Tooele Temple Brouhaha

[Bernard Gui]

Why was the Church proposing a housing development around the new Tooele Valley temple? I’ve not heard of this before.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/8/18/21372833/church-withdraws-tooele-valley-temple-residential-community-plans-mormon-lds

Edited August 19, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

I think it was mentioned a bit ago here, can’t think of where else it would have been talked about. 
 

Quote

The farm sits on the valley floor in a rural area where the minimum lot size for a home is 1 acre and and many are on 5 acres. The church proposed building a community of 446 homes on 167 acres. That density of 2.66 homes per acre was lower than the growth anticipated in the area by the county’s general plan but higher than wanted by some residents who want to maintain the area’s rural feel.

Hmmm....I wonder if in 20 years from now some residents will be kicking themselves for not backing the Church’s plan. Mapleton has had a size requirement in the past to keep the rural feel, but I know of waivers so as to allow enough homes so as to make it profitable to build (5 house instead of 2 or 3, for example).  And areas are now zoned for town houses and multi family dwellings, etc.  If the county wants smaller lots, bet it will be smaller lots eventually. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why was the Church proposing a housing development around the new Toole Valley temple? I’ve not heard of this before.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/8/18/21372833/church-withdraws-tooele-valley-temple-residential-community-plans-mormon-lds

Good business.

[bluebell]

It was discussed on the main board, but I don't remember the name of the thread.

[Jeanne]

I can understand why a lot of Erda would be upset.  The area is one of few that would be left in the County that reaps farmland.  Housing single and condensed has already taken over with Stansbury and Lakepoint and Grantsville.  They could handle a beautiful temple in the Valley but don't see the need for housing condensed or otherwise. 

 

 

[OGHoosier]

A 150-acre farm doesn't yield enough to be worth the expenditure of maintaining it to contemporary standards. Better for the land to be used for something else beneficial to the community - though the community disagrees and the Church has held up plans in order to respect that .

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I can understand why a lot of Erda would be upset.  The area is one of few that would be left in the County that reaps farmland.  Housing single and condensed has already taken over with Stansbury and Lakepoint and Grantsville.  They could handle a beautiful temple in the Valley but don't see the need for housing condensed or otherwise. 

 

 

I don't think it was unreasonable for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to desire control over what happens on land the Church owns, so as to be able to control what happens in the immediate environs of something the Church has every right to build.  That said, I think its leaders exercised wisdom and prudence in making the Temple, rather than surrounding development, the priority because of the volume of patronage the Salt Lake Temple has but is unable to support currently because of the renovation it is undergoing.

[Kenngo1969]

And, for the uninitiated, it's pronounced. TOO-lee.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good business.

Right.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't give a damn about maintaining good relationships with community stakeholders.

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why was the Church proposing a housing development around the new Toole Valley temple? I’ve not heard of this before.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/8/18/21372833/church-withdraws-tooele-valley-temple-residential-community-plans-mormon-lds

Yer missin' an "e," there, Son!  It's two o's and two e's, not all in a row!

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't give a damn about maintaining good relationships with community stakeholders.

I was answering why the church was intending to build a community to the OP's question. It is good business, the housing etc. I thought people on the board had no problem with the church making money. Now I'm wrong with saying it would be good business? But I believe they'll let this go for now, and when the community is on board they could go in and finish what they wanted to do.  

Not sure how accurate or if I'm reading wrong but this website said the church owns 8,625 businesses. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.corporation_of_the_president_of_the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints.faa60c51dfa0d7969dfcb4fe747dc0a3.html?fbclid=IwAR18Qur5GcSUTnG9RI07ZMc1iGo3xAietl2aXQxDQwRQzZaFf8zaEZj8vFo

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

... Not sure how accurate or if I'm reading wrong but this website said the church owns 8,625 businesses....

And?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And?

Just reflecting the business side.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yer missin' an "e," there, Son!  It's two o's and two e's, not all in a row!

Yes, but I had it right in the heading.....   I played a concert in Toolee, ummm, Two-ill-ah, whatever, once.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think it was unreasonable for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to desire control over what happens on land the Church owns, so as to be able to control what happens in the immediate environs of something the Church has every right to build.  That said, I think its leaders exercised wisdom and prudence in making the Temple, rather than surrounding development, the priority because of the volume of patronage the Salt Lake Temple has but is unable to support currently because of the renovation it is undergoing.

