City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[rockpond]

I am in commercial real estate and help people decide how best to dispose of their estates and help them create the proper estate planning strategies, including charitable giving when appropriate, and work with attorneys in setting it all up. Maybe we should get together and talk

But seriously, as you probably know NNN real estate is one of the best cash flow investments available today, especially when it is not leveraged, as I am sure this mall was built without the need for loans. There are no expenses because in triple net investments, as you know, the tenants pay all their own expenses.

That means that every penny of the rent they pay goes directly to the "profit" column of the landlord. Stocks don't do that, bonds don't do that, nothing else does that with as little risk as you see here.

All of these business, which are based on the spending habits of relatively wealthy individuals, are solid companies with good track records. This is about the safest, most profitable investment available in these bad times.

I have not researched the cap rates for that area in high end retail, but I would bet that the return is probably around a 10 cap, with virtually no risk. So that mean probably around a 10% return or more with practically no risk.

A little better than CD's or what you are getting on your ira these days I would wager.

Additionally, the entire area is "lifted" and made more economically sound, other and other businesses in the entire city are benefited. Jobs are created, and those jobs recycle funds into the general economy. The SLC downtown area is no longer a slum

It is impossible to calculate all the good this is doing for SLC, Utah, and the entire country eventually. Anything we can do to benefit this economy should be absolutely treasured!

I certainly agree that real estate is one of the better investments out there. But you are making a lot of assumptions about this particular investment given that we know almost nothing about how the deal was structured. I don't know the SLC retail market but a 10 CAP strikes me as a bit high for this type of investment... even if it was 7%, that's not really your point.

I have visited downtown SLC both before City Creek Mall was built and after it was opened. And, I agree it was done great things for downtown SLC and possibly for the local economy.

I don't, however, agree that this was the best way for the church to utilize consecrated funds. I believe there were other ways that the church might have improved downtown SLC that could have been more in line with the mission of the church. Ventures that may not have required advertisements depicting people who wouldn't be able to receive a temple recommend much less a stake dance card.

Perhaps if I knew that "every penny of the rent" would go to a higher cause, I might feel a bit better about it.

[mfbukowski]

For Tacenda's sake, put this in perspective and mention that the Church spent in that mall more than it spent in 22 years of humanitarian aid. The bigger issue here is not economics, mf, the issue is the lack of... well, Christianity in such a move.

Absurd. Where do you think the money it DID spend in humanitarian aid come from?

The widow's mite?

[mfbukowski]

Read what on?

Which is the point. There is no Church above the Church but God. I would assume you think the widow did right by giving all she had and that probably God helped her but, why are you not against the Church not giving in such a way? Why would God help the widow but not His Church? We know the Church won't be taken from the Earth again but an individual widow may starve.

READ WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED AND RESPOND INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE SAME OLD TIRED POINTS

You have no understanding of the issues here. What is being said between the lines is that if you pay your tithing and have further needs the Lord (church) will take care of you !

This is exactly how it works. If you are a full tithe payer and still have needs for funds, the church will help you, in my experience, which is significant.

How can a bishop turn down a request from a full tithe payer? It's not going to happen unless there is something fishy going on!

If you want to be totally pecuniary about it, tithing is the cheapest and best "insurance" money can buy!

The widow would receive church welfare today and have nothing to worry about.

And unfortunately God doesn't write checks, but his church does.

Edited January 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

Tithing money goes nowhere but where it is supposed to.

This is from investment return on tithing money. Big difference.

We don't actually know where tithing money goes. But generally speaking, I try to have faith that it is being used for good causes.

As for this being investment return on tithing money... I fail to see that as any different. Can I just hold onto my tithing money indefinitely? Invest it and enjoy the income with the plan to someday turn it over to church headquarters?

[Tacenda]

You said you are a developer.

Do you personally take the calls when someone's toilet overflows at 3 am or do your managers take the call?

If there is a problem with a manager, that is something you need to deal with, but your only fault was getting the wrong manager. Someone needs to be fired if the problem is serious enough. It is only very indirectly your fault in the sense that the "buck stops here".

The problem is most likely with the stake person who oversees the buildings- probably a high councilor. Even the stake president has little they can do to motivate the managers. If there is a problem it is with the building managers. If anything THAT is where the attention needs to be focused, not on "the church".

Someone has already said that how much a stake/ward gets is dependant on their activity level. Or in my opinion, possibly tithing revenue. Could this be the case? Edited January 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

I certainly agree that real estate is one of the better investments out there. But you are making a lot of assumptions about this particular investment given that we know almost nothing about how the deal was structured. I don't know the SLC retail market but a 10 CAP strikes me as a bit high for this type of investment... even if it was 7%, that's not really your point.

