Tacenda Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 http://www.sltrib.com/home/3265668-155/mormon-church-real-estate-firm-plans?fullpage=1 Post from the comment section I relate somewhat with: "As a mormon, I am sick and disgusted by these moves. The church has no business competing in the private market; driving hard working people out of business (Gateway mall, anybody?).While the business arm of the church pays taxes, it is insulated against the risk that most Americans have to bear in their financial endeavours. Without this risk, they can bulldoze their way into places that the rest of us would have to tread carefully to approach.It is time to demand our legislators force a complete separation--if any church entity wants to be tax exempt, they cannot play in both pools. Either you're a church, and ALL proceeds go to charity and expenses, or else you're a business and you have to play by the same rules as the rest of us."
Calm Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) In whay way is the Church associated business insulated from risk? If they lose money with their projects, is that not the same as other companies losing money? Edited December 5, 2015 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 The church is insulated against risk? What kind of insulation is this? The church can lose money on a bad deal just as much as anyone. If the writer means that the church has deep pockets and can afford a loss here and there, then I guess it's just like any other organization with deep pockets. There's nothing special about that. I am somewhat mystified by the commenter that Tacenda highlights. "The church has no business competing in the private market"? Well, I might agree if it were the church doing the competing -- because the church might have an unfair business edge in situations where it was dealing with members, due to personal relationships. But it isn't the church doing the competing. It's commercial entities owned by the Church, sure, but what the heck is the problem with that? In days gone by, the Church itself has owned commercial interests, such as ZCMI. Well, sort of. ZCMI was a business cooperative operating under the aegis of the church, and the church held the majority interest in it. And church money was used to purchase it. But the church entity or entities in the matter of the development are managing business funds owned by the church separate from its ecclesiastical responsibilities. What are they supposed to do with the money? Even to let it sit in a bank account accumulating interest is to "compete" in the private market -- if you don't think that a bank would not compete for the privilege of holding such large amounts, you don't understand business. OR competition. There's no escaping it. Perhaps the commenter is a multi-millionaire himself and wanted to develop the land himself but got out-bid. If that were the case, I could understand him being annoyed -- but not if the firm which outbid him ISN'T the church. When I consider the Parable of the Talents, I am reminded that the Lord himself requires that we profit from our investments. And if the Lord requires that from us personally, which is how I take the parable, why would the Lord except the Church he founded from this principle? Especially when the Church would be doing well by doing good? 1
Tacenda Posted December 5, 2015 Author Posted December 5, 2015 Well, I come from the perspective of listening to my dad before his passing. He took care of my mom with her Alzheimer's. He was a somewhat Jack Mormon. But he was a good Christian. He was sealed to mom, and was somewhat active later in life, but fully while growing up. He believed the church should invest in places for my mom, better places. It was difficult to find affordable help toward the end of her life. So he would comment on the church maybe putting their money into places like that. Or why not affordable housing too? It just doesn't go with the Savior's admonition to take care of the poor and needy. Growing up I didn't know of the church owning the mall that ZCMI resided in too, I know, pretty naïve of me. I guess the church owned Zion's too. Just wondering when the church will spend more of the money it earns from these ventures, for the poor and needy. You know darn well it way under helps out for charities. I think I read that the Protestant church pays a much higher percentage of it's earnings on charity. We are extremely low for what our church takes in. 2
