Troubling Article Re: Temple in Texas

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Apparently the counter will continue until he gets a response.

And if it’s a response he doesn’t like?

[webbles]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And if it’s a response he doesn’t like?

Good question.  He already got a response from Elder Bangerter which was apparently not acceptable.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

Good question.  He already got a response from Elder Bangerter which was apparently not acceptable.

He referred to him as an 'employee' which he's not.  I'm guessing he won't accept any response that isn't from the quorum of the 12 or the prophet.

[Tacenda]

On 6/18/2024 at 7:06 PM, smac97 said:

Inside the bitter fight between the Mormons and small town America: Church accused of 'bullying' picturesque hamlets into letting them build towering temples

I'm sort of having difficulty lending credence to this story.

"Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

"{D}efending their land" = "Opposing the Church's efforts to apply the law in the same way any other religious group can."

I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought.

"{T}he church flexes its legal muscle" =  "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

Troubling stuff, if true.  Very troubling.  And wholly incompatible with how Latter-day Saints ought to behave.

"If true" being the operative component.  I confess some skepticism about this stuff.  

Hmm.

I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this.

Yeah, overwrought.

"Megatemples" are probably intended to evoke the notion of "Megachurches," which involve thousands of people all arriving and departing around the same time.  A temple would not have such a thing happening.

"Demanded."

It looks like both sides of the dispute are trying to rally public opinion.

Having a hard time taking this at face value.

In other words, both sides made concessions.

This is, apparently, a bad thing.

Uh-huh.

I'm curious about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I listened to this last night, that you may be interested in. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-dr-john-hubbard-mayor-of-fairview-texas/id1682941294?i=1000772546314 It may or may not help you understand if the church were bullies.

Edited June 18 by Tacenda

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this last night, that you may be interested in. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-dr-john-hubbard-mayor-of-fairview-texas/id1682941294?i=1000772546314 It may or may not help you understand if the church were bullies.

I'm not really inclined to listen to podcasts.  I'm generally only willing to do that if they are posted on YouTube, as I can then copy and past the automated transcript into Grok and ask it to sum up the content.  I'm interested in this issue, but not enough to spent 75 minutes listening to the mayor of Fairview why the agreed-upon resolution is not an agreed-upon resolution.

See, e.g., here: 

North Texas mayor revives debate over LDS temple steeple height

Quote

It's been over a year since the town of Fairview approved plans for a 120-foot steeple on a new Latter-day Saints temple.
The town's new mayor is reopening the debate. 

It has been an ongoing battle between some Fairview residents and the church; however, construction is already underway on the temple. The church broke ground earlier this year.

Last month, Mayor John Hubbard sent a letter to church leaders asking them to reconsider the steeple's height.

Now, a campaign called "Fairview Speaks" is once again asking the church to reduce the steeple's height. Any change would be entirely voluntary.

I wonder how "voluntary" this change will be given that the mayor is apparently attempting to foment public pressure against the Church.

Quote

Hubbard would like it to be 68 feet.

He argues the 120-foot steeple is taller than what Fairview's zoning ordinances typically allow.

"It just doesn't fit into the character of the town of Fairview. It's just too big," he said.

And yet in April 2025 the City Council approved the current plan, including the steeple height, and which plan already included substantial concessions by the Church.

So do the normative processes for municipal decisions apply to the Church?  Or not?  If the mayor subjectively dislikes the outcome of the democratic process, does he get to unilaterally disregard that process?

Quote

He also says some newer temple designs he's researched have shorter steeples, or no steeple at all. 

"Some people think the issue was resolved when the town council approved the temple permit last year. It wasn't," Hubbard said. "That decision was made against the threat of litigation that would have bankrupted our community ... If church leaders are willing, we will work with them on permitting and scheduling to make this change move. Move quickly and smoothly as possible."

I assume this is the "bullying" being referenced.

Litigation is how civil society resolves disputes such as these.

Also, I would be interested in documentation showing that the members of the City Council, which I think voted 5-2 in favor of the mediated deal, are claiming to have been "bullied" by "the threat of litigation," or if this is just the mayor's characterization/gloss.

