Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[Chum]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The consequences of Prop 8 were immaterial, because the principle needed to be stood for.

Of course the consequences are material to my point. The principle applies to the weight the Church places upon downstream consequences - which is a cornerstone of my point, therefore pretty dang material.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Just for the fun of it, I did a selective summary of temple naming vs temple location (mileage is as the crow flies)...

• The Seattle temple is located in Bellevue, 10 miles away from the Seattle Center (where the Space Needle is).
• The London temple is located in Newchapel, Surrey, 24 miles south of central London (where Big Ben stands). From a personal viewpoint, it's only 21 miles from my house. It would take 1 hr 41 minutes to drive to the temple from Big Ben, but only 40 minutes from my house. 
• The Portland Oregon temple is located in Lake Oswego, OR, 7 miles southwest of Portand's downtown.
• The Washington DC temple is in Kensington, Maryland, a different state, about 2 miles from the DC border
• The Atlanta Georgia temple is located in Sandy Springs, Georgia, about 12 miles north of downtown Atlanta
• The Medford Oregon temple is located in Central Point, Oregon, about 4.5 miles northeast of downtown Medford
• The Memphis Tennessee temple is located in Bartlett, TN, about 13 miles northeast of downtown Memphis
• The Los Angeles temple is actually located in Los Angeles, amazingly enough

 

The Medford Oregon temple is the only one that is not a highly recognizable name, but it’s more recognizable than Central Point and the location is considered “a part of the Medford metropolitan area”, so it is not a misnomer.

The London temple looks like the worse/only? offender to me as Newchapel in Surry is not considered part of the London metropolitan area according to wiki, so it’s an actual misnomer imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point,_Oregon

[Amulek]

Made it in to the town council meeting. I won't be live blogging tonight though. Apparently I showed up in some of the pictures last week and I was looking down, not appearing to be engaged, so I'll just try to post the results tonight and then maybe get to the summary tomorrow - unless I get riled up and need to vent. 😉

[Chum]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

temple naming vs temple location

The Orlando Temple is 15mi away, in Windermere.  Tampa is 15mi way in Riverview. Fort Lauderdale is 10mi away in Davie.

Jacksonville and Tallahassee Temples can't help but to be in their respective cities. The city of Jacksonville occupies the entirety of Duval county.  
Leon county is Tallahassee and not much else, typical N.FL.   

As an aside, Liberty county in N.FL was >10% LDS until a decade or so ago. Smallest FL county by pop + descendants of early missionary efforts. 

[helix]

On a side note, if any think we have it bad with towns using zoning as a means to enforce religious discrimination, Jews have it MUCH worse:

https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/zoning-out-the-jews/

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

The Orlando Temple is 15mi away, in Windermere.  Tampa is 15mi way in Riverview. Fort Lauderdale is 10mi away in Davie.

Looking at Australian temples, and using google maps to define the centre of the city name, the distances to the temple (by road) are (rounding to nearest whole number):

• Melbourne - 33km (20miles) away
• Sydney - 27km (17 miles) away
• Adelaide - 7km (4 miles) away
• Perth - 6km (4 miles) away
• Brisbane - 3km (2 miles) away

All are in the "greater <city name>" area, but none (even the Brisbane one) are in the same suburb as the CBD.

The naming makes sense though, as they are capital city temples, and are linked to the capital city.
The two recently announced ones will be interesting

• Brisbane South is based on the capital city name, but I doubt it will be close to Brisbane city since the existing Brisbane temple is already south of the CBD.
• Liverpool (sorry people in England) is based on the name of a city that large numbers of members travel through to get to the Sydney temple. Whether it actually ends up in Liverpool itself or one of the nearby suburbs is yet to be seen.

 

[helix]

I just I happened to hit the town council right at the vote, it was after midnight their time. I'm roughly paraphrasing. Not transcribing word for word.

The mayor opened a vote for the mediated agreement of 120 foot steeple and downscaled building. Not the prior recommendations of a very small building limited to 68 feet and very restrictive lighting. Also said lighting can be 3000K on the temple but 4000K in the lots.

Councilperson #1: I was involved in the mediated agreement. We heard citizens didn't like the height. We hoped the LDS church hearing that they would lower the size of the steeple and they did not. Voting against.