I have visited downtown SLC both before City Creek Mall was built and after it was opened. And, I agree it was done great things for downtown SLC and possibly for the local economy.

I don't, however, agree that this was the best way for the church to utilize consecrated funds. I believe there were other ways that the church might have improved downtown SLC that could have been more in line with the mission of the church. Ventures that may not have required advertisements depicting people who wouldn't be able to receive a temple recommend much less a stake dance card.

Perhaps if I knew that "every penny of the rent" would go to a higher cause, I might feel a bit better about it.

Since you admit that you don't know how the deal was structured, it is your choice to decide if you want to take it negatively or positively.

I take it positively because I have had many callings dealing with financial issues in the church and know how they operate. What you decide to think is your business.

[rockpond]

No, someone has already said that how much a stake/ward gets is dependant on their activity level. Or in my opinion, possibly tithing revenue. Could this be the case?

The funds that a stake/ward get are dependent on activity levels (and probably geographic location, not sure on that).

But the point I was making was with size and quantity of buildings. That is separate and those decisions are made above the stake presidency level. In other words, stakes don't directly receive the funds to buy land and construct meeting houses. Stake presidencies have some input but don't get to make those decisions nor control those funds.

[rongo]

This is from investment return on tithing money. Big difference.

I don't like to give the rabble-rousers fodder, but the mantra that gets bandied about about tithing money isn't technically accurate ("no tithing money was used for XYZ ---- only ABC money was used"). The Church isn't "lying" or even being deceptive; it simply has "rabbit ears" because of the peanut galley rabble rousers (who have ill will towards the Church ---- let's be honest) who have glommed onto this City Creek thing.

I asked Bishop Burton (then Presiding Bishop) last year in a bishops and stake presidency only meeting as part of our stake conference. My specific question was whether tithing money is temporarily used to cover a gap when, hypothetically, a fast offering check is issued on January 2 but Sunday is January 6 (when fast offerings will first be collected). What money covers that check before there are any fast offerings in the system? He said that this arises out of a fundamental misunderstanding about the Church's money system. "There is only *one* checking account in the Church, not separate 'fast offering' and 'tithing' and everything else funds." When a check, any check, is written, it comes out of the Church's one account. Can you imagine how complicated and messy it would be to have to move money around from all of these different accounts to cover temporary shortfalls such as my hypothetical?

In other words, it is not accurate to think of there being separate "tithing," "fast offering," "interest off of business ventures," "PEF," "humanitarian," etc. accounts. While there are categories like this for purposes of donating and bookeeping, all checks (again, any checks) come out of the Church's one checking account.

To underscore this, he also shared with us that since 2008, the Church has brought in less fast offering funds than it has disbursed, and this shortfall of course is covered by tithing. The fast offering account cannot "go in the red." He said that this is directly related to the recession, both in terms of donating generous fast offerings and explosion of temporal needs (and wants that are perceived to be temporal needs).

[rpn]

I believe the mall construction was inspired, so that there were sufficient jobs in Utah to sustain it during a very bad time economically. Because the Church is the largest employer in SL and probably the whole state, it has corporate headquarters responsibility to the community. And the mall, simply replaced the already existing one. The church is not in the business of retail, but leases everything to a store manager type arrangement.

I don't think the mall has anything whatever to do with you missing windows. (Though if you are in the UK, isn't there some rule that what is contributed there, has to be spent there for tax purposes? Could that mean that some things are not subsidized from outside the UK?)

[mfbukowski]

Someone has already said that how much a stake/ward gets is dependant on their activity level. Or in my opinion, possibly tithing revenue. Could this be the case?

It depends on what you mean. A ward's "budget" depends partially on their activity level.

On the other hand, if a stake/ward has needs of a physical nature, (roof, chairs, repairs) or welfare needs (paying member's rent if needed, food orders etc) THOSE funds are not based on the budget.

Maintenance issues are handled directly through management people employed by the church.

Welfare funds come first from the ward, from fast offerings, and if exhausted, then from the stake fast offerings- and if those funds are exhausted, they can be replenished at the stake president's request directly from SLC.

[rockpond]

Since you admit that you don't know how the deal was structured, it is your choice to decide if you want to take it negatively or positively.

I take it positively because I have had many callings dealing with financial issues in the church and know how they operate. What you decide to think is your business.