Storm Rider Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: http://www.sltrib.com/home/3265668-155/mormon-church-real-estate-firm-plans?fullpage=1 Post from the comment section I relate somewhat with: "As a mormon, I am sick and disgusted by these moves. The church has no business competing in the private market; driving hard working people out of business (Gateway mall, anybody?).While the business arm of the church pays taxes, it is insulated against the risk that most Americans have to bear in their financial endeavours. Without this risk, they can bulldoze their way into places that the rest of us would have to tread carefully to approach.It is time to demand our legislators force a complete separation--if any church entity wants to be tax exempt, they cannot play in both pools. Either you're a church, and ALL proceeds go to charity and expenses, or else you're a business and you have to play by the same rules as the rest of us." Tacenda, the three comments made on the article, particularly the one above, are statements made in complete ignorance if not abject stupidity. The church subsidiaries are selling the land to a developer, CenterCal, who will develop the parcel being sold. The Church, nor its subsidiaries, are the developer - they are only selling the land. The article does not indicate the structure of the sell, but it appears to be a sale without any form of future partnership with the developer in the land. Though that type of structure is possible, I will bet you dollars to donuts this is a straight land sale. Again, the Church nor its subsidiaries are developers and have not say over how the land will be developed. The land will be sold with the zoning laws attached and the developer will develop within those laws and guidelines set up by the city, which is what the article stated and clarifies. Selling land seems to be in the scope of appropriate actions by church investment subsidiaries, don't you think? 1
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted December 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 5, 2015 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well, I come from the perspective of listening to my dad before his passing. He took care of my mom with her Alzheimer's. He was a somewhat Jack Mormon. But he was a good Christian. He was sealed to mom, and was somewhat active later in life, but fully while growing up. He believed the church should invest in places for my mom, better places. It was difficult to find affordable help toward the end of her life. So he would comment on the church maybe putting their money into places like that. Or why not affordable housing too? It just doesn't go with the Savior's admonition to take care of the poor and needy. Growing up I didn't know of the church owning the mall that ZCMI resided in too, I know, pretty naïve of me. I guess the church owned Zion's too. Just wondering when the church will spend more of the money it earns from these ventures, for the poor and needy. You know darn well it way under helps out for charities. I think I read that the Protestant church pays a much higher percentage of it's earnings on charity. We are extremely low for what our church takes in. This line of thinking is good and would apply to this situation IF the Church was developing land. It is not. It will have proceeds from the land sale, which I am sure it will spend on lavish accommodations for general authorities and other leaders or building over-the-top temple buildings the size of stake houses around the world, or some other nefarious purpose of fat, white people that only present to the world that they are running a christian church. I love the mind of a critic; so noble and free from judgment. 5
Tacenda Posted December 6, 2015 Author Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) "This longtime farm has served as an asset to our community," Mayor Bill Applegarth said. "The vision for its use is to continue to be an asset and enrich the quality of life experienced by residents of Riverton and surrounding areas."Review of the master plan coincides with the city's recent green light for construction nearby of an 85-acre open-air, mixed-use shopping center to be called Mountain View Place at Riverton, on the northeast corner of 13400 South and the Mountain View Corridor (about 4800 West.)Applegarth said the mall "will be the centerpiece of a new level of commercial and residential development in Riverton City and the region.""We've been preparing for this kind of quality development for many years," he said, "and it's gratifying to be part of this regionally significant project."Approved this week, the shopping complex on Riverton's border with Herriman will bring a mix of stores, restaurants, offices and villagelike public spaces, akin to California retail developer CenterCal's only other Utah project, Station Park in Farmington." THE ABOVE IS C/P FROM THE ARTICLE, IT'S NOT THE HOUSING PORTION BUT LAND SOLD FOR A MALL/SHOPPING CENTER. SO THE CHURCH'S RE ARM APPEARS TO BE BUILDING HOMES STILL. Edited December 6, 2015 by Tacenda Trouble with typing from phone.
