Troubling Article Re: Temple in Texas

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is one of those things that is hard to predict. If there is local news coverage it could backfire or help. Really depends on what spin is put on it.

There hasn't been much news coverage at all. WFAA seems to be the only channel even tracking it, which is a stark contrast from how things were back when the Dallas temple was going in decades ago.

I also think it helps that Fairview isn't really able to play the small town victim card with any real credibility. If they were really a remote country town and not a bunch of uppity little Highland Park wannabes maybe that would be different. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

There hasn't been much news coverage at all. WFAA seems to be the only channel even tracking it, which is a stark contrast from how things were back when the Dallas temple was going in decades ago.

I also think it helps that Fairview isn't really able to play the small town victim card with any real credibility. If they were really a remote country town and not a bunch of uppity little Highland Park wannabes maybe that would be different. 

Lol, Highland Park wannabes. Highland Park used to be the pinnacle of Dallas high society. Is it still thought of that way? 

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Lol, Highland Park wannabes. Highland Park used to be the pinnacle of Dallas high society. Is it still thought of that way? 

Yeah, the park cities - Highland Park and University Park for those not in the know - are still kind of where the old money resides down in Dallas, though I do believe places like Southlake technically outstrip them now in terms of average income.

Fairview feeds into the bougie Parker / Lucas dominated Lovejoy ISD, so they definately qualify as uppity, or at least uppity-adjacent.

I'm seriously considering putting in a public information request to the town requesting documents relating to previously approved buildings in the area. I had it all typed up and ready to send this morning, but I hesitated on pulling the trigger not knowing how much it was going to cost me. Not sure I want to sink too many real world dollars into something that I'm sure the Church's lawyers have already done and are more than capable of handling. Still, it would be kind of nice to have some of that on hand for internet arguments like these.

 

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, the park cities - Highland Park and University Park for those not in the know - are still kind of where the old money resides down in Dallas, though I do believe places like Southlake technically outstrip them now in terms of average income.

Fairview feeds into the bougie Parker / Lucas dominated Lovejoy ISD, so they definately qualify as uppity, or at least uppity-adjacent.

I'm seriously considering putting in a public information request to the town requesting documents relating to previously approved buildings in the area. I had it all typed up and ready to send this morning, but I hesitated on pulling the trigger not knowing how much it was going to cost me. Not sure I want to sink too many real world dollars into something that I'm sure the Church's lawyers have already done and are more than capable of handling. Still, it would be kind of nice to have some of that on hand for internet arguments like these.

 

Last I heard University Park is still ahead of Southlake.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Last I heard University Park is still ahead of Southlake.

Interesting. 

[Flootie]

This is regarding the Lone Mountain temple since I live in Las Vegas. There have been a lot of actions made by the church and their law firm here locally (Kaempfer Crowell) that really do make the church look bad. The fact that the law firm gave $70,000 in campaign contributions around the time the parcel was purchased to City council members doesn't look good. The fact that the law firm's lobbyists had the Civic zoning changed for the entire city to accommodate the temple being built in a rural preservation neighborhood where it wasn't permitted before doesn't look great either. I have heard about other churches being denied for much less and now it just looks like we are coming in and being bullies. The concessions that the church made were on parking lot lights and a few larger trees being planted. We haven't done anything to truly work with the residents, who I think are pretty darn reasonable people. My friend told me that they have only been granted the one meeting and that the law firm and everyone else has been completely ignoring them as far as listening to any of their concerns. There is also audio of the church SLC law firm (Kirton McConkie) basically saying that the church can't and won't compromise because it'll just show weakness. I don't know. I don't think that's a right way to treat communities across the country. 

[webbles]

16 minutes ago, Flootie said:

This is regarding the Lone Mountain temple since I live in Las Vegas. There have been a lot of actions made by the church and their law firm here locally (Kaempfer Crowell) that really do make the church look bad. The fact that the law firm gave $70,000 in campaign contributions around the time the parcel was purchased to City council members doesn't look good. The fact that the law firm's lobbyists had the Civic zoning changed for the entire city to accommodate the temple being built in a rural preservation neighborhood where it wasn't permitted before doesn't look great either. I have heard about other churches being denied for much less and now it just looks like we are coming in and being bullies. The concessions that the church made were on parking lot lights and a few larger trees being planted. We haven't done anything to truly work with the residents, who I think are pretty darn reasonable people. My friend told me that they have only been granted the one meeting and that the law firm and everyone else has been completely ignoring them as far as listening to any of their concerns. There is also audio of the church SLC law firm (Kirton McConkie) basically saying that the church can't and won't compromise because it'll just show weakness. I don't know. I don't think that's a right way to treat communities across the country. 