Quote

The church released the following statement to CBS News Texas:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is aware the Fairview Town Council has launched a campaign in an attempt to pressure the Church to change the Fairview Temple plan that the Fairview Town Council approved in April 2025. The approved temple plan was a compromise made during joint mediation, which significantly reduced the height and size of the Fairview Temple.

The Church broke ground on the temple in February of 2026 and will proceed in full accordance with the agreed upon plan. The Church negotiated in good faith, accepted significant compromises, and will continue to honor the agreement that was lawfully reached by both parties."

Hubbard says at this time, any change to the steeple would be entirely voluntary. He's hoping to meet with church leaders in the near future. 

I think the publicity campaign against the Church sort of taints the notion that "any change ... would be entirely voluntary."

See also here:

Legal options exhausted, new town leaders launch fresh campaign against Fairview Texas Temple steeple

Quote

The hubbub over the steeple height of the Fairview Texas Temple is bubbling up again.

A new mayor and new town council launched a campaign Monday to pressure leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to agree to lower the height of the temple’s steeple — again.

The Council voted 5-2 in April 2025 to approve a 120-foot steeple and spire for the temple, which North Texas Latter-day Saints say is desperately needed in the region.

“Some people think the issue was resolved when the Town Council approved the temple permit last year. It wasn’t,” Fairview Mayor John Hubbard said Monday at a news conference at town hall.

Well, it sure looks like it was.

Quote

Hubbard launched “FairviewSpeaks,” which is described as a community campaign to ask church leaders to modify the steeple’s height again. The effort includes yard signs that say, “LDS Church: Please be a good neighbor; 120 feet doesn’t fit Fairview.”

It also includes a letter-writing campaign to the church’s three-member First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The church described the campaign as “an attempt to pressure the church to change the Fairview Temple plan that the Fairview Town Council approved in April 2025,” according to a statement released Monday.

A public campaign against the Church for an "entirely voluntary" change to the previously-resolved dispute.

Quote

The church initially proposed a steeple that would reach 173 feet. During mediation in November 2024, the church offered to reduce the steeple’s height to 120 feet. The town council — including Mayor Hubbard — unanimously agreed.

Huh.

Quote

“The approved temple plan was a compromise made during joint mediation, which significantly reduced the height and size of the Fairview Temple,” Monday’s church statement said. “The church broke ground on the temple in February of 2026 and will proceed in full accordance with the agreed upon plan. The church negotiated in good faith, accepted significant compromises, and will continue to honor the agreement that was lawfully reached by both parties.”

The eight-acre temple site on Fairview’s main thoroughfare is now surrounded by fences as workers prepare the grounds for construction, local church spokeswoman Melissa McKneely said.

Months after the mediation agreement, Mayor Hubbard was one of the two town councilors who voted against the conditional use permit in April 2025.

I am curious about how often Mayor Hubbard resorts to adverse publicity campaigns when he does not get his way via the normative election/voting process.

Quote

Mayor Hubbard sent a letter on May 1 to every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve asking them to reconsider the steeple’s height.

Elder Steven R. Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department, responded with a letter on May 20 that said the church will proceed with the temple design approved by the Fairview Town Council.

Mayor Hubbard mistakenly characterized Elder Bangerter as a church employee during his press conference on Monday.

“What we received was a letter from an employee,” he said. “We would like to talk to someone (who is) in leadership.”

Elder Bangerter is a General Authority Seventy. Seventies are full-time church leaders who minister under assignment by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Mayor Hubbard may need to do a bit more legwork here.

Quote

Mayor Hubbard conceded Monday that the church’s plans for the temple and its steeple meet Fairview’s legal requirements and that the church has a legal building permit in hand. Some residents sued the church and town council in 2025, but the court ruled that fewer than 20% of neighboring property owners filed a formal protest.

The Collin County District Court judge ruled in December that the conditional use permit the Fairview Town Council granted the church was legal.

“They have every right, right now, to build (to) 120 feet,” Hubbard said. But, he added, “It just doesn’t fit into the character of the town of Fairview. It’s just too big.”