Storm Rider Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: "This longtime farm has served as an asset to our community," Mayor Bill Applegarth said. "The vision for its use is to continue to be an asset and enrich the quality of life experienced by residents of Riverton and surrounding areas."Review of the master plan coincides with the city's recent green light for construction nearby of an 85-acre open-air, mixed-use shopping center to be called Mountain View Place at Riverton, on the northeast corner of 13400 South and the Mountain View Corridor (about 4800 West.)Applegarth said the mall "will be the centerpiece of a new level of commercial and residential development in Riverton City and the region.""We've been preparing for this kind of quality development for many years," he said, "and it's gratifying to be part of this regionally significant project."Approved this week, the shopping complex on Riverton's border with Herriman will bring a mix of stores, restaurants, offices and villagelike public spaces, akin to California retail developer CenterCal's only other Utah project, Station Park in Farmington." THE ABOVE IS C/P FROM THE ARTICLE, IT'S NOT THE HOUSING PORTION BUT LAND SOLD FOR A MALL/SHOPPING CENTER. SO THE CHURCH'S RE ARM APPEARS TO BE BUILDING HOMES STILL. Okay, let's go slow because you are forcing this into a project of your own desires. The mayor is speaking above. Who will DEVELOP THE HOUSES (IT SEEMS PUTTING THINGS IN BOLD IS SOMEHOW TO ACHIEVE GREAT COMPREHENSION, SO LET'S TRY) - I QUOTE: " Lethbridge said the SLR proposal divides the 540 acres into smaller parts, suggesting development would occur in phases, possibly under the direction of a variety of developers. Note: Lethbridge is the Riverton City Planner. What he is saying is that the 540 acres has been divided into smaller sections. Each section could be developed separately depending upon the land use zoning requirements. Instead of using a single developer - such as CeterCal, the developer for the first phase - the individual sections could be sold to multiple developers to complete construction. Why is this so hard to understand? What is the sole role of the Church's investment subsidiaries? TO SELL THE LAND. No other role has been outlined in the article. The single role has been to sell land. Think about it another way: you have land that you can develop by raising the cost of development or you can sell the land, make a profit, and allow others to bear the risk and cost of development. You can choose to do either. You choose to sell the land. That is what the investment group has done; they have chosen to sell the land. Does this mean they will change their mind and develop a smaller parcel? They could, but that does not happen as often. If they felt they could succeed at the development they would have done it from the beginning. It does not mean they cannot change their mind, but no one knows. You don't know; the city does not know; and no one else knows either. Why project a conclusion where there is no evidence? Please answer this? Why? What purpose is served by creating something from whole cloth? The investment groups have ONLY SOLD LAND AND NOTHING ELSE. 1
Tacenda Posted December 6, 2015 Author Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Okay, let's go slow because you are forcing this into a project of your own desires. The mayor is speaking above. Who will DEVELOP THE HOUSES (IT SEEMS PUTTING THINGS IN BOLD IS SOMEHOW TO ACHIEVE GREAT COMPREHENSION, SO LET'S TRY) - I QUOTE: " Lethbridge said the SLR proposal divides the 540 acres into smaller parts, suggesting development would occur in phases, possibly under the direction of a variety of developers. Note: Lethbridge is the Riverton City Planner. What he is saying is that the 540 acres has been divided into smaller sections. Each section could be developed separately depending upon the land use zoning requirements. Instead of using a single developer - such as CeterCal, the developer for the first phase - the individual sections could be sold to multiple developers to complete construction. Why is this so hard to understand? What is the sole role of the Church's investment subsidiaries? TO SELL THE LAND. No other role has been outlined in the article. The single role has been to sell land. Think about it another way: you have land that you can develop by raising the cost of development or you can sell the land, make a profit, and allow others to bear the risk and cost of development. You can choose to do either. You choose to sell the land. That is what the investment group has done; they have chosen to sell the land. Does this mean they will change their mind and develop a smaller parcel? They could, but that does not happen as often. If they felt they could succeed at the development they would have done it from the beginning. It does not mean they cannot change their mind, but no one knows. You don't know; the city does not know; and no one else knows either. Why project a conclusion where there is no evidence? Please answer this? Why? What purpose is served by creating something from whole cloth? The investment groups have ONLY SOLD LAND AND NOTHING ELSE. Sorry if my previous post seemed to shout. I only capitalized because I wanted to differentiate the two, I was on my phone. And for some reason had difficulty. It wouldn't delete mistakes/letters, frustrated. Anyhoo, I will concede that the church may just be selling parcels to different developers but we'll just have to see what pans out. Sorry that part didn't shout out at me until your post, lol!! Edited December 6, 2015 by Tacenda