I do take it positively and hope this investment will yield a great return for the church. It was for the sake of discussion that I felt it should be noted that we don't actually know the deal structure.

[mfbukowski]

I don't like to give the rabble-rousers fodder, but the mantra that gets bandied about about tithing money isn't technically accurate ("no tithing money was used for XYZ ---- only ABC money was used"). The Church isn't "lying" or even being deceptive; it simply has "rabbit ears" because of the peanut galley rabble rousers (who have ill will towards the Church ---- let's be honest) who have glommed onto this City Creek thing.

I asked Bishop Burton (then Presiding Bishop) last year in a bishops and stake presidency only meeting as part of our stake conference. My specific question was whether tithing money is temporarily used to cover a gap when, hypothetically, a fast offering check is issued on January 2 but Sunday is January 6 (when fast offerings will first be collected). What money covers that check before there are any fast offerings in the system? He said that this arises out of a fundamental misunderstanding about the Church's money system. "There is only *one* checking account in the Church, not separate 'fast offering' and 'tithing' and everything else funds." When a check, any check, is written, it comes out of the Church's one account. Can you imagine how complicated and messy it would be to have to move money around from all of these different accounts to cover temporary shortfalls such as my hypothetical?

In other words, it is not accurate to think of there being separate "tithing," "fast offering," "interest off of business ventures," "PEF," "humanitarian," etc. accounts. While there are categories like this for purposes of donating and bookeeping, all checks (again, any checks) come out of the Church's one checking account.

To underscore this, he also shared with us that since 2008, the Church has brought in less fast offering funds than it has disbursed, and this shortfall of course is covered by tithing. The fast offering account cannot "go in the red." He said that this is directly related to the recession, both in terms of donating generous fast offerings and explosion of temporal needs (and wants that are perceived to be temporal needs).

Yep I agree. That's the only practical way to handle it. But of course on an accounting level, the "accounts" are separated. When you look at the CUBS statement that becomes pretty clear.

Edited January 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

Absurd. Where do you think the money it DID spend in humanitarian aid come from?

The widow's mite?

as far as I know, yes, actually,

[Tacenda]

as far as I know, yes, actually,

I can agree, the church has even said as much!

[rongo]

Yep I agree. That's the only practical way to handle it. But of course on an accounting level, the "accounts" are separated. When you look at the CUBS statement that becomes pretty clear.

Another thing that drives me nuts about complaints about the Church's investment in City Creek is the whole "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" issue. Those who self-righteously fume at the billions they think that the Church should simply shower down from airplanes, that instead goes into temples, churches, City Creek, etc. are like Judas murmuring that the woman's ointment should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. These murmurers don't seem to me to have ever been in a position where they were in the trenches actually helping families devastated by the recession/depression we are in (and will be in for the foreseeable future). The steady jobs created by the whole process of planning, building, and running City Creek (to say nothing about the retail jobs now there) is nothing to sneeze at. In my area (rural Arizona, an hour southwest of Phoenix) local bishops and leaders would give their right arms for steady work like this. I remember helping a brother in my ward who was a surveyor (20 years experience) who hadn't been able to find work for two years, other than piecemeal jobs. He finally was offered a job at the huge I-15 project between Nephi and Point-of-the-Mountain (a $2 billion project, I believe), which would give him steady work at $20 per hour + for at least two years. He met with me to counsel with me about whether to take it or not. I said, "Are you crazy! Call him and tell him you can be there in two days!" The fast offering help consisted of a one-way moving van and 30 days pre-paid in an extended stay hotel in Midvale (because it would take a few weeks to get his first check, and they had nothing). Then, I called the bishop over that area and told him, but I also told him that he should not need much besides maybe a food order to get started.

No, large scale construction projects are definitely much better than constant handouts.

[ERayR]

I don't like to give the rabble-rousers fodder, but the mantra that gets bandied about about tithing money isn't technically accurate ("no tithing money was used for XYZ ---- only ABC money was used"). The Church isn't "lying" or even being deceptive; it simply has "rabbit ears" because of the peanut galley rabble rousers (who have ill will towards the Church ---- let's be honest) who have glommed onto this City Creek thing.

I asked Bishop Burton (then Presiding Bishop) last year in a bishops and stake presidency only meeting as part of our stake conference. My specific question was whether tithing money is temporarily used to cover a gap when, hypothetically, a fast offering check is issued on January 2 but Sunday is January 6 (when fast offerings will first be collected). What money covers that check before there are any fast offerings in the system? He said that this arises out of a fundamental misunderstanding about the Church's money system. "There is only *one* checking account in the Church, not separate 'fast offering' and 'tithing' and everything else funds." When a check, any check, is written, it comes out of the Church's one account. Can you imagine how complicated and messy it would be to have to move money around from all of these different accounts to cover temporary shortfalls such as my hypothetical?