In essence, FairviewSpeaks is a Hail Mary project. Hubbard said the media campaign is meant to be conducted with love and respect.

"Love and respect," plus a public pressure campaign against the Church.

If Mayor Hubbard were proceeding privately, I would lend more credence to his characterizations.

Quote

“I’m here today on behalf of my friends and neighbors who are upset with a 120-foot steeple that will tower over our community once the temple is completed,” he said. “That’s why we’re launching FairviewSpeaks, not to relitigate the past, but to make one more good faith effort while there’s still time.”

Actually, "relitigate the past" is exactly what Mayor Hubbard is doing.

Quote

He said the hope of a new mayor, a new council and some residents is that the church’s new leader — President Dallin H. Oaks, who was sustained in October 2025 — might make a new decision.

Hubbard and other residents argued that the church would be more community-minded if it reduced the steeple height to 70 feet, something the church did for the Yorba Linda California Temple while President Russell M. Nelson was church president.

The church’s position is that it already acted in good faith and with the community in mind when it reduced the Fairview steeple to 120 feet, McKneely said.

With the exception of one area reserved for commercial buildings, Fairview is a bedroom community zoned for residences capped at a height of 35 feet. Every church in the town exceeds that height, even though all of them were built in residential zones. That’s because the law calls for the town council to grant exceptions for churches, schools and other essential structures like water towers.

Collin County is religiously diverse. It is dotted by churches with tall steeples, including a 68-foot steeple for the Latter-day Saint meetinghouse in Fairview, adjacent to the temple site.

Still, Fairview resident Pamela Sailor said she and her neighbors value their flat, beautiful country surroundings.

“Reach out. Take our hand,” another Fairview resident, Jack Desimone, said in a message to Latter-day Saints at the press conference. “Show us that you want to be a good neighbor in our community because that’s the kind of people we are here, and that’s the kind of people that we look forward to accepting in the future.”

Again, if these were private communications, I would see them in a different light.  As it is, "Do what we want 'cuz otherwise we'll publicly say you are not being a 'good neighbor'" and other public statements along these lines start to sound a bit coercive.

Quote

Sandra Ahlin joined others in worrying about ongoing division over the steeple height.

“I am curious if (church leaders) have really considered that once they have built the temple here — and if they build it to all the specifications that they want to build it to — and then they leave and there are members that are left here ... well, I hope not, but maybe they will feel the fallout of that decision.”

"Fallout."  I wonder what she means by that.

Quote

She said that isn’t what the neighborhood around the temple is about, but said, “It could be kind of a hard thing. I would hope not, but it could be.”

McKneely, the church’s local spokeswoman, shared dismay over the ongoing opposition.

“It’s discouraging they are launching a pressure campaign against the church,” she said. “We will honor the mediation agreement we made. We received a permit to build, we broke ground and we’re building. We’re looking forward to having a beautiful temple in that community.”

Hm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really inclined to listen to podcasts.  I'm generally only willing to do that if they are posted on YouTube, as I can then copy and past the automated transcript into Grok and ask it to sum up the content.  I'm interested in this issue, but not enough to spent 75 minutes listening to the mayor of Fairview why the agreed-upon resolution is not an agreed-upon resolution.

See, e.g., here: 

North Texas mayor revives debate over LDS temple steeple height

I wonder how "voluntary" this change will be given that the mayor is apparently attempting to foment public pressure against the Church.

And yet in April 2025 the City Council approved the current plan, including the steeple height, and which plan already included substantial concessions by the Church.

So do the normative processes for municipal decisions apply to the Church?  Or not?  If the mayor subjectively dislikes the outcome of the democratic process, does he get to unilaterally disregard that process?

I assume this is the "bullying" being referenced.

Litigation is how civil society resolves disputes such as these.

Also, I would be interested in documentation showing that the members of the City Council, which I think voted 5-2 in favor of the mediated deal, are claiming to have been "bullied" by "the threat of litigation," or if this is just the mayor's characterization/gloss.

I think the publicity campaign against the Church sort of taints the notion that "any change ... would be entirely voluntary."

