Neighbors (Antis) Float Balloons To Protest Phoenix Temple

[CQUIRK]

Well, the local antis are still having their little temper-tantrum-

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/06/20110506phoenix-mormon-temple-protest.html#comments

I notice several of the balloons are misspelled

[Hayds]

Well, the local antis are still having their little temper-tantrum-

http://www.azcentral...t.html#comments

I notice several of the balloons are misspelled

It doesn't sound like they are anti so much as they don't want a 58,000 sq ft gleaming white (is it white? haven't seen a pic) building in their neighborhood blocking their view and sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture. Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway? If the church obeys the city codes and zoning laws then I guess it has a legal right to build it.

However, lets flip issue the other way around. How would you feel if the local Muslim church wanted to build a big mosque in your neighborhood. It would be a beautiful building with no expense spared. It would have tall Middle Eastern looking minarets that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture. People who complain will be told by the Muslims that the building would add to the beauty of the neighborhood so no need to get bent out of shape.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? If you protested this mosque, would it make you an anti-Muslim bigot. No it would not. I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

[bluebell]

It doesn't sound like they are anti so much as they don't want a 58,000 sq ft gleaming white (is it white? haven't seen a pic) building in their neighborhood blocking their view and sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture. Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway? If the church obeys the city codes and zoning laws then I guess it has a legal right to build it.

However, lets flip issue the other way around. How would you feel if the local Muslim church wanted to build a big mosque in your neighborhood. It would be a beautiful building with no expense spared. It would have tall Middle Eastern looking minarets that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture. People who complain will be told by the Muslims that the building would add to the beauty of the neighborhood so no need to get bent out of shape.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? If you protested this mosque, would it make you an anti-Muslim bigot. No it would not. I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

Here's a great thread that will give more perspective on exactly what is going on with this issue. It's not as cut and dried as you have made it appear.

[Sleeper Cell]

It doesn't sound like they are anti so much as they don't want a 58,000 sq ft gleaming white (is it white? haven't seen a pic) building in their neighborhood blocking their view and sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture. Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway? If the church obeys the city codes and zoning laws then I guess it has a legal right to build it. ...

I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

[emphasis added]

And that is the point. Apparently, the church is obeying all the city codes and zoning laws. If the neighborhood doesn’t want 58,000 SF structures that block views and “stick out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture,” they should have -- years ago -- petitioned their city council to write the appropriate neighborhood restrictions into its general plan and zoning laws. Had they spent half the time and effort doing this, that they are now spending on opposing the temple, they wouldn’t be having this problem.

While I sympathize with the desires of a neighborhood to restrict development to conform with the neighborhood character, I do not sympathize with attempts to use intimidation to restrict legal development.

Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway?

Perhaps the church feels that a residential zone would be more conducive to worship, then, say, an industrial zone.

My preference would be for the church to buy a large tract of undeveloped land and build the temple as part of a residential development project. This is being done for the Kansas City Temple. Unfortunately, this is usually not feasible. It is far more difficult (and expensive) to get city approval for such a large project, to say nothing of the development costs. If the church did this as a general practice, it would have far fewer temples, and it would be much more difficult for many church members to participate in temple worship.

And the critics would complain that "LD$ Inc." is spending billions of dollars on real estate development projects that it should be using to help the poor.

[thesometimesaint]

Sleeper Cell:

They sure don't bellyache when the value of their property goes up, as a result of the Temple being there.

[Deborah]

...that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture.

Since the church usually builds with the existing neighborhood in mind this should not be an issue. Have you seen pictures of temples around the world. They are distinctly designed for the neighborhood and culture.

[Anijen]

However, lets flip issue the other way around. How would you feel if the local Muslim church wanted to build a big mosque in your neighborhood. It would be a beautiful building with no expense spared. It would have tall Middle Eastern looking minarets that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture. People who complain will be told by the Muslims that the building would add to the beauty of the neighborhood so no need to get bent out of shape.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? If you protested this mosque, would it make you an anti-Muslim bigot. No it would not. I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

I wouldn't mind, except for the minarets (unless for aesthetic reasons and not to call to prayers five times a day).