In other words, it is not accurate to think of there being separate "tithing," "fast offering," "interest off of business ventures," "PEF," "humanitarian," etc. accounts. While there are categories like this for purposes of donating and bookeeping, all checks (again, any checks) come out of the Church's one checking account.

To underscore this, he also shared with us that since 2008, the Church has brought in less fast offering funds than it has disbursed, and this shortfall of course is covered by tithing. The fast offering account cannot "go in the red." He said that this is directly related to the recession, both in terms of donating generous fast offerings and explosion of temporal needs (and wants that are perceived to be temporal needs).

While you are correct about the checking account the money is accounted for in separate "funds" Each fund is must balance on its own and is separate from the other funds.

[ERayR]

Another thing that drives me nuts about complaints about the Church's investment in City Creek is the whole "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" issue. Those who self-righteously fume at the billions they think that the Church should simply shower down from airplanes, that instead goes into temples, churches, City Creek, etc. are like Judas murmuring that the woman's ointment should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. These murmurers don't seem to me to have ever been in a position where they were in the trenches actually helping families devastated by the recession/depression we are in (and will be in for the foreseeable future). The steady jobs created by the whole process of planning, building, and running City Creek (to say nothing about the retail jobs now there) is nothing to sneeze at. In my area (rural Arizona, an hour southwest of Phoenix) local bishops and leaders would give their right arms for steady work like this. I remember helping a brother in my ward who was a surveyor (20 years experience) who hadn't been able to find work for two years, other than piecemeal jobs. He finally was offered a job at the huge I-15 project between Nephi and Point-of-the-Mountain (a $2 billion project, I believe), which would give him steady work at $20 per hour + for at least two years. He met with me to counsel with me about whether to take it or not. I said, "Are you crazy! Call him and tell him you can be there in two days!" The fast offering help consisted of a one-way moving van and 30 days pre-paid in an extended stay hotel in Midvale (because it would take a few weeks to get his first check, and they had nothing). Then, I called the bishop over that area and told him, but I also told him that he should not need much besides maybe a food order to get started.

No, large scale construction projects are definitely much better than constant handouts.

Most of the complainers appear to have no understanding of economics at all.

[ERayR]

I can agree, the church has even said as much!

Where do you think the overhead expenses money comes from? Those humanitarian projects get 100% of the money donated for them. Any overhead cost are picked up from other sources. Profits from investments. You think , maybe?

[rockpond]

Most of the complainers appear to have no understanding of economics at all.

CFR.

Or, stop making sweeping generalizations. It's not particularly productive to the discussion.

[rockpond]

Where do you think the overhead expenses money comes from? Those humanitarian projects get 100% of the money donated for them. Any overhead cost are picked up from other sources. Profits from investments. You think , maybe?

Check the latest version of the tithing slip... there is no guarantee that your humanitarian dollar will go to humanitarian aid.

[ERayR]

CFR.

Or, stop making sweeping generalizations. It's not particularly productive to the discussion.

The word appear denotes it is my own assessment from what has been posted. Having had a little experience in this area I consider my assessment as valid as yours might be. CFR answered

[Alvino]

Most of the complainers appear to have no understanding of economics at all.

If you think I'm making the point that the economics is wrong, then you are misinterpreting me. My point is theological and moral, not prudential.

[go_utes01]

Check the latest version of the tithing slip... there is no guarantee that your humanitarian dollar will go to humanitarian aid.

So, the question is whether you have faith in the leaders of this Church or not. Do you think the leaders are trying to deceive members into donating to humanitarian aid with the knowledge that the funds will actually be used/pocketed by the leaders? Do you think the Church has been an unwise/slothful steward? Compare the general prosperity, and the attendant ability to help members (and non-members) in need, to other denominations. I think the financial track record of the Church is outstanding - due in no small measure to the faithfulness instilled and permeating from the member.

Edited January 25, 2013 by go_utes01

[ERayR]

Check the latest version of the tithing slip... there is no guarantee that your humanitarian dollar will go to humanitarian aid.

If that worries you don't give. I trust that my donations will be handled with care and honesty.

[rockpond]

The word appear denotes it is my own assessment from what has been posted. Having had a little experience in this area I consider my assessment as valid as yours might be. CFR answered

Nice tactic.