See also here:

Legal options exhausted, new town leaders launch fresh campaign against Fairview Texas Temple steeple

Well, it sure looks like it was.

A public campaign against the Church for an "entirely voluntary" change to the previously-resolved dispute.

Huh.

I am curious about how often Mayor Hubbard resorts to adverse publicity campaigns when he does not get his way via the normative election/voting process.

Mayor Hubbard may need to do a bit more legwork here.

"Love and respect," plus a public pressure campaign against the Church.

If Mayor Hubbard were proceeding privately, I would lend more credence to his characterizations.

Actually, "relitigate the past" is exactly what Mayor Hubbard is doing.

Again, if these were private communications, I would see them in a different light.  As it is, "Do what we want 'cuz otherwise we'll publicly say you are not being a 'good neighbor'" and other public statements along these lines start to sound a bit coercive.

"Fallout."  I wonder what she means by that.

Hm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks, good to have you back posting!! I fell asleep midway of the podcast I shared, so not too cool maybe. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks, good to have you back posting!! I fell asleep midway of the podcast I shared, so not too cool maybe. 

Means you likely needed the sleep, so very cool really.

[smac97]

Interesting:

Summary of Transcript:

Quote

Summary of the YouTube Transcript

The speaker provides a detailed timeline and documentary evidence to counter claims that Fairview, Texas, inconsistently approved a tall church structure for a Methodist congregation in 2006 but later opposed the LDS temple's 120-ft steeple.

Key Points

• 2006 Approval Process for Creekwood United Methodist Church:
  • The church submitted plans for a large facility (eventually ~90,000 sq ft, 900 parking spaces) including a prominent 154-ft bell tower with electronic bells.
  • The tower was part of the master plan reviewed in multiple public meetings (Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council).
  • Height was discussed and not considered a problem. Concerns focused only on bell noise levels (eventually approved with limits: ≤75 dB at property line, 8 a.m.–7 p.m.).
  • All votes were unanimous. No citizens spoke against the tower height in six public meetings. The project was placed on a consent agenda for final approval.
• Later Confirmation:
  • In 2017, when the church sought an expansion, staff comments and a longtime commissioner explicitly confirmed the bell tower had been approved in 2006.
• Conclusion / Implication:
  • The speaker argues the bell tower was clearly approved. The lack of any community or governmental concern about its height and "country feel" in 2006 contrasts with current opposition to the narrower 120-ft temple steeple.
  • He suggests the town has not adequately explained this apparent shift in standards.

Tone: Factual, chronological, and mildly pointed — aimed at correcting what the speaker sees as incomplete or misleading online narratives about the temple controversy.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

For what it's worth, I asked Google Gemini:

Can you summarize this podcast and analyze for me at some length and in some detail? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-dr-john-hubbard-mayor-of-fairview-texas/id1682941294?i=1000772546314 For the record, I'm disinclined to put much stock in Mayor Hubbard's protestations that the only objective of the "Fairview Speaks" campaign is to encourage the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a good neighbor. Rather, I think the intent of the campaign is to persuade the Church to abandon an already-agreed-upon plan for construction of the Church's Temple in Fairview.

Gemini responded:

 

The June 2026 episode of Inside Out with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilks featuring Fairview Mayor Dr. John Hubbard offers a fascinating, deeply human look into the multi-year battle over the McKinney Texas Temple. Because the podcast hosts occupy two different spaces—Jim is an active Latter-day Saint ("on the inside") and Ian is an ex-Latter-day Saint ("on the outside")—the conversation strikes a remarkably unique chord. Rather than a hostile interrogation, it plays out as an earnest, complex dialogue about civic authority, institutional overreach, and community identity.

Summary of the Podcast Conversation

The interview charts the long, messy history of the temple dispute, which evolved from a local zoning disagreement into a high-stakes legal and cultural standoff.

• The Core Friction: Mayor Hubbard reiterates that Fairview is a small, semi-rural town with strict zoning ordinances designed to preserve its dark skies and open aesthetic. The town's regulations typically limit building heights to 35 feet. The Church’s original proposal featured a massive structure with a spire reaching up to 174 feet.