The bolded isn't true.  Before the zone change, the temple could still have been built.  The previous rules said that anything built in the the C-V zone had to stay under 35 ft height.  But lots of schools and other civic buildings have been taller than that so they were getting allowances for them.  So the temple would have been able to get an allowance just like the other buildings.  The supposed reason that the C-V zone was changed was so that city didn't have to keep getting special allowances for schools and other civic buildings.  The new zone rules still have height limits but they are based on the a "proximity slope".  That is defined by calculating the highest point of the building in relation to the property line.  I believe the temple exceeds that if the spire is included but spires are actually ignored by the zone rules (this didn't change).

Also, the temple is NOT being built in a rural preservation neighborhood.  It is being built in an area of Las Vegas where there is an agreement to not have commercial or high density housing built because there is a rural preservation neighborhood that is really close (though it is not in the city).  But there is nothing in the accommodation against church buildings.

I don't know what audio you are talking about but the church has absolutely compromised in multiple temples.  The Tuscon Temple changed its steeple because of zone rules, the Columbus Ohio temple decreased the height of its temple (and changed the structure to fit better with the height change) because of complaints.

[Doctor Steuss]

On 6/19/2024 at 8:32 AM, Vanguard said:

"...rural areas across America..."?! Lone Mountain?! From Google Maps Lone Mountain looks about as ugly a packed suburban greater Las Vegas community as one can get. Urban center? - no. But rural? Good grief... ;o

Lol.  Yeahhh... I am having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the valley (Lone Mountain area included) that could reasonably be called "rural" anymore.  Maybe 10 years ago, there were a few places... mayyybe. 

Where I live (east vegas), there are regularly people riding horses down the street.  Just because you have moderately low housing density, a few vacant plots, and your neighbor has chickens, doesn't magically make it "rural."  Especially when there're 15 gas stations, 2 supermarkets, a mall, and a casino within a 10 minute drive -- all without seeing a break in developments/buildings while driving.  Good gravy. 🤨🤣

Edited June 25 by Doctor Steuss

[Senator]

16 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Lol.  Yeahhh... I am having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the valley (Lone Mountain area included) that could reasonably be called "rural" anymore.  Maybe 10 years ago, there were a few places... mayyybe. 

Where I live (east vegas), there are regularly people riding horses down the street.  Just because you have moderately low housing density, a few vacant plots, and your neighbor has chickens, doesn't magically make it "rural."  Especially when there're 15 gas stations, 2 supermarkets, a mall, and a casino within a 10 minute drive -- all without seeing a break in developments/buildings while driving.  Good gravy. 🤨🤣

"Good gravy"  

Ha!  You just dated yourself.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Flootie said:

This is regarding the Lone Mountain temple since I live in Las Vegas. There have been a lot of actions made by the church and their law firm here locally (Kaempfer Crowell) that really do make the church look bad. The fact that the law firm gave $70,000 in campaign contributions around the time the parcel was purchased to City council members doesn't look good. The fact that the law firm's lobbyists had the Civic zoning changed for the entire city to accommodate the temple being built in a rural preservation neighborhood where it wasn't permitted before doesn't look great either. I have heard about other churches being denied for much less and now it just looks like we are coming in and being bullies. The concessions that the church made were on parking lot lights and a few larger trees being planted. We haven't done anything to truly work with the residents, who I think are pretty darn reasonable people. My friend told me that they have only been granted the one meeting and that the law firm and everyone else has been completely ignoring them as far as listening to any of their concerns. There is also audio of the church SLC law firm (Kirton McConkie) basically saying that the church can't and won't compromise because it'll just show weakness. I don't know. I don't think that's a right way to treat communities across the country. 

Not how the church should act.

[Flootie]

It's important to not believe everything you hear. The parcel was a RNP parcel until magically it wasn't - right in time for the temple? That's why Templeton was denied his General Plan Amendment back in 2019. Like it or not, the Lone Mountain area is a designated Rural Preservation area. 

The C-V zoning, if you have read it, was changed entirely for houses of worship. They adopted commercial and industrial height adjacency standards and parking lot standards. It's a little more complicated than claiming that it was done for the schools. If that were true, they would have left the houses of worship section as is instead of changing it. 

[webbles]

59 minutes ago, Flootie said:

It's important to not believe everything you hear. The parcel was a RNP parcel until magically it wasn't - right in time for the temple? That's why Templeton was denied his General Plan Amendment back in 2019. Like it or not, the Lone Mountain area is a designated Rural Preservation area. 

In that application, the RNP parcel was the piece to the north (the darker green section).  The temple isn't in that parcel.  It is in the parcel to the south which isn't RNP.  It has NEVER been RNP.  Here's the interlocal agreement that designated the RNP areas - https://files.lasvegasnevada.gov/planning/Interlocal-Agreement-2016-12-21.pdf  You'll see that the parcel that the temple is going has red X's across it.  But it isn't colored in blue.  All the blue area is the RNP.