Councilperson #2: Size of the building was the biggest issue, 174 foot steeple and 60 foot building. We would accept a 68 feet tall building with steeple. My expectations weren't great when they originally reduced the steeple by 15 feet. I didn't think discussion would be fruitful. Much to our surprise the overall height was dropped over 50 feet and the building itself was drastically reduced, that makes a difference to me. Top of the tower is 108 feet with 12 more of the top of a rod. Our chances of prevailing at a lawsuit, it was describing as uncertain at best. The reductions made, the risk of a lawsuit substantially greater. Our town has incurred costs into six figures for legal fees, and no circumstances we could recover legal costs even if we win. If we win a lawsuit, we pay our own legal costs. $500,000 is probably conservative. If we lose, we would be responsible for that $500,000 as well as the plaintiffs costs. Certainly more than ours. Another layer is defending against an appeal if we win the first round, so we could double numbers. We are elected to be good steward of resources. I believe the best interest of the town financially is to remove the height condition and accept the height as submitted and vote in favor.

Councilperson #3: I'm disappointed at the church wouldn't talk to us anymore about the height. When we had the mediation, we were very surprised there was as much movement as there was. My concern was the building, not the spire. It was too big. After mediation it was downsized to something that we could live with. We still had the problem of the 120 foot height steeple. It's not a law the height has to be 68 feet, that was the precedent from their chapel. It's not in the ordinance, just the precedence. We would be setting a new precedence 120 feet. I doubt that will come to fruition in the next 3-10 years. It's been 11 years since it's come up. We relied on the council. None of us like it. I'm voting yes.

Councilperson #4: I'm a financial guy. The risk is there, I don't know the numbers. We could lose a great deal of money even if we win. There are some plusses here, I think the lighting is a win. It stops 78 feet from the ground. The brightness I don't know. I think it will be acceptable. I don't think it be as bright. I've seen some pictures of bright temples and some not so bright. I struggle with the height. The precedence is 68 feet and I think it should have been met. It's not a law. A risk if we vote this down, just because we have reserves mean we can spend them, because we need to keep bond ratings up and money for a rainy day. Now that I'm a politician you've got to listen the people. The process is bad. We're constrained by Texas Law. We can't meet individually, the open access law. We can't meet with the folks on the other side to negotiate like we would in business. That's bad. You can't negotiate. I'm voting against.

Councilperson #5: [Thanking staff.] There are things I'd like to say. As a Christian, I won't say them. I believe we're doing what's best for the town. God help us. I'll vote yes.

Councilperson #6: Been a long process, I'm not happy with the outcome. I'm unhappy with the outcome, that's an understatement. I don't appreciate the initial approach with threats and lawsuits. That doesn't show neighborly attitude. That said, we did have mediation. I don't agree with the outcome. I do believe it is a good outcome for the town. If I was a politician I would vote for the popular vote. That's not why I'm voting. I'm voting because it's the best for the town. The lawsuit would happen. We would not have a chance of winning that. We would be left with a building that's 174 feet tall. Given the odds, I choose the 120 feet. A number came up and implied that we're against the church or against the temple, that's not true. It took this long because we wanted to make this work. We wanted a temple to happen. The neighborly approach just wasn't a good one. The issue is conforming the precedent as feet as a town. The church took advantage of that. I hope the town establishes maximum heights for churches so no other council has to face this decision again. I heard the church folks talk about importance of architectures and steeples, I still don't understand why it's important to have it here but not somewhere else. I'm saying limit it. I will vote yes.