• The Breakdown of Mediation: A significant portion of the episode covers the behind-the-scenes breakdown of the town’s interactions with the Church. Hubbard details the frustration of trying to find a middle ground. He reveals correspondence between his office and the Church's Temple Department, explaining that while the town offered various height allowances well above standard zoning, the Church routinely countered with minor concessions or hardline stances, leaning heavily on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to assert their rights.

• The "Good Neighbor" Narrative: Hubbard spends considerable time defending the town's public communications and the "Fairview Speaks" campaign. He insists that the town's focus has always been purely architectural and logistical—centering on lighting, traffic, and structural scale. He claims the campaign's true objective is simply to bring a large institutional builder to the table as a "good neighbor" to match the residential feel of the community.

• An Uncomfortable Encounter: In a particularly revealing and widely discussed anecdote, Mayor Hubbard mentions a time when he actually visited the nearby Dallas LDS Temple grounds to better understand the atmosphere and impact of these structures, only to be asked to leave the premises by staff. This moment serves as a poignant symbol in the interview for how isolated and unwelcome the non-LDS community has felt throughout the process.

Detailed Analysis: Reading Between the Lines

Your skepticism regarding the "Fairview Speaks" campaign hits on the exact political and tactical friction that underpins the entire episode. When analyzing Hubbard’s rhetoric against the actual timeline of events, several key dynamics emerge that support your reading of the situation.

1. The Weaponization of "Good Neighbor" Rhetoric

Mayor Hubbard's insistence that the town only wants the Church to be a "good neighbor" is a brilliant piece of civic public relations, but it acts as an intentional containment strategy. By framing the conflict around neighborliness and respect for local rules, the town occupies the moral high ground. It strips the Church of its preferred narrative: that the city is acting out of religious animus or "anti-Mormon" bias.

However, "being a good neighbor" in this context is structurally impossible for the Church without completely abandoning its planned architectural footprint. Because the core components of the Church's design—the height of the spire and the scale of the building—are treated by Salt Lake City as non-negotiable theological necessities, the town’s demands are fundamentally an existential challenge to the project itself.

2. A War of Attrition to Force De-escalation

Your assessment that the campaign is designed to persuade the Church to abandon its agreed-upon plans aligns perfectly with how small municipalities fight large institutional entities. Fairview lacks the multi-billion-dollar legal war chest of the LDS Church. They cannot win a straight legal shootout under federal RLUIPA laws if the Church pushes all the way to federal court.

Therefore, public campaigns like "Fairview Speaks" and subsequent zoning board appeals are tools of community friction. The goal is to make the public relations cost of building the temple so high, and the local optics so ugly, that the Church is forced to either radically compromise or quietly pivot. It is an attempt to weaponize local democracy and public shame to halt an institutional steamroller.

3. The Irony of the Compromise and Continued Litigation

The podcast highlights the sheer exhaustion of this dispute. Even after a fractured Town Council vote previously approved a modified Conditional Use Permit (bringing the steeple down to 120 feet during mediation), the peace shattered. The Church later threatened further litigation, and a citizens' group ("Fairview United") sued the town to challenge the validity of that very approval.

When you listen to Hubbard in June 2026, he sounds like a man trying to manage a fire that has escaped his control. His written op-eds and podcast commentary plead for "harmony over division," but the underlying reality is a total gridlock of trust. The Church views the town's zoning demands as an infringement on their religious expression, while the town—and your own analysis—rightly identifies that the community's defensive posture is a calculated effort to force the Church to back down from an aggressive, top-down mandate.

Ultimately, the interview exposes a profound cultural mismatch. The Church treats its temple plans as an unalterable divine decree, while the town treats them as a negotiable commercial blueprint. Hubbard's polite, measured tone masks a stark reality: "Fairview Speaks" was never just an invitation to talk; it was a desperate defensive wall built to protect a small town's autonomy.

To see a broader breakdown of how these conflicts play out between local governments and the Church across the country, you can watch this analytical report on LDS temple zoning disputes. This video provides context on the letters exchanged between Mayor Hubbard and the LDS Temple Department, shedding light on the legal and structural arguments used by both sides.