[Avatar4321]

It doesn't sound like they are anti so much as they don't want a 58,000 sq ft gleaming white (is it white? haven't seen a pic) building in their neighborhood blocking their view and sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture. Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway? If the church obeys the city codes and zoning laws then I guess it has a legal right to build it.

However, lets flip issue the other way around. How would you feel if the local Muslim church wanted to build a big mosque in your neighborhood. It would be a beautiful building with no expense spared. It would have tall Middle Eastern looking minarets that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture. People who complain will be told by the Muslims that the building would add to the beauty of the neighborhood so no need to get bent out of shape.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? If you protested this mosque, would it make you an anti-Muslim bigot. No it would not. I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

Why on earth would I have a problem with a Mosque being built in my neighborhood? I believe in religious freedom.

[Mars]

As long as the call to prayer is done with respect to the residents, the call is beautiful. I attended a few mosque prayer services in France, and they had a guy stand in the doorway at noon on Friday and sing/chant in Arabic. It was awesome. They didn't do any loud calls at 5AM or any other time, that I was aware of, and I lived _right_ across the street from the mosque. Maybe I slept through it? Oh well.

I can't imagine anything nicer to hear than someone urging me to pray.

Oh and by the by, Hayds? "LD$ Inc" isn't a "Hey, we don't want a 58K square foot structure whose aesthetic properties are displeasing" type of criticism...

[Mordecai]

Poor guys. They're going to have an incredibly beautiful building erected in their neighborhood. It's like a Greek tragedy, except no one gouges their eyes out or accidentally kills their own father! The humanity! They are heroes for standing up for... er... protesting against something important. Of course, what better cause is there than to protest against people using their own money, time and resources to build beautiful buildings in honor of God?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, the local antis are still having their little temper-tantrum-

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/06/20110506phoenix-mormon-temple-protest.html#comments

I notice several of the balloons are misspelled

Sad little people, could have given the money for it to the poor.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, the local antis are still having their little temper-tantrum-

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/06/20110506phoenix-mormon-temple-protest.html#comments

I notice several of the balloons are misspelled

Their property values will go up…Mormons will what to by their homes. Don’t get it?

[Walden]

Well, the local antis are still having their little temper-tantrum-

http://www.azcentral...t.html#comments

I notice several of the balloons are misspelled

So, just because the local neighborhood does not want the LDS church to build a large temple in their neighborhood, bringing more traffic (and thus pollution), obscuring their views, or dramatically changing the character of their neighborhood, they are all of a sudden labeled "anti's"?

I have a feeling that whether it was a mosque, a Catholic/Baptist.etc. church, etc. that was having the same adverse effect on their neighborhood, they would protest that too.

Does it make the LDS feel better, or is it just easier, to label anyone who opposes the building of their temples as "anti's"? It still amazes me the "you are either with us or you are against us" mentality that is so black and white among the LDS faithful. I sometimes miss those days when my views were so simply deduced.

[Calm]

If one looks at google, just down the road from the purposed site it appears that there is a golf course and a "wet and wild" park in much the same relationship to the neighbourhood (across the street in the nonresidential area, not among the homes). The traffic to the Wet and Wild is likely to be of a higher rate than the temple. Noise would definitely be louder. Don't know about the golf course. Am wondering if there was any protest to the water park for its effect on the view, traffic, light and other pollution, etc.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5220+West+Pinnacle+Peak+Road,+Phoenix,+AZ&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.829089,112.939453&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=5220+W+Pinnacle+Peak+Rd,+Phoenix,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85310&t=h&z=17

[bluebell]

So, just because the local neighborhood does not want the LDS church to build a large temple in their neighborhood, bringing more traffic (and thus pollution), obscuring their views, or dramatically changing the character of their neighborhood, they are all of a sudden labeled "anti's"?

I have a feeling that whether it was a mosque, a Catholic/Baptist.etc. church, etc. that was having the same adverse effect on their neighborhood, they would protest that too.

Does it make the LDS feel better, or is it just easier, to label anyone who opposes the building of their temples as "anti's"? It still amazes me the "you are either with us or you are against us" mentality that is so black and white among the LDS faithful. I sometimes miss those days when my views were so simply deduced.

I think it's just kind of confusing. There is already a water slide and a large church on the same road the LDS church is being built on, but it doesn't seem as if those drew too much protest when they were being built (I could be wrong on that though).