4-2 in favor so far

Mayor: Let's reflect what's happened. The LDS church asked for a massive variance to build a massive structure in a residential area. This has been in place for decades. I'm especially upset about LDS leaders in our community, they knew what this was going to do to our community. I don't know how I'm going to get over that. I'm really angry at you people. You know what was going to happen. All religious buildings went through the same process. One is the LDS meetinghouse. I was on the council with the chapel was approved, we were concerned about that building's lighting. This isn't about the LDS church, it's about a big building where it's not supposed to be. The issue was the initially was grossly too large. I took all the folks from SLC and said look and here was what the problem was, the building was too large, inexcusable. Since the proposal we downsized the building. It's still a really big building, but we'll accept. The issue is the tower still goes up to 120 feet. We offered to LDS church to find a location in the commercial area. People need to take this home with you. The church threatened the town with a lawsuit, they said if you didn't like it then move so church members can move in. Our only interaction was through attorneys. They were polite and professional. But someone in SLC made this decision. Why do they meet with attorneys. Why didn't they meet with me? I've been doing negotiations all my life. I want to know who decides these things. God? Some group in SLC decides. Zoning ordinances have been in place since the 1970s. All went through this process. Nobody had any problems. We've had dark sky ordinances for decades. The folks who live here know this. We are threatened, intimidated, the council, the town, residents. Because the world's wealthiest religion goes against our little town. David vs Goliath is a good analogy. I've never seen anything bring our town's 11000 residents in opposition to this building. None of you have been neighborly. You asked for an ordinance far exceeding what should be allowed, threatened to sue us if we don't agree. We don't like the way it's being handled. I do a thing in church, this past Sunday. The church isn't a building it's not a steeple. The church is the people. When we look at buildings where they shouldn't be. You should think about it, it's the people. The issue is zoning. I though we were reasonable by saying we could go to 70 feet. But the threat of the lawsuit, the financial loss to the town is huge. People won't be happy, I'm voting yes. The vote is 5-2. [Said sarcastically] Congratulations, you guys can start your temple now. We're going to other business. [Chatter from audience.] Supermajority isn't required. [Other chatter] We fought of all sorts of things. We had to do it. I don't like it. The meeting is adjourned.

---

My thoughts. The church prevails on the mediated agreement, more or less. 120 feet, downsized building, dimmer lighting with lights off at night. 

But overall, the town still doesn't get it. They think the city council can be an HOA for religions. Governments flat out don't have that right. They are arguing against both a fundamental principle that would lose in court and the purpose behind the First Amendment.

Towns don't get to dictate religious architecture. They approved Methodists to have a 154 foot tower. They all avoided mentioning that to imply the LDS chapel's steeple was the biggest thing approved. The church's temple was partially surrounded by commercial buildings while the Methodists was all residential, but they implied the LDS temple was all residential and never mentioned the Methodist's building. Further, churches can be built in residential areas, that has been part of case law for a long, long time. The zoning allows 4000K lighting but they want to restrict the temple to 3000K lighting. The town wanted it in commercial areas only, which governments can't require. The council can't accept a mediated solution, and then go back and tell townspeople that mediation agreement was still an initial step to more compromises they'll demand. The town is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The church is correct that you have to take a legal stand to these things. (See my prior post with Jews being targeted repeatedly and relentlessly with zoning restrictions to keep them out. The Jews won't sue so the restrictive zoning keeps getting more and more severe.) The church is correct that a portfolio of legal precedence is needed, to show up front to governments that so many of these requests are out of bounds. City councils are not religious HOAs. The church has a moral, religious, and legal right to do these things. They've got to stand up for themselves legally because otherwise towns won't let them have it.

Edited April 30, 2025 by helix

[Amulek]

Just got home and saw that @helix has already scooped me! 

One thing that is important to clarify. When the mayor said he was angry with "you people," he clarified that he was speaking only about a couple of individuals, not the members in general.

May have more to say tomorrow. Got to hit the hay for now though.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

The Medford Oregon temple is the only one that is not a highly recognizable name, but it’s more recognizable than Central Point and the location is considered “a part of the Medford metropolitan area”, so it is not a misnomer.

The London temple looks like the worse/only? offender to me as Newchapel in Surry is not considered part of the London metropolitan area according to wiki, so it’s an actual misnomer imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point,_Oregon

Having visited Medford several times due to relatives in the area, applying the term "metropolitan" to it seems quite the exaggeration! 😁 Like referring to the part of my village where one finds the pharmacy, curry shop, and the news agent as "downtown."

 

Edited April 30, 2025 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, helix said:

I just I happened to hit the town council right at the vote, it was after midnight their time. I'm roughly paraphrasing. Not transcribing word for word.

The mayor opened a vote for the mediated agreement of 120 foot steeple and downscaled building. Not the prior recommendations of a very small building limited to 68 feet and very restrictive lighting. Also said lighting can be 3000K on the temple but 4000K in the lots.

Councilperson #1: I was involved in the mediated agreement. We heard citizens didn't like the height. We hoped the LDS church hearing that they would lower the size of the steeple and they did not. Voting against.