59 minutes ago, Flootie said:

The C-V zoning, if you have read it, was changed entirely for houses of worship. They adopted commercial and industrial height adjacency standards and parking lot standards. It's a little more complicated than claiming that it was done for the schools. If that were true, they would have left the houses of worship section as is instead of changing it. 

The C-V zoning was not changed entirely for houses of worship.  It was changed entirely for everything.  The part that changed about houses of worship was actually adding restrictions.  https://files.lasvegasnevada.gov/planning/Exhibit-K-UDC-September-2022.pdf contains the earlier code and you can see the C-V zone information starting on page 506.  In B2, it used to say

Quote

Any public or quasi-public use operated or controlled by a recognized religious, fraternal, veteran, civic or service organization, other than those indicated in Subsection (D) of this Subchapter as requiring a Special Use Permit.

The current code can be found at https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/lasvegas-nv/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-520.  The part about religious usage was moved to B4 and now reads:

Quote

When operated or controlled by a recognized religious, fraternal, veteran, civic or service organization, the following uses are permitted: a Church/House of Worship on a site of five acres or more, a Public or Private School, Primary and a Public or Private School, Secondary.

So, the old code allowed a religious organization to build a church/temple/etc on less than 5 acres.  The new code requires at least 5 acres.

[Tacenda]

My friend shared this on FB, it's from the 4th of July last week and is of the new Layton temple. It's pretty bright.

[Calm]

That might have something to do with the camera and not be how it looks to the eye, but I would still expect most temples are bright at night up to 10 or 11 just as most large buildings in use at that time of night are as well as monuments and temples are both.

Edited July 9 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/25/2024 at 2:27 PM, Doctor Steuss said:

Lol.  Yeahhh... I am having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the valley (Lone Mountain area included) that could reasonably be called "rural" anymore.  Maybe 10 years ago, there were a few places... mayyybe. 

Where I live (east vegas), there are regularly people riding horses down the street.  Just because you have moderately low housing density, a few vacant plots, and your neighbor has chickens, doesn't magically make it "rural."  Especially when there're 15 gas stations, 2 supermarkets, a mall, and a casino within a 10 minute drive -- all without seeing a break in developments/buildings while driving.  Good gravy. 🤨🤣

Shhhhh!  You're ruining the preferred narrative ... Big, Bad, Mean Church!!!!    

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/25/2024 at 5:05 PM, Flootie said:

It's important to not believe everything you hear.  ...

Or everything you read.  

  

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:52 PM, Flootie said:

This is regarding the Lone Mountain temple since I live in Las Vegas. There have been a lot of actions made by the church and their law firm here locally (Kaempfer Crowell) that really do make the church look bad. The fact that the law firm gave $70,000 in campaign contributions around the time the parcel was purchased to City council members doesn't look good. The fact that the law firm's lobbyists had the Civic zoning changed for the entire city to accommodate the temple being built in a rural preservation neighborhood where it wasn't permitted before doesn't look great either. I have heard about other churches being denied for much less and now it just looks like we are coming in and being bullies. The concessions that the church made were on parking lot lights and a few larger trees being planted. We haven't done anything to truly work with the residents, who I think are pretty darn reasonable people. My friend told me that they have only been granted the one meeting and that the law firm and everyone else has been completely ignoring them as far as listening to any of their concerns. There is also audio of the church SLC law firm (Kirton McConkie) basically saying that the church can't and won't compromise because it'll just show weakness. I don't know. I don't think that's a right way to treat communities across the country. 

 

On 6/25/2024 at 4:54 PM, Tacenda said:

Not how the church should act.

For balance and to be fair (if you're interested in balance and fairness), you should read the two posts immediately following that of Mr./Ms. "Flootie," from our friends @Doctor Steuss and @webbles.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

That might have something to do with the camera and not be how it looks to the eye, but I would still expect most temples are bright at night up to 10 or 11 just as most large buildings in use at that time of night are as well as monuments and temples are both.

Definitely so! But maybe for myself, I should just drive up the road to see tonight. Investigator Tacenda on the loose!

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

For balance and to be fair (if you're interested in balance and fairness), you should read the two posts immediately following that of Mr./Ms. "Flootie," from our friends @Doctor Steuss and @webbles.

Will do!

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Definitely so! But maybe for myself, I should just drive up the road to see tonight. Investigator Tacenda on the loose!

Considering that it's right next to that giant Smith's and across the street from a Chevron, McDonalds, Little Caesar's and Subway, that area is not dark at night at all.  But I can see how the picture could look that way if you took it from further up the hill closer to 89 with a bunch of trees in the way blocking the light that is closer to the ground from that angle.

It's a cool picture.