[webbles]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is why I think the church proposed building a temple in Fairview in the first place.  They saw that a tall steeple had already been approved so felt like a tall temple would also be approved without issue.  And I think this is why the city didn't file a lawsuit because this bell tower ruins their argument.  It really looks like religious discrimination when one church's tower is approved and another is denied.

[Stargazer]

When I first heard about this issue, and right up until today, I was under the impression that the Church was building a temple in a rural area with a low population density. So, a temple somewhat in the middle of nowhere that some folks felt was going to ruin the country vibe. This turns out to be totally false. The objection that the temple ruins the community's country vibe fails. And it's definitely religious prejudice.

 

[morgan.deane]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

When I first heard about this issue, and right up until today, I was under the impression that the Church was building a temple in a rural area with a low population density. So, a temple somewhat in the middle of nowhere that some folks felt was going to ruin the country vibe. This turns out to be totally false. The objection that the temple ruins the community's country vibe fails. And it's definitely religious prejudice.

 

Nice video!

I can't wait till this youtuber does the Lone Mountain temple. Its not a part of the rural preservation zone to begin with, (it borders it) but you look at that small area on a development map and it looks like its being eaten by surburban sprawl of the Las Vegas area. 

You have all these people complaining about their ancestral rural homes (that they bought in 2013) suddenly being ruined when they are an extremely small endangered neighborhood regardless of if the temple is built. There are high density projects on the borders of all these zones, which bring traffic and noise anyway. 

Not to mention, even several miles to the Northwest, the Strip dominates the sight line and the valley isn't dark sky friendly.

I don't think temples need steeples, but when I see the nonsense nimbyism and bigotry disguised as zoning concernsI think they should be 500 feet tall. 

 

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

I can't wait till this youtuber does the Lone Mountain temple.

I think that the channel is particular for the Fairview temple. The channel description says: "The purpose of this channel is to provide accurate context regarding the public discussion of the temple being built in Fairview Texas. I am just a regular Joe and not affiliated with the Town or the Church"

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I think that the channel is particular for the Fairview temple. The channel description says: "The purpose of this channel is to provide accurate context regarding the public discussion of the temple being built in Fairview Texas. I am just a regular Joe and not affiliated with the Town or the Church"

I recently encountered that channel, and it really provides good responses to the complaints.  The first one I watched was this one:

Anyone who has been going to the temple regularly in other locations already knows the answer to this question.  The video does a good job of providing a visual answer to that question using the Dallas, Texas temple as an example.

[Kenngo1969]

"Fairview United" likes to use the slogan, "Keepin' It Country."  "Keepin' It Country" has been a Fairview TX slogan since ... 1958!!!  Somebody should tell 'em, "Honey, I hate to break it to ya, but 'It Ain't Been 'Country' for Quite Awhile!'"  More like, "Keepin' It Suburban Since 2005!"  Or, how about, "Keepin' It Religiously Bigoted Since 2025!"?

Sorry, but ... that's the truth.   

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When I first heard about this issue, and right up until today, I was under the impression that the Church was building a temple in a rural area with a low population density. So, a temple somewhat in the middle of nowhere that some folks felt was going to ruin the country vibe. This turns out to be totally false. The objection that the temple ruins the community's country vibe fails.

Yeah, as I pointed out in (what was then) the main thread I was running on this subject, the proposed temple site is literally across the street from a Sonic - which, for the record, is where I plan on snagging my Cherry Limeades whenever I go to visit the temple upon its completion.

 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Fairview United" likes to use the slogan, "Keepin' It Country."  "Keepin' It Country" has been a Fairview TX slogan since ... 1958!!!  Somebody should tell 'em, "Honey, I hate to break it to ya, but 'It Ain't Been 'Country' for Quite Awhile!'"  More like, "Keepin' It Suburban Since 2005!"  Or, how about, "Keepin' It Religiously Bigoted Since 2025!"?

Sorry, but ... that's the truth.   