Councilperson #2: Size of the building was the biggest issue, 174 foot steeple and 60 foot building. We would accept a 68 feet tall building with steeple. My expectations weren't great when they originally reduced the steeple by 15 feet. I didn't think discussion would be fruitful. Much to our surprise the overall height was dropped over 50 feet and the building itself was drastically reduced, that makes a difference to me. Top of the tower is 108 feet with 12 more of the top of a rod. Our chances of prevailing at a lawsuit, it was describing as uncertain at best. The reductions made, the risk of a lawsuit substantially greater. Our town has incurred costs into six figures for legal fees, and no circumstances we could recover legal costs even if we win. If we win a lawsuit, we pay our own legal costs. $500,000 is probably conservative. If we lose, we would be responsible for that $500,000 as well as the plaintiffs costs. Certainly more than ours. Another layer is defending against an appeal if we win the first round, so we could double numbers. We are elected to be good steward of resources. I believe the best interest of the town financially is to remove the height condition and accept the height as submitted and vote in favor.

Councilperson #3: I'm disappointed at the church wouldn't talk to us anymore about the height. When we had the mediation, we were very surprised there was as much movement as there was. My concern was the building, not the spire. It was too big. After mediation it was downsized to something that we could live with. We still had the problem of the 120 foot height steeple. It's not a law the height has to be 68 feet, that was the precedent from their chapel. It's not in the ordinance, just the precedence. We would be setting a new precedence 120 feet. I doubt that will come to fruition in the next 3-10 years. It's been 11 years since it's come up. We relied on the council. None of us like it. I'm voting yes.

Councilperson #4: I'm a financial guy. The risk is there, I don't know the numbers. We could lose a great deal of money even if we win. There are some plusses here, I think the lighting is a win. It stops 78 feet from the ground. The brightness I don't know. I think it will be acceptable. I don't think it be as bright. I've seen some pictures of bright temples and some not so bright. I struggle with the height. The precedence is 68 feet and I think it should have been met. It's not a law. A risk if we vote this down, just because we have reserves mean we can spend them, because we need to keep bond ratings up and money for a rainy day. Now that I'm a politician you've got to listen the people. The process is bad. We're constrained by Texas Law. We can't meet individually, the open access law. We can't meet with the folks on the other side to negotiate like we would in business. That's bad. You can't negotiate. I'm voting against.

Councilperson #5: [Thanking staff.] There are things I'd like to say. As a Christian, I won't say them. I believe we're doing what's best for the town. God help us. I'll vote yes.

Councilperson #6: Been a long process, I'm not happy with the outcome. I'm unhappy with the outcome, that's an understatement. I don't appreciate the initial approach with threats and lawsuits. That doesn't show neighborly attitude. That said, we did have mediation. I don't agree with the outcome. I do believe it is a good outcome for the town. If I was a politician I would vote for the popular vote. That's not why I'm voting. I'm voting because it's the best for the town. The lawsuit would happen. We would not have a chance of winning that. We would be left with a building that's 174 feet tall. Given the odds, I choose the 120 feet. A number came up and implied that we're against the church or against the temple, that's not true. It took this long because we wanted to make this work. We wanted a temple to happen. The neighborly approach just wasn't a good one. The issue is conforming the precedent as feet as a town. The church took advantage of that. I hope the town establishes maximum heights for churches so no other council has to face this decision again. I heard the church folks talk about importance of architectures and steeples, I still don't understand why it's important to have it here but not somewhere else. I'm saying limit it. I will vote yes.

4-2 in favor so far

Mayor: Let's reflect what's happened. The LDS church asked for a massive variance to build a massive structure in a residential area. This has been in place for decades. I'm especially upset about LDS leaders in our community, they knew what this was going to do to our community. I don't know how I'm going to get over that. I'm really angry at you people. You know what was going to happen. All religious buildings went through the same process. One is the LDS meetinghouse. I was on the council with the chapel was approved, we were concerned about that building's lighting. This isn't about the LDS church, it's about a big building where it's not supposed to be. The issue was the initially was grossly too large. I took all the folks from SLC and said look and here was what the problem was, the building was too large, inexcusable. Since the proposal we downsized the building. It's still a really big building, but we'll accept. The issue is the tower still goes up to 120 feet. We offered to LDS church to find a location in the commercial area. People need to take this home with you. The church threatened the town with a lawsuit, they said if you didn't like it then move so church members can move in. Our only interaction was through attorneys. They were polite and professional. But someone in SLC made this decision. Why do they meet with attorneys. Why didn't they meet with me? I've been doing negotiations all my life. I want to know who decides these things. God? Some group in SLC decides. Zoning ordinances have been in place since the 1970s. All went through this process. Nobody had any problems. We've had dark sky ordinances for decades. The folks who live here know this. We are threatened, intimidated, the council, the town, residents. Because the world's wealthiest religion goes against our little town. David vs Goliath is a good analogy. I've never seen anything bring our town's 11000 residents in opposition to this building. None of you have been neighborly. You asked for an ordinance far exceeding what should be allowed, threatened to sue us if we don't agree. We don't like the way it's being handled. I do a thing in church, this past Sunday. The church isn't a building it's not a steeple. The church is the people. When we look at buildings where they shouldn't be. You should think about it, it's the people. The issue is zoning. I though we were reasonable by saying we could go to 70 feet. But the threat of the lawsuit, the financial loss to the town is huge. People won't be happy, I'm voting yes. The vote is 5-2. [Said sarcastically] Congratulations, you guys can start your temple now. We're going to other business. [Chatter from audience.] Supermajority isn't required. [Other chatter] We fought of all sorts of things. We had to do it. I don't like it. The meeting is adjourned.