Storm Rider Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Tacenda, I need to be more patient. My career was real estate investments from an institutional investment management position. Real estate investing and development come very easy for me because it is one of the few areas where I can claim any degree of expertise. I am concerned when so many individuals on this Forum jump to the most negative conclusions without any evidence to support the position. I lack patience in dealing with what I perceive to be attacks without merit. If I was a better person I suppose I would just ignore them and move forward. This particular situation really does just look like an investment group held onto an investment for many years and selling the land is an appropriate choice. Being developers of land is a different type of business. I am aware of some groups within the church's investment subsidiaries that are more than capable of developing this land, but that does not appear to be who is in control of this parcel of land. It is a perfectly acceptable position to just sell it. The city is supporting of redevelopment and seems to be particularly excited that this land is being sold to a developer that will achieve their own planning objectives. It sounds like a true win-win-win proposition - the city gets what it wants - an investment group sales their land at an acceptable price - and a developer thinks they can successfully, profitably develop a new project. I just don't see the need for outlandish criticisms accusing the Church of doing something inappropriate. Please try to remain open minded. When presented with a news story, read it, understand what is being said and what is not being said. More importantly, don't be easily influenced by individuals that are so obviously twisted. The Church is not perfect, but they don't blindly thrash about in their actions. Too often we have too little information to make a wise conclusion. Give it time and study the problem out. 4
sunstoned Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 1
Tacenda Posted December 6, 2015 Author Posted December 6, 2015 10 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Tacenda, I need to be more patient. My career was real estate investments from an institutional investment management position. Real estate investing and development come very easy for me because it is one of the few areas where I can claim any degree of expertise. I am concerned when so many individuals on this Forum jump to the most negative conclusions without any evidence to support the position. I lack patience in dealing with what I perceive to be attacks without merit. If I was a better person I suppose I would just ignore them and move forward. This particular situation really does just look like an investment group held onto an investment for many years and selling the land is an appropriate choice. Being developers of land is a different type of business. I am aware of some groups within the church's investment subsidiaries that are more than capable of developing this land, but that does not appear to be who is in control of this parcel of land. It is a perfectly acceptable position to just sell it. The city is supporting of redevelopment and seems to be particularly excited that this land is being sold to a developer that will achieve their own planning objectives. It sounds like a true win-win-win proposition - the city gets what it wants - an investment group sales their land at an acceptable price - and a developer thinks they can successfully, profitably develop a new project. I just don't see the need for outlandish criticisms accusing the Church of doing something inappropriate. Please try to remain open minded. When presented with a news story, read it, understand what is being said and what is not being said. More importantly, don't be easily influenced by individuals that are so obviously twisted. The Church is not perfect, but they don't blindly thrash about in their actions. Too often we have too little information to make a wise conclusion. Give it time and study the problem out. Thanks for your thoughts here. But the church did build City Creek Mall, and it did build the condos and apartments also, it may not have used their own hands but it orchestrated it, what is the difference? I wrote the person an email that wrote the article asking for more information. I'll post what he says here, if he replies back.
Storm Rider Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Thanks for your thoughts here. But the church did build City Creek Mall, and it did build the condos and apartments also, it may not have used their own hands but it orchestrated it, what is the difference? I wrote the person an email that wrote the article asking for more information. I'll post what he says here, if he replies back. Did the Church build City Creek or was it an investment group owned by the Church? I don't know and I am just asking. We have discussed the City Creek topic enough already and we should focus on the topic of this thread. Do you have a problem of an investment group investing? Is it appropriate for a church to have a real estate group that invests funds given to it for investment purposes? Should a church ever maintain funds used for investments? If so, who would know how to evaluate their work? Who should evaluate their work?
Tacenda Posted December 6, 2015 Author Posted December 6, 2015 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Did the Church build City Creek or was it an investment group owned by the Church? I don't know and I am just asking. We have discussed the City Creek topic enough already and we should focus on the topic of this thread. Do you have a problem of an investment group investing? Is it appropriate for a church to have a real estate group that invests funds given to it for investment purposes? Should a church ever maintain funds used for investments? If so, who would know how to evaluate their work? Who should evaluate their work? In the article it states the church is developing the land. It may down the road let others develop some of it, but didn't say for sure or not. Do you still have a problem if they do. I think maybe you can't be black and white on this, since as you know the church developed the projects I mentioned. The church is a corporation and is in charge of all of it's arms. I'm not following you on the last two questions, I know I'm sometimes a little brain dead, but my gut says the church is developing this land. Just like it did in SLC and in Philadelphia. Just like it did with the Polynesian Cultural Center. But think the church developing land for real estate might be a fairly new thing.
Recommended Posts