Main Street Plaza Decision

Author	Comment
Unregistered(d)	Main Street Plaza Decision	Lead	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/03/04 18:46:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Check this out: *Quote:* A federal judge late this afternoon ruled in favor of Salt Lake City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in a land swap involved in the deal. ... The ACLU -- which argued the plaza deal restricted free speech, and was engineered in favor of the LDS Church --- now says an appeal is likely. tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=91509 byulaw.blogspot.com
Unregistered(d)	Re: Main Street Plaza Decision	#1	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/03/04 19:44:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* The ACLU -- which argued the plaza deal restricted free speech This is not a civil rights issue. It is a simple property rights issue. 1. The Church wants to own a piece of Main Street in order to create a double size, unified city block. 2. The City wants to sell Main Street, but wants foot traffic to be able to continue. 3. The Church pays money for the section of Main Street. They provide an easement to the City. 4. The Church restricts speech on the Main Street Plaza. They feel they have the right because it is their property. However, it is argueable that if they provide a public easement they must provide public civil liberties. 5. The Church is disatisfied with their purchase if they cannot enjoy 100% of property rights. The City would rather not have an disatisfied business partner and does not feel strongly about keeping the easement. 6. The Church, rather than loosing out on their investment, makes a further investment to gain full property rights. They trade land on the West side of the City in exchange for full return of the public easement. The City is pleased because they need the West side land for community development. The Church is pleased because they get to treat their land as one continous double size city block. 7. Free speech is gone from that section of Main Street because it is now private property without public easement. Private property is a right that is older than free speech, sorry.
Unregistered(d)	Re: Main Street Plaza Decision	#2	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 01:04:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Private property is a right that is older than free speech, sorry. But not more important. The Basilica of Light
Unregistered(d)	Re: Main Street Plaza Decision	#3	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 03:14:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	just as important Lynn, the Toothsome Naval Gazer ---------------------------- Excuses are but the flimsy garments with which we seek to camouflage the nakedness of our weaknesses
Unregistered(d)	Re: Main Street Plaza Decision	#4	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 04:10:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	therandthem: Private property is a right that is older than free speech, sorry. Calculus Crusader: But not more important. urroner: just as important L: Which right is older or more important is not the issue. The issue is whether a private entity can purchase an easement from the government and thereby extinguish the concomitant governmental protections generally afforded on property owned by the government. Any first year law student can answer that question. It doesnt take a federal judge to figure out what would happen if all land ever owned by the government were permanently and irrevocably endowed with all governmental protections. L
Unregistered(d)	Will this be a long thread?	#5	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 05:27:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ah, the ol' Main Street Plaza debate. It spawned the longest thread in the history of ZLMB. I wonder if we're going to have deja vu? We just might. It seems that we are in rerun mode with some of the arguments being proffered. Take the whole lofty notion of "free speech" rights being more important than "private property" rights. Are the critics serious? Do they really want to do away with the right of property owners? Or is their position situationally-based on their opposition to the LDS Church? A few short blocks from the Main Street Plaza is the Gateway Olympic Plaza. Both quite similar. Both public-access plazas with sidewalks, benches, statues, and water features. Both act as throughofares to other places, Both are private property that was once owned by the City and sold to their current owners. Yet the owners of the Gateway Olympic Plaza are entitled to the right of control over the behavior of the public on it's property. Not a peep of protest from the ACLU, the Unitarian Church, or civil libertarians. Not a whiff of a lawsuit. Not a speck of controversy. And it is not only the Gateway Olympic Plaza that flies below the radar of the proud civil libertarians...there are many other examples in Salt Lake City where public property has been transferred to private owners and the right of unfettered free speech has been eliminated without complaint. Why no protest in those cases? Because the property owners gaining property rights at the expense of free speech are NOT the LDS Church. At the root of all the angst over the loss of free speech on the Main Street Plaza is a religious bias. "Free speech" is simply a lofty sounding camouflage for opposition to the LDS Church. Regards, Six
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#6	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 06:42:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have a roundup of news articles on this issue so far over at my blog: byulaw.blogspot.com -Smac