---

My thoughts. The church prevails on the mediated agreement, more or less. 120 feet, downsized building, dimmer lighting with lights off at night. 

But overall, the town still doesn't get it. They think the city council can be an HOA for religions. Governments flat out don't have that right. They are arguing against both a fundamental principle that would lose in court and the purpose behind the First Amendment.

Towns don't get to dictate religious architecture. They approved Methodists to have a 154 foot tower. They all avoided mentioning that to imply the LDS chapel's steeple was the biggest thing approved. The church's temple was partially surrounded by commercial buildings while the Methodists was all residential, but they implied the LDS temple was all residential and never mentioned the Methodist's building. Further, churches can be built in residential areas, that has been part of case law for a long, long time. The zoning allows 4000K lighting but they want to restrict the temple to 3000K lighting. The town wanted it in commercial areas only, which governments can't require. The council can't accept a mediated solution, and then go back and tell townspeople that mediation agreement was still an initial step to more compromises they'll demand. The town is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The church is correct that you have to take a legal stand to these things. (See my prior post with Jews being targeted repeatedly and relentlessly with zoning restrictions to keep them out. The Jews won't sue so the restrictive zoning keeps getting more and more severe.) The church is correct that a portfolio of legal precedence is needed, to show up front to governments that so many of these requests are out of bounds. City councils are not religious HOAs. The church has a moral, religious, and legal right to do these things. They've got to stand up for themselves legally because otherwise towns won't let them have it.

It's interesting that they know they are legally in the wrong, and still want to blame the church for causing the problems.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting that they know they are legally in the wrong, and still want to blame the church for causing the problems.

One of the things that has really bothered me about this whole process has been the politicians' persistent mischaracterization of the law. I cannot possibly believe they do not actually understand their own zoning statutes, yet they continually accused the church of "violating the town's ordinances." I feel like that was a major driver in stoking the flames and making this whole process be much more contentious than it needed to be. They're politicians though, so I'm not sure why I would expect them to behave differently.

 

[helix]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting that they know they are legally in the wrong, and still want to blame the church for causing the problems.

The worst for me was the audacity to blame the church not wanting to reject the mediated agreement out of so-called neighborly good will, and start mediated agreement #2 where the church just accepts all the restrictions on religious architecture that the council wanted. 

It was a mediated agreement for a reason. You don't spend tens of thousands of dollars to reach a solution only to reject it the next day.
 

[JVW]

On 4/30/2025 at 1:20 PM, Amulek said:

One of the things that has really bothered me about this whole process has been the politicians' persistent mischaracterization of the law. I cannot possibly believe they do not actually understand their own zoning statutes, yet they continually accused the church of "violating the town's ordinances." I feel like that was a major driver in stoking the flames and making this whole process be much more contentious than it needed to be. They're politicians though, so I'm not sure why I would expect them to behave differently.

 

Hey would you be willing to throw a comment on this YouTube video about this temple situation? I feel like my comments would not be nearly as good at defending the church's side as yours. 

 

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, JVW said:

Hey would you be willing to throw a comment on this YouTube video about this temple situation? I feel like my comments would not be nearly as good at defending the church's side as yours. 

Unfortunately, if I were to post a comment on YouTube, my handle might be enough to get me doxed. In fact, I haven't even said everything I could about the matter on this board for the very same reason.

Generally speaking though, I don’t think it’s fair to portray the Church as a bully simply for standing up for its civil rights. 

