Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Permit Denied for McKinney Temple


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I can only imagine someone saying to Rosa Parks, 'I'm sorry ma'am, but do you really need to sit in the font row of the bus? Couldn't you just be a good neighbor and move a little more toward the back?'

Wow. Because people not wanting a big, bright, and tall building that is specifically designed to stick out is just like racists demanding that black people be second-class citizens.

Edited by the narrator
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

The town is perfectly within their rights to regulate the construction of new buildings (even religious buildings) in a neutral manner. However, if they are going to grant an exception to those codes for the Methodists down the street to build a bell tower in excess of 150', then they don't get to turn around and tell the Mormons to pound sand. And no, it doesn't matter that the Methodists ultimately abandoned constructing their building. The fact that the variance was given to one needs it needs to be given here as well.

How long ago was the Methodist application?  The commission may have been changed enough this group would also deny it to the Methodists now.  Or they have just changed their minds. They might have received enough complaints after granting variance that they intend to be stricter now.

Now if in the future they grant variance to another group…

Link to comment
6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Wow. Because people not wanting a big, bright, and tall building that is specifically designed to stick out is just like racists demanding that black people be second-class citizens.

When the people who don't want it just happen to be the government, and they exercise their power to grant exceptions for religious groups to build tall building - but only certain religious groups - then yes, that's very much a discrimination issue. 

The church doesn't want anything more than what Rosa Parks demanded - and which our Constitution expressly protects - the right to be treated equally.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

How long ago was the Methodist application?  

It was in 2006 and was part of a multi-stage building expansion. Ultimately, the Methodists never built the bell tower - though they still have a permit to do so. 

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The commission may have been changed enough this group would also deny it to the Methodists now.  Or they have just changed their minds. They might have received enough complaints after granting variance that they intend to be stricter now.

Perhaps, but none of that really matters at this point. Now that they have set the precedent they have to live with it. It's not the Church's fault that the town didn't have the presence of mind to think about the consequences of their actions. 

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Now that they have set the precedent they have to live with it. It's not the Church's fault that the town didn't have the presence of mind to think about the consequences of their actions. 

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe. But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years. Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 
 
For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements.  If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.  Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus.  Being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras. 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe. But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years. Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 
 
For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements.  If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.  Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus, being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras.

 

Emmmmm - isn't it normally a trumpet, rather than a whistle?

(sorry - couldn't resist)

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe.

When it comes to the application of law, precedent matters. A lot.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  

How do you determine when something is a legitimate "change [in] direction" as opposed merely a pretext? Because I've lived in the area for most of the last 20 years, and they have manifestly not been working to make their town more rural. Quite the opposite in fact. 

Humorously, there was an 80 year old member who commented on the fact that the opposition were wearing shirts with language from the town's old town sign: Keeping it Country. She had been a resident since before the town was incorporated, and she remembered when the city tore down the sign which bore that motto in order to build a McDonalds. The city hasn't been 'country' in a long time.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years.

But the Methodist church wouldn't have to apply for a permit under the current regime - they have an existing zoning exception. They can build their bell tower whenever they want without having to go through the process again.

The Church just wants to receive the same sort of variance that other religious organizations currently enjoy.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 

I agree that the charge of bigotry carries an implication of intent that certainly doesn't apply to everyone who objects to the current plan. 

I'm perfectly content to simply refer to what the city is doing as "disparate treatment under the law."

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements. If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.

The area is currently zoned for single-family homes with a maximum height of 35'. The church would have to completely redesign the temple in order to satisfy those height requirements, making it the smallest temple in the entire world. 

I don't believe that is a reasonable constraint. 

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus, being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras.

And being able to construct our temple in a manner consistent with what the city has already allowed for similarly situated applicants is what I consider basic service as well.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because I've lived in the area for most of the last 20 years, and they have manifestly not been working to make their town more rural. Quite the opposite in fact. 

I value your personal experience. It makes your claim that it’s about it being LDS and not just any building asking for similar variances reliable for me. I had forgotten to take that into account, that you were a local. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

redesign the temple in order to satisfy those height requirements

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Calm said:

I value your personal experience. It makes your claim that it’s about it being LDS and not just any building asking for similar variances reliable for me. I had forgotten to take that into account, that you were a local. 

I believe there are citizens in town who sincerely do not want any large structures whatsoever - regardless of whether they are being used for a religious purpose or by any particular religious group. 

Those people are fine, and I understand where they are coming from. They might not end up getting what they would prefer, but I get it.

But there are also a significant contingent of folks whose anti-Mormon sentiment is, at best, only very thinly veiled. 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

build it completely underground

From an energy efficient point of view for heating and cooling, that is not a bad idea. Also, from a religious symbolism view it would make sense if the entire baptistry was underground. 😇

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

But then there would be some random parking lot... What an eyesore!

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

From an energy efficient point of view for heating and cooling, that is not a bad idea. Also, from a religious symbolism view it would make sense if the entire baptistry was underground. 😇

Sure, it all sounds great...until somebody wakes the Balrog. ;) 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

We can be the Harry Potter of the religious world, sitting in our underground temples "...making no noise and pretending like we don't exist."

Link to comment
On 5/10/2024 at 10:17 PM, blackstrap said:

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

I have always liked the look of the Laie Hawaii Temple.  I just looked this up.  It is 50 feet tall at its highest point.  It seems a lot of controversy could be avoided with a more conservative design like this.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...