There was an LDS lady who spoke in one of the Town Council meetings. She had lived in Fairview her entire life and said she remembered when they tore down the sign which said "Keepin' It Country" in order to build a McDonalds.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

There was an LDS lady who spoke in one of the Town Council meetings. She had lived in Fairview her entire life and said she remembered when they tore down the sign which said "Keepin' It Country" in order to build a McDonalds.  

 

🤣 Welp, I'm glad they've got their priorities straight!  🤣 

[smac97]

Op Piece in Dallas Morning News: Fairview mayor owes Latter-day Saints an apology

Quote

Mayor John Hubbard of the fast-growing Dallas suburb of Fairview recently wrote in the pages of The Salt Lake Tribune about a zoning dispute in his city. Hubbard has said his goal is to embarrass leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, because of their decision to build a temple with a 120-foot steeple that his town approved. 

From the second link above: 

Quote

The Town of Fairview is launching a publicity campaign against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to pressure it into lowering the height of a temple under construction in the town.

The campaign will include a website and yard signs around the city. Fairview Mayor John Hubbard said the church seems concerned about their image and has previously responded to media coverage.

“The whole idea really is to catch their attention, and then maybe they can be embarrassed into doing something,” Hubbard told KERA. “It will help us with the healing process, knowing that we've done everything that we could do.”

What a disappointing thing.

Back to the first article:

Quote

A forthright response is warranted, not from church leaders, who already reached an agreement with the town of Fairview, but from everyday Latter-day Saints, the kind who are hurt by Hubbard’s jeremiad.

In his essay, Hubbard significantly misrepresented the nature and character of Fairview.

 

He wrote that Fairview is organized around a 35-foot height limit in residential zones. But he did not mention that the temple is located on a major thoroughfare that is currently part of a major expansion project. He also failed to note that the temple site is located on “church row,” where each of the surrounding buildings exceed that 35-foot limit. Churches have been built on this stretch because the road is so busy home builders will not build on it. So much for residential.

Hubbard said Fairview is a small town but did not note the massive outdoor mall less than a mile down the road the temple will be built on, nor that the mall also exceeds the 35-foot height limit.

In other comments, Hubbard compared the temple height to Yankee Stadium, the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the Sphinx. These examples serve to distract. There are six churches in Collin County alone that are taller than the proposed temple and located in residential areas. No need to mention Italy.

Hubbard claimed in his column that the temple would be the tallest structure Fairview has ever seen. That would make sense given how quickly Fairview is growing. But unfortunately, the mayor evidently overlooked other structures in his town. The temple will be at least the fourth-tallest structure in Fairview.

Hubbard also failed to mention that in 2006, Fairview granted Creekwood United Methodist Church a conditional use permit for a building expansion that included a proposed 154-foot digital bell tower. The tower was never built, but the permit itself shows that the town has previously approved a structure substantially taller than the proposed temple. So much for how important height is to the town’s character. 

The Church of Jesus Christ has already compromised with the town of Fairview, significantly reducing the size and height of the building to meet the city’s needs. But Hubbard calls the church a bully because it asked the town to follow federal law. After all of this, Hubbard has the temerity to say it is the church that is being a bad neighbor.

"Temerity" is apt. 

Quote

Texans aren’t so easily fooled. I lived in Texas for 18 years. Telling our neighbor what to do on their own property, going back on your word, trying to embarrass them — that’s not the Texas way. 

This kind of name-calling from a mayor does real damage to real Latter-day Saint kids who are trying to belong, and for what? Stopping the seventh-tallest church in the county, a mile down the road from the mall, on “church row.” 

If Hubbard’s goal is truly to be a good neighbor, it’s time to put the embarrassment campaign away, offer an apology, and start mending fences with the Latter-day Saints he’s damaged with his misguided campaign. 

The author is a Latter-day Saint, but the point remains valid.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Op Piece in Dallas Morning News: Fairview mayor owes Latter-day Saints an apology

From the second link above: 

What a disappointing thing.

Back to the first article:

"Temerity" is apt. 

The author is a Latter-day Saint, but the point remains valid.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’d have more faith in the goodness of the people of Texas if it wasn’t always Latter-day Saints pointing out all the problems with Fairview’s accusations.