And I have a bit of a gripe about the way people have been using the term "neighborly" in this discussion as well. If you declined to let the police search your home without a warrant, do you think it would it be reasonable for people to accuse you of not being neighborly? I'm sorry but no, that's just not what neighborly means. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Unfortunately, if I were to post a comment on YouTube, my handle might be enough to get me doxed. In fact, I haven't even said everything I could about the matter on this board for the very same reason.

Generally speaking though, I don’t think it’s fair to portray the Church as a bully simply for standing up for its civil rights. 

And I have a bit of a gripe about the way people have been using the term "neighborly" in this discussion as well. If you declined to let the police search your home without a warrant, do you think it would it be reasonable for people to accuse you of not being neighborly? I'm sorry but no, that's just not what neighborly means. 

 

It seems like the group that knows they would lose in a lawsuit because they are trying to do something illegal would be the unneighborly one.

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/29/2025 at 7:46 PM, helix said:

On a side note, if any think we have it bad with towns using zoning as a means to enforce religious discrimination, Jews have it MUCH worse:

https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/zoning-out-the-jews/

Please understand, in no way am I attempting to draw even a remote, rough equivalence between the persecution Jews have experienced and the persecution that Latter-day Saints have experienced.  For what it's worth, on his Blog, Sic et non at Patheos, Dan Peterson, in discussing opposition to the BYU Jerusalem Center in the 1980s, when the execrable Ed Decker of "The Godmakers" infamy completed a presentation to Jerusalem officials in an attempt to dissuade them from approving the Center, reportedly, one official in attendance said, "Sounds like what people say about Jews."

Bigotry is bigotry.

Edited May 3, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Devobah]

On 5/1/2025 at 10:24 AM, JVW said:

Hey would you be willing to throw a comment on this YouTube video about this temple situation? I feel like my comments would not be nearly as good at defending the church's side as yours. 

 

Looks like there’s already at least 2 people on there that are defending the Church here. I like how one pointed out that half a mile away there’s a much taller building on the same street. Texas is heavily mainstream (Protestant) Christian. Having served in Oklahoma, I can tell you that all you need to do is attach the name of the church to something and 99 times out of 100 you will be demonized. 

[Amulek]

Fairview residents have now filed an appeal challenging the Town Council's recent approval of a permit to build the temple. 

You should be able to read all of the details here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fairview-residents-challenge-council-s-approval-of-lds-temple-permit/ar-AA1FdN03

I haven't read the actual appeal, but the crux of their argument (according to the article) is that it takes a three-fourths majority to change a zoning rule* when it has been protested in writing by property owners of at least 20% of the land w/in 200 feet of the proposed site. The city and the residents disagree about how to go about calculating the 20% figure. If the residents' math is correct - a question that is not really clear, and which they are asking the town to take to the state attorney general - then that would meant it ought to have taken six votes in order to grant the permit as opposed to the five (of seven) it actually received.

I really don't think these folks have thought this all the way through. Given the voluminous amount of prejudicial commentary from town leaders that accompanied the most recent vote, the last thing they are going to want is for this thing not to be over. Because if this continues on, the chances of it ending up in court increases dramatically, and if this ends up in federal court these guys are going to get roasted.

 

*Edit to add: I'm not really sure what zoning rule they think has been changed. There was (and is) no rule about church height in the Town of Fairview. I think they are conflating prior precedent with an actual rule, but legally those aren't the same thing. 

Edited May 22, 2025 by Amulek

[BlueDreams]

The algorithm informed me this morning that they're now also suing now too..

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2025/06/09/fairview-residents-file-lawsuit-challenging-lds-temple-permit-approval/

This reminded me of a book I've been reading and why it's no so hard to build in the US nowadays...and Texas is a state that supposedly easier. 

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The algorithm informed me this morning that they're now also suing now too..

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2025/06/09/fairview-residents-file-lawsuit-challenging-lds-temple-permit-approval/

This reminded me of a book I've been reading and why it's no so hard to build in the US nowadays...and Texas is a state that supposedly easier. 

That popped up for me yesterday as well. There was a special town council meeting that took place at the end of the month last month, which maybe lasted all of 20 minutes in aggregate (not counting the executive session), where the town moved to engage legal counsel to help out with the situation with the Board of Adjustment, which was the first line of attack they took prior to filing this suit against the city. 

