Downtown Slc Revival And The Lds Church

[Bernard Gui]

The Church has come under considerable fire from anti-Mormons who don't like the mingling

of church funds and the downtown mall construction. Seems like things are turning out ok, though.

 

Twenty-somethings are driving a residential boom in the heart of Salt Lake City, with thousands of new apartments, condominiums and town homes being built to cater to the living needs of these so-called millennials.....

A healthy share of credit goes to the LDS Church for building its $1.5 billion City Creek Center shopping complex, according to downtown boosters and commercial real-estate insiders. Spanning two blocks and fronting Main Street, the luxurious and grand-scale mall opened in 2011 and is now hitting its intended stride, helping the city’s core amass a record $800 million in retail sales for 2013.

According to Kip Paul, executive director of investment sales for Cushman & Wakefield | Commerce Real Estate Solutions: "To say they primed the pump is an understatement.”

 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58334365-78/downtown-lake-salt-utah.html.csp

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Sevenbak]

Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures.
- Doug Smeath, "Downtown renovation project", Deseret News March 27, 2007.

[Storm Rider]

Sevenbak, please do not confuse the issue with facts.  We have a good thing going be able to belittle the Church for abusing the tithing monies of the membership.  You coming in here and throwing cold water on this righteous indignation is just not acceptable.  We want to beat this dead horse until....well, until we arrive at our next indignation that suits our fancy.  Please desist from such behavior.  You are a trouble maker and need to be banned from all wholesome activities on the internet for such outrageous activity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has come under considerable fire from anti-Mormons who don't like the mingling

of church funds and the downtown mall construction. Seems like things are turning out ok, though.

 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58334365-78/downtown-lake-salt-utah.html.csp

One of the cries from the naysaying critics during the construction of the City Creek Center was that the Church would lose its shirt on the project because it would not be viable in today's economy.

 

So much for false prophets.

[cinepro]

The Church has come under considerable fire from anti-Mormons who don't like the mingling

of church funds and the downtown mall construction. Seems like things are turning out ok, though.

 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58334365-78/downtown-lake-salt-utah.html.csp

 

Just so I'm clear, the article is quoting "downtown boosters" on their views of the Church building a huge mall in downtown SLC? 

 

It's a good thing they interviewed the "boosters" who like the mall, because there are probably a lot of other "downtown boosters" who aren't too thrilled with the Church's property development arm footing the bill for such a huge beautification and renewal project. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Just so I'm clear, the article is quoting "downtown boosters" on their views of the Church building a huge mall in downtown SLC? 

 

It's a good thing they interviewed the "boosters" who like the mall, because there are probably a lot of other "downtown boosters" who aren't too thrilled with the Church's property development arm footing the bill for such a huge beautification and renewal project. 

Whether these hypothetical "other downtown boosters" you conceive of would be truly speaking as boosters or as complainers with an axe to grind would, of course, be a matter to wonder about.

[Alan]

The Church has come under considerable fire from anti-Mormons who don't like the mingling

of church funds and the downtown mall construction. Seems like things are turning out ok, though.

 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58334365-78/downtown-lake-salt-utah.html.csp

 

It hasn't just come under fire from "anti-Mormons", it has come under fire from Mormons too.

Personally I was, and remain, furious about it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Alan

[Scott Lloyd]

It hasn't just come under fire from "anti-Mormons", it has come under fire from Mormons too.

Personally I was, and remain, furious about this development.

What a waste and misplacement of emotional energy.

[Alan]

What a waste and misplacement of emotional energy.

 

What a waste and misplacement of sacred funds.

[Scott Lloyd]

What a waste and misplacement of sacred funds.

False notion.

 

Tithing and other ecclesiastical donations are separate and distinct from the self-sustaining, commercial entities the Church owns.

 

Whether the Church should own commercial entities (a practice that dates back to the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley by the Pioneers under President Brigham Young, when there was nothing here but sagebrush) is a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose. But spare us the sanctimonious and misleading rhetoric about "sacred funds."

Edited September 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

What a waste and misplacement of sacred funds.

Well, whether it be in almond groves in California, orange groves in Florida, or the stock market, it has to go somewhere to yield a return. Why not get a collateral benefit?

One could perhaps argue that it should be spent on the poor, but then the endowment strength would be lost for future church operations.

[Alan]

False notion.

 

Tithing and other ecclesiastical donations are separate and distinct from the self-sustaining, commercial entities the Church owns.

 

Whether the Church should own commercial entities (a practice that dates back to the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley by the Pioneers under President Brigham Young, when there was nothing here but sagebrush) is a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose. But spare us the self-righteous and misleading rhetoric about "sacred funds."

 

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong.

From where were these non-sacred funds derived? Answer: mainly from the interest on tithing funds.