Has the Church proposed housing developments around other temples? 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Has the Church proposed housing developments around other temples? 

Counting complexes that include patron housing?  Indubitably, yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure.  I suppose it would depend on how large of a parcel surrounding any given Temple is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Counting complexes that include patron housing?  Indubitably, yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure.  I suppose it would depend on how large of a parcel surrounding any given Temple is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not asking about patron or worker accommodation.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Has the Church proposed housing developments around other temples? 

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Counting complexes that include patron housing?  Indubitably, yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure.  I suppose it would depend on how large of a parcel surrounding any given Temple is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not asking about patron or worker accommodation.

Okey-doke!  As I said, I don't know how many proposed Temples have also included proposals to develop the surrounding land, though it probably depends on the size of the parcel in question.  It is an interesting question, but I'm not sure where to look for such information or how to go about searching for it.

[Jeanne]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And, for the uninitiated, it's pronounced. TOO-lee.

Or Twilla🤪

[Kenngo1969]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Or Twilla🤪

My dad ("Two-Hotel-Three") got tongue-tied, once, talking to a dispatcher ("Tooele") over the radio.  Proper radio procedure dictates that one key up the radio, announce the unit one wishes to talk to, and then one's own unit, wait for an acknowledgement, and then proceed with one's radio traffic.  However, instead of saying "Tooele," he said, "Twirl."   My dad's a big dude.  No one has twirled him since he was two.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

[Garden Girl]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:07 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Has the Church proposed housing developments around other temples? 

Approaching the Portland Temple, the road leads through a lovely residential area of upscale homes... the residents enjoy the beauty of the temple grounds,  and when I'd leave after my shift was completed, I'd see numerous women pushing baby strollers, or joggers, on a wide sidewalk leading through one end of the beautiful grounds on the way to a  running/walking path...  there is a security station at the entrance with a guard on duty... when the temple was under construction, there were serious objections from residents... protesters stood on the corner of the road leading into the area shouting, and waving temple garments while jeering... but once all was completed and operating smoothly and it was so beautiful, the residents saw how the temple enhanced the area...

GG

Edited November 17, 2020 by Garden Girl

[Kenngo1969]

I wonder if the opponents of the plan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to develop surrounding land will end up ruing their opposition, preferring what the Church would have done over what actually ends up happening to it.

[Tacenda]

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

My parents money and assets are their own and I certainly don't feel like I have a right to any of them.  They worked for them, I didn't.  And I'm a grown woman so they are under no obligation to provide for me.  I would probably view people who did think that their parents or grandparents had a responsibility to take care of them after they are grown as being entitled.  

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is going to sound really bad, and I've been good for awhile, haha! But I hope people don't donate their land for the temple building. I know recently I read of a couple that has and all I can think of is how their children feel. I mean what if their children, grandchildren etc. need funds for surgeries or health issues or help on missions, or schooling or even housing. Recently I saw an article that the church doesn't just have 100 billion, more likely it's nearing more than 400 billion.

I wish the church wouldn't accept donations like that. But to each your own if you disagree. 

I'm sorry, but what I choose to do with the things that I own when I die is nobody else's business, including, and especially, that of my children.  And it's certainly not the business of any third-party busybodies who want to take umbrage on my children's behalf.  And given current economic circumstances, you really think that investments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have appreciated 400 percent, eh?  Based on unsourced information?  Okay, you're free to think that.  I like unicorns, and I think that rainbows are made out of cotton candy, too.  If I'm wealthy, and I want to convert all of my assets to cash, shred the cash, and use it to throw a ticker tape parade when I die, still, that's nobody else's business.  And bequeathing my assets to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly is a better use of those assets than the one I just mentioned.

You remind me of the woman my grandfather married after my grandmother died.  She tried to sow dissension among my father and his siblings by kvetching to them about what my grandfather did with some of his property: Do you know what your father did with that car?  He gave it to Jerry!  He didn't sell it.  He just gave it to him!  Fortunately, the most prominent reaction among my aunt and my uncles was an indifferent shrug: So?  It's his property.  He can do what he wants with it.

And if anyone's prone to get upset about property being donated to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this will certainly send him or her into orbit: Pete & Maxine Grimm donated land in Tooele proper to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to build a Temple on ... that the Church didn't end up using for a Temple!  I mean, can you imagine!  (To be fair, I don't know what the Grimms' devise said should happen to the land in that event, but ...)