Here's my transcription of the motion which you can listen to here, starting at the 15 minute mark:

The Town Council has a serious concern that the town’s Board of Adjustment may lack authority or jurisdiction to hear the pending appeal over the issues concerning the Town Council’s vote on the LDS CUP zoning ordinance and move that the Council take steps to engage special legal council to represent and advise the Board of Adjustment.

The motion was passed unanimously. You can listen to the entire meeting if you want. There are only three people who make public comment - all of whom are from the green shirted Pharisee camp. 

I probably said this before, but I find it more than a bit ironic that those who contributed monies to the Town's zoning defense fund - both local and outside parties alike - will likely see those funds used to against themselves as they are the ones who are now seeking to pursue litigation over the Town Council's zoning decisions.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out. When it comes to administrative law, courts tend to be pretty deferential to administrative determinations so long as there isn't any sort of obvious wrongdoing or clear legal error. If calculating the percentage of dissenting property owners along a town border really is an item of first impression - meaning, there isn't clear precedent that it ought to only include property within the municipality - then that likely weights in the Town's favor. 

I continue to think that Fairview United's decision to pursue litigation is ill-advised. Even if they end up winning and the Town Council's vote gets overruled on a procedural technicality, that will only give the Church standing and more ammo to use in its own future litigation. I don't know why these folks are fighting so hard for what seems to me will, at best, be a Pyrrhic victory. I'm honestly not seeing the up-side for them here.

 

Edited June 10, 2025 by Amulek

[Amulek]

An opinion piece authored by the new Mayor of Fairview was published in the Dallas Morning News last week. You can read it here: 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/07/17/fairview-mayor-a-call-for-compromise-with-lds-church-reflecting-shared-values/

A couple of quotes, followed by my thoughts, in red:

To its credit, the church did participate in a mediation process with the town. We appreciate that step. Mediation is never easy, and entering it shows a willingness to listen. However, it did not result in an agreement that ended our community’s concerns. And today, litigation continues — an outcome that I believe neither side truly wants.

To be fair, litigation only continues today because the Town Council members who unanimously agreed to the proposal developed during mediation failed to vote as they said they would.

While a supermajority of the Town Council held their noses and voted for the proposal, two council members - including the incoming Mayor - voted against it.

The litigation in question hinges on an interpretation of a Texas statute which basically says that when enough of the surrounding property owners object, it takes a 75% majority from the governing body to override the objection. As previously discussed, there is a question about the threshold requirement about what counts as 'enough surrounding property owners' in this case, but that wouldn't matter if even just one of the two council members had voted in favor of the proposal as they had previously committed to. Had they simply kept to their word that would have made it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 7, well exceeding the 75% threshold requirement and making this a completely done deal.

 

A group of Fairview residents, known as Fairview United, is challenging the town council’s April 30, 2025, approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of the temple. The lawsuit, filed in Collin County District Court, seeks to reverse or nullify the council’s decision, asserting that proper procedures were not followed. There is presently no timeline outlining how the litigation will move forward.

I haven't heard any updates on this either. I don't see it listed on the Collin County court docket yet, so it may be a while before there's any movement. 

 

Specifically, I urge the church to consider a further compromise on the height of the temple’s proposed spire. Doing so would demonstrate that this building is more than just an architectural statement — it reflects faith lived out in action. It would send a message that the church values harmony over division and dialogue over litigation.

So far as I can tell, the only compromise I have seen from the Town of Fairview came during the previous mediation agreement. Why is it then that the Church is the only one expected to compromise further now? 

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Amulek

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

An opinion piece authored by the new Mayor of Fairview was published in the Dallas Morning News last week. You can read it here: 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/07/17/fairview-mayor-a-call-for-compromise-with-lds-church-reflecting-shared-values/

A couple of quotes, followed by my thoughts, in red:

To its credit, the church did participate in a mediation process with the town. We appreciate that step. Mediation is never easy, and entering it shows a willingness to listen. However, it did not result in an agreement that ended our community’s concerns. And today, litigation continues — an outcome that I believe neither side truly wants.

To be fair, litigation only continues today because the Town Council members who unanimously agreed to the proposal developed during mediation failed to vote as they said they would.

While a supermajority of the Town Council held their noses and voted for the proposal, two council members - including the incoming Mayor - voted against it.

