). Much of the top floor is taken up with a suite where Hinckley lives.

The church stayed in the hotel business, with The Inn at Temple Square. However, that is the first building being demolished in the 2 block project. It is starting to come down now. And, the church purchased the old Howard Johnson/Plaza hotel and is turning some of the floors in that hotel into student housing for BYU/LDS Business College. The remaining part of the hotel will be run as a hotel.

I don't know that I would call the old Hotel Utah a "luxury" hotel. At best, it was a 3 star.

There are other examples. Several institutions of higher learning -- including the University of Utah and Weber State University -- were founded by the Church but were conveyed to the state after it attained the capability of operating colleges and universities.

Interesting, but the reason the church purchased the Triad Center in 2004 is to create a SLC BYU extension. LDS Business college closed on its historic South Temple location and has already moved to the Triad Center. I am not certain if/when the BYU extension will be open. (It may be now, but I haven't heard or paid attention to it.)

Also, Salt Lake Community College has a campus building on Main between 100 and 200 South. It is closing in a few weeks and moving a few blocks southeast. The Church has announced that it will be purchasing the building vacated by the college.

The Church sold off ZCMI (now part of the Macey's chain) a few years ago when it found a viable buyer and it no longer seemed to serve a useful purpose for the Church to own a department store.

The church had only maintained a 51% ownership for decades before selling off those shares. My opinion of this is that it was hanging onto its own history by keeping a piece of what once was the Zions Cooperative Mercantile Association. ZCMI was losing money, and if anything, the church accountants know to divest themselves of unsuccesful businesses, even if they do have historical significance.

On the other had, the Church has retained the Deseret News and extensive broadcast holdings because it makes sense for a church to own instruments of mass communication.

Please, the Des News is the mouth piece of the Mormon church. It spins things so far to the church's advantage that at times it more closely resembles propaganda than news.

The rest of the media enterprises that the church owns are investments. The only advantage outside of profit that I have seen is that they won't air radio and tv programs that they find "offensive". And, it gives them a place to air their own broadcasts.

[TAK]

Please, the Des News is the mouth piece of the Mormon church. It spins things so far to the church's advantage that at times it more closely resembles propaganda than news.

The rest of the media enterprises that the church owns are investments. The only advantage outside of profit that I have seen is that they won't air radio and tv programs that they find "offensive". And, it gives them a place to air their own broadcasts.

Carefull.. DN has a special place in Scott's heart..

as to offensive programs.. Bonneville has a couple of stations here in DC.. the Rock station has been known to get a bit raunchy at times.. Nothing on the level of Howard Stern and I have not listened to them in a long time but last time I did, they were having women calling in comparing boyfriends umm... well never mind way off topic..

USU

Thanks for your excellent work! I worked downtown SLC for 20+ years (until about 3-1/2 years ago) and was informed that the Church owned the dirt underneath Crossroads mall for a long time. I'm quite surprised that the dirt as well as the building were acquired so recently.

That surpries me too.. I remember reading otherwise..

Church to buy Crossroads mall

Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Mar 19, 2003 by Jenifer K. Nii

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday it has reached an agreement to purchase Crossroads Plaza.

The "agreement in principle" includes the shopping mall and the adjoining office tower, the church said in a statement. Financial terms were not disclosed, though the church indicated the funds would be paid from investment reserves.

The transaction is expected to be complete in the next several weeks, pending finalization of terms with the mall operators.

The church has long owned the majority of land upon which the mall stands, which it leased to Maryland-based mall operator Foulger Pratt. It also owns, through its real estate arm, the adjacent ZCMI Center mall. The two have shared marketing and promotional operations for several years.

LDS Church Presiding Bishop H. David Burton told the Deseret News on Wednesday that Foulger Pratt approached the church some time ago, suggesting it might be interested in purchasing Pratt's interest in the mall.

[USU78]

Please, the Des News is the mouth piece of the Mormon church. It spins things so far to the church's advantage that at times it more closely resembles propaganda than news.

I disagree. Just because its editorial policy doesn't parrot everything the LA and NY Times say doesn't mean its not legitimate . . . moreover, the Trib's editorial policy (which I assume you think is evenhanded) has a decidedly slam-the-Church-first editorial policy that has remained largely unchanged for 120 years (though it dresses up in shirt and tie now).

Thanks for finding:

The church has long owned the majority of land upon which the mall stands, which it leased to Maryland-based mall operator Foulger Pratt. It also owns, through its real estate arm, the adjacent ZCMI Center mall. The two have shared marketing and promotional operations for several years.

[saemo]

Carefull.. DN has a special place in Scott's heart..

as to offensive programs.. Bonneville has a couple of stations here in DC.. the Rock station has been known to get a bit raunchy at times.. Nothing on the level of Howard Stern and I have not listened to them in a long time but last time I did, they were having women calling in comparing boyfriends umm... well never mind way off topic..

USU

That surpries me too.. I remember reading otherwise..

Church to buy Crossroads mall

Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Mar 19, 2003 by Jenifer K. Nii

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday it has reached an agreement to purchase Crossroads Plaza.

The "agreement in principle" includes the shopping mall and the adjoining office tower, the church said in a statement. Financial terms were not disclosed, though the church indicated the funds would be paid from investment reserves.

The transaction is expected to be complete in the next several weeks, pending finalization of terms with the mall operators.

The church has long owned the majority of land upon which the mall stands, which it leased to Maryland-based mall operator Foulger Pratt. It also owns, through its real estate arm, the adjacent ZCMI Center mall. The two have shared marketing and promotional operations for several years.

LDS Church Presiding Bishop H. David Burton told the Deseret News on Wednesday that Foulger Pratt approached the church some time ago, suggesting it might be interested in purchasing Pratt's interest in the mall.

Eh, well, I don't subscribe to any one media outlet. I read the DesNews and the Trib and SL Weekly and a whole bunch of other stuff. But, whenever something strikes me as interesting I'll spend the time to find and read the actual source. A lot that is reported as "news" are press releases, which only amounts to someone's public relations. And the DesNews is very good at this type of "reporting".

The censorship the church does of its radio and tv stations is sporadic. I imagine the difficulty would be running out of programming if they actually censored everything to an "acceptable" level. Or a string of KSL radio stations. zzzzzzzzzz. I doubt that there is much interest in that outside of SLC. Remaining a viable business is obviously a priority over censoring.

Foulger Pratt, that is interesting. I was looking up some info on the Washington DC temple the other day and came across Foulger Pratt. It was started by a Mormon and run by a bunch o' BYU grads now.

I wouldn't give people the impression that the church has owned those two blocks since 1847. I remember coming across historical accounts of the church owning properties that it had to sell during hard financial times, including properties that sat on the two blocks that are being demolished. And, there is more to those two blocks than the two malls. Property that the church has acquired relatively recently.

But I also realize that people believe SLC wouldn't exist at all were it not for the church. It is an argument that I agree with at times, and other times don't. The church settled here, but I don't know that SLC would have survived and thrived, economically speaking, without outside interests investing into the area. Interests such as banking, railroads and mining.

I think the evidence for that is in the rural areas. SLC may have turned out to be nothing more than a large rural town were it not for the capital investment that came in from the outside. Unless of course one wants to believe that the early church focused its resources to the interests of SLC. But that is another discussion.