With this demonstration, most of the people who are protesting the height of the church's steeple will not be able to even see if from their homes. The placement of the church and the distance from most of the houses in the neighborhood makes it easy (if what i have read is true) to demonstrate through math that the steeple will not be visible except by a few houses.

It's hard to take the protests at face value when other issues come to light. This doesn't mean there are legitimate concerns for a few.

[Calm]

I've got to admit I don't think much of the view to begin with. Check out how it looks by using google street view:

http://maps.google.c..._Kq7zkCQH5xH-qg

Here is the beautiful view of the water park a short way down the street:

Didn't come through so just turn east and go down the road, takes a while as it goes in small segments.

[bluebell]

Their property values will go up…Mormons will what to by their homes. Don’t get it?

Historically, property values go up when an LDS temple moves into an area. For whatever reasons, temples make neighborhoods more appealing to buyers so people can, again historically, sell their homes for more than would be possible before the temple moved in.

[Calm]

Another try:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=5220+West+Pinnacle+Peak+Road,+Phoenix,+AZ&layer=c&sll=33.697989,-112.173198&cbp=13,133.66,,0,7.61&cbll=33.698218,-112.152264&hl=en&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=5220+W+Pinnacle+Peak+Rd,+Phoenix,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85310&t=h&panoid=LaGWdRC71XBk4zV9GIkhIw&ll=33.698217,-112.152386&spn=0.007221,0.014484&z=17

[Avatar4321]

I guess they didnt think the "We hate mormons in our community" argument would persuasive? At least it would have been more honest...

[blackstrap]

From the Google map it seems like I've seen this fight over what is essentially a flat piece of desert before.

[BCSpace]

Although the lighting plans for the temple have not been finalized, the lighting of the temple will comply with the dark sky ordinance."

That would have been my only request.

[Deborah]

That would have been my only request.

I love coming home when it's getting dark and seeing the lit-up temple in my neighborhood. It's like a beacon that I'm almost home. I wonder how many people would change their minds when they see how beautiful the temple is.

[Scott Lloyd]

It doesn't sound like they are anti so much as they don't want a 58,000 sq ft gleaming white (is it white? haven't seen a pic) building in their neighborhood blocking their view and sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the sandstone and earth toned architecture. Why does the church need to build it in a residential area anyway? If the church obeys the city codes and zoning laws then I guess it has a legal right to build it.

However, lets flip issue the other way around. How would you feel if the local Muslim church wanted to build a big mosque in your neighborhood. It would be a beautiful building with no expense spared. It would have tall Middle Eastern looking minarets that don't blend in with the rest of the neighborhood architecture. People who complain will be told by the Muslims that the building would add to the beauty of the neighborhood so no need to get bent out of shape.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? If you protested this mosque, would it make you an anti-Muslim bigot. No it would not. I empathize with the neighbors to be honest with you.

If they complied with all local zoning ordinances and codes, I'd be fine with it. Why shouldn't I be?

This reminds me of people who argue against vicarious Mormon temple ordinances by saying "How would you like it if somebody did it to your ancestors?" (See my sig line.)

Incidentally, some years ago the LDS Church contributed to the construction of a Hindu temple built by a Hare Krishna group in Spanish Fork, Utah. Religious bigotry, you see, is not kosher in the Mormon culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, just because the local neighborhood does not want the LDS church to build a large temple in their neighborhood, bringing more traffic (and thus pollution), obscuring their views, or dramatically changing the character of their neighborhood, they are all of a sudden labeled "anti's"?

I have a feeling that whether it was a mosque, a Catholic/Baptist.etc. church, etc. that was having the same adverse effect on their neighborhood, they would protest that too.

Does it make the LDS feel better, or is it just easier, to label anyone who opposes the building of their temples as "anti's"? It still amazes me the "you are either with us or you are against us" mentality that is so black and white among the LDS faithful. I sometimes miss those days when my views were so simply deduced.

Arguments like the above lose a measure of credibility when one considers that this thing has happened time and time again with regard to Mormon temples. Virtually always the same scenario: Neighbors complain. Temple gets built anyway. Property values rise. Opposition evaporates.