The litigation in question hinges on an interpretation of a Texas statute which basically says that when enough of the surrounding property owners object, it takes a 75% majority from the governing body to override the objection. As previously discussed, there is a question about the threshold requirement about what counts as 'enough surrounding property owners' in this case, but that wouldn't matter if even just one of the two council members had voted in favor of the proposal as they had previously committed to. Had they simply kept to their word that would have made it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 7, well exceeding the 75% threshold requirement and making this a completely done deal.

 

A group of Fairview residents, known as Fairview United, is challenging the town council’s April 30, 2025, approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of the temple. The lawsuit, filed in Collin County District Court, seeks to reverse or nullify the council’s decision, asserting that proper procedures were not followed. There is presently no timeline outlining how the litigation will move forward.

I haven't heard any updates on this either. I don't see it listed on the Collin County court docket yet, so it may be a while before there's any movement. 

 

Specifically, I urge the church to consider a further compromise on the height of the temple’s proposed spire. Doing so would demonstrate that this building is more than just an architectural statement — it reflects faith lived out in action. It would send a message that the church values harmony over division and dialogue over litigation.

So far as I can tell, the only compromise I have seen from the Town of Fairview came during the previous mediation agreement. Why is it then that the Church is the only one expected to compromise further now? 

 

What a disingenuous nasty little town. The Church should just build a section 8 apartment complex on the property and call it good.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What a disingenuous nasty little town

Don’t condemn a whole town for the behaviour of a few of its people.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What a disingenuous nasty little town.

Actually, it's a fairly nice little town - precisely the kind of place where the Church would want to build a temple.

Plus, the proposed site is on the same street as one of our favorite breakfast places: Fairview Farmers. Be sure to try the croissant beignets...

 

 

Quote

The Church should just build a section 8 apartment complex on the property and call it good.

I understand the sentiment. And while I would have no issue with the Church developing some sort of low-income housing initiative, I don't think that would be the best use of the Church's property here. 

 

[Amulek]

Last week the Town Council voted to approve the final plat: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-votes-finalize-lds-temple-lawsuit-stall-construction/287-7627e8a0-cc7f-4c44-ab18-3720bb59eeff

Now, approving the final plat is mostly just a formality. In fact, the town's statutes state that unless there is a material defect, the plans are automatically approved after 30 days following their submission, even if no vote is held. The planning and zoning board voted unanimously to accept the place, and the Town Council did the same. However, as indicated in the article, the (new) mayor included the following as a prelude to his proposal to accept the plat:

The Fairview Temple should be a symbol of love and community, a place where neighbors come together in mutual respect. Instead, the Fairview Temple has become a symbol of division, bullying, and a refusal to be good neighbors…When the conditional use permit was approved, the council inadvertently left out the removal of two parking lot lights on the north side of the property. These lights shined directly into the homes of families living on Forest Oaks. The town reached out and asked the LDS Church if they would, out of the kindness and consideration for the people living next door, their neighbors, take the poles down. The church answered no. With the approved CUP, the LDS Church has every legal right to keep those lights, just as they have every legal right to build a 120-foot steeple. But having the legal right doesn't make it the right thing to do. A true neighbor doesn't ask, ‘What can I get away with?’ A true neighbor asks, ‘How can I live in harmony with the people around me?’ That’s what makes this process for me so disappointing.
 

Unfortunately, the mayor’s comments mischaracterize both the process and the facts regarding the Fairview Temple’s lighting. The town council did not “inadvertently” leave out this issue; the council explicitly reviewed the lighting plan as part of the conditional use permit process, and the two lights in question were discussed during the meeting.

For safety reasons, the Church (understandably) wants to have visibility its parking lot during operational hours. The Church accommodated the town's request that all parking fixtures be shielded to prevent glare, and they happily agreed to use only color temperatures specified by the town's lighting ordinances. In complying with these requests, the Church anticipates producing zero foot-candles of light on adjacent properties.

And let's not forget that (1) the Church already exceeds the minimum setback requirements from the homes in question to begin with, and (2) these properties will be further shielded by foliage which currently exists and which the Church will be adding as part of its landscape design plans. 

The claim that the lights "shine directly into the homes of families" is factually incorrect, and the mayor's effort to portray the Church's adherence to an approved, code-compliant plan as "bullying" or a refusal to be a good neighbor is not only unfair - it undermines the integrity of the council's own process. 

Rights and relationships are not mutually exclusive. But moving the goalposts after the council already approved a code-compliant plan - and then claiming you “forgot” to include a condition that was specifically discussed on the record - isn’t fairness, it’s politics. 

 

Edited September 8, 2025 by Amulek