 

Besides, surely all the funds the church has are sacred. If they're not, then what are they? If the claim is that once they have been through a few investments they come out non-sacred, that sounds like ecclesiastical money laundering to me.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Alan

[Bernard Gui]

Well, the actual source of the money is not the issue. The heartburn is that the Church would actually dare to engage in

this kind of capital venture. It seems, though, that the church has proven itself to be a good manager of resources and a responsible

community stakeholder. This investment appears to have lifted all boats in the city...providing hundreds of jobs, revitalizing

the core, cleaning up urban blight, increasing mass transit, drawing capital, construction, reducing poverty and homelessness,

bringing a diverse permanent population into the downtown, and generally making SLC a much better place to live. Seems like a very worthy endeavor to me....and to the "boosters" who also appear to have the best interests of their city at heart. Or maybe they are just a bunch of money-grubbing opportunists.

Perhaps Cinepro could provide some information about the downside of this Renaissance and quote some of the naysayers who still think it's a bad deal.

On the other hand, the Church could have let the downtown area continue the deterioration experienced in other American city centers, and then the naysayers could complain about the Church letting this happen "right at the doors of the temple and Church Office Building!"

[USU78]

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong.

From where were these non-sacred funds derived? Answer: mainly from the interest on tithing funds.

 

Besides, surely all the funds the church has are sacred. If they're not, then what are they? If the claim is that once they have been through a few investments they come out non-sacred, that sounds like ecclesiastical money laundering to me.

 

So what?

 

Let's concede that the seed money came from donated dirt/buildings and/or tithing funds long before there was an IRS that compelled churches to distinguish between for-profit and church-qua-church activities.

 

What difference does it make?

 

The profits from whatever for-profit enterprise the Church directly or indirectly through subsidiary entities supplement tithing/welfare/missionary/etc receipts when necessary and are re-invested when not.

 

Just like insurance companies are required to have fungible as well as hard assets to cover claims at levels determined by law, the Church should and does maintain a fund of fungible and hard assets that can pay the Church's bills on the church-qua-church side for church-qua-church purposes when donations are insufficient to cover the monthly nut.

 

And it is a childish notion that for-profit enterprises are beneath Christian dignity.  Hells Belles, the Master's teaching tales nearly all had to do with some kind of commercial enterprise.  If they are such an awful thing,

[Bernard Gui]

To me this is an appropriate use of what you call sacred funds. It is an investment that strengthens the community and the Church and in the long run will provide positive benefits for all residents.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong.

From where were these non-sacred funds derived? Answer: mainly from the interest on tithing funds.

 

Besides, surely all the funds the church has are sacred. If they're not, then what are they? If the claim is that once they have been through a few investments they come out non-sacred, that sounds like ecclesiastical money laundering to me.

That's not what I'm claiming.

 

What I'm doing is rejecting your claim that there is something wrong about the Church holding commercial enterprises.  I think there are justifiable reasons for this, including keeping the Church robust so that we don't soon fall into the vulnerable position our oppressed ancestors endured when the Church was being hounded from state to state.

[tonie]

I have visited Temple Sqaure twice. Wasn't ZCMI (a mall) across the street? If my memory is correct the mall had a considerable portion of empty shop space. The expansion of Temple Square or the area around - however fraught with legal proceedings, in my opinion, added to the area. I have not visit City Creek.

My only issue with the Mall - isn't with the Mall but with Keith B. McMullin, who heads a church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corp. Regarding the City Creek development, McMullin made a statement that does not seem in line with Gospel teachings.

Edited September 3, 2014 by tonie

[MorningStar]

It created jobs.  How horrible!

[Alan]

 

The profits from whatever for-profit enterprise the Church directly or indirectly through subsidiary entities supplement tithing/welfare/missionary/etc receipts when necessary and are re-invested when not.

 

 

No they don't.

They supplement other for-profit investments. See Daymon Smith's Book of Mammon.

[Alan]

It created jobs.  How horrible!

 

It could have been used to save lives. How horrible!

[Duncan]

It could have been used to save lives. How horrible!

 

 

but for how long? a job is sustaining whereas a handout isn't

[Alan]

but for how long? a job is sustaining whereas a handout isn't

 

Try telling that to someone who is starving. I would suggest that a handout as you call it, is sustaining. It sustains life. And $2 billion would sustain a lot of lives; and then we could teach them the gospel!

 

I cannot believe that the Lord approves of what the church has done.

[USU78]

No they don't.

They supplement other for-profit investments. See Daymon Smith's Book of Mammon.

 

Jaw-dropping ignorance based as it is in ill-begotten Marxism® Light.

 

Time for the children to grow up.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have visited Temple Sqaure twice. Wasn't ZCMI (a mall) across the street? If my memory is correct the mall had a considerable portion of empty shop space. The expansion of Temple Square or the area around - however fraught with legal proceedings, in my opinion, added to the area. I have not visit City Creek.

My only issue with the Mall - isn't with the Mall but with Keith B. McMullin, who heads a church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corp. Regarding the City Creek development, McMullin made a statement that does not seem in line with Gospel teachings.

CFR

[Alan]

Jaw-dropping ignorance based as it is in ill-begotten Marxism® Light.

 

Time for the children to grow up.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.