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#7	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 08:36:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The last line in an AP story on CNN : *Quote:* Lee Siegel, a writer and one of the plaintiffs, said: "I did not expect a ruling in favor of ... fundamental constitutional right from any federal judge who's a product of Utah and its theocracy, which suffers from a severe and unhealthy allergy to dissent." No bias there I see. There is a smellfungus among us. Apparently, according to the man's logic, the only way the court could be fair is to rule against the Church in all cases. Or is this just a case of trash talking the other side especially after he had just had his butt whipped. Lynn, the Toothsome Naval Gazer ---------------------------- Excuses are but the flimsy garments with which we seek to camouflage the nakedness of our weaknesses
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#8	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 09:09:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Take the whole lofty notion of "free speech" rights being more important than "private property" rights. Are the critics serious? Do they really want to do away with the right of property owners? To the extent that I believe government should have more control over the land, yes. The Basilica of Light
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#9	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 09:30:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* ...Utah and its theocracy, which suffers from a severe and unhealthy allergy to dissent. He he. I do wish the ACLU would give this up, though. There are important battles they could be fighting. Why this? They just make themselves look jealous and immature. It's a front for deeper frustration. I hate fronts. They should give it up. I really hate the Salt Lake Plaza deal, and I think the church should stop taking over Salt Lake, also, but there is no infringement of constitutional rights here. The church can do what it wants with its property. This battle is a waste of time. "Life's splendor forever lies in wait about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, invisible, far off. It is there, though, not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If you summon it by the right word, by its right name, it will come." -Franz Kafka, Diary
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#10	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 09:33:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* To the extent that I believe government should have more control over the land, yes. Meanwhile, as Thomas Jefferson spins 10,000 RPM in his grave, those of us who would not like to turn back the clock on 1,000 years of personal rights progress are pleased with the court's decision. I would like to take this opprotunity to thank Caradoc, Robert the Bruce, King John and the Barons at Runnymede, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Calculus Crusader would like to thank Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin, if I understand him correctly.
Pentatach1	Get serious	#11	[-]
Posts: 1709 (05/04/04 09:52:36) Zlombie Initiate Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Slithy: " I think the church should stop taking over Salt Lake..." Pent: Excuse me? How is the Church "taking over Salt Lake? This statement is just silly. How, exactly, is the Church "taking over" Salt Lake City? I love this line of thinking. Everyone in SLC gripes and whines about the Church. I say great, let the Church decide that it has had it w/ Salt Lake and that it is moving the majority of it world headquarters to Provo, Ogden or some other neighboring community and let's see just how happy Salt Lakers are with that move. The only thing keeping downtown alive at this moment is the Church. Let the Church leave and the place will be a morgue in less than a year. Anybody familiar with the geography of downtown should realize that the mainstreet purchase simiply made sense. It consolidated Temple Square with the neighboring Joseph Smith Building creating a single, unified block that was no longer transversed by a city street. The only other recent "take over" of the Church (more commonly known as a "purchase" when anyone else but the Church does it) was the Crossroads Plaza. And the reason they did it was try and keep downtown viable and from turning into a slum. I'm not sure why some folks so many issue with that idea. I guess it's that whole "can anything good come out of Nazareth" attitude. Pent
harmony	Re: Get serious	#12	[-]
Posts: 3691 (05/04/04 10:14:12) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Slithy, the church is well into "take over"-mode in downtown SLC. We've got Temple Square, the Main Street Plaza, the Family History Library, the Museum, the Hotel Utah, the Church Office Building, the Conference Center, and assorted other bits and pieces in the area. When we use tithing money to buy the Delta Center and the Marriott, we'll be about half done. $:\$
Unregistered(d)	Interesting notion.	#13	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 10:14:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	----- CC: To the extent that I believe government should have more control over the land, yes. ----- Six: If I understand you correctly, you are all in favor of a door-to-door sales person having a government-sanctioned right to walk (univited) into your home without your permission to sell you a brushes, coupon books, vacuum cleaners and the like. Or, you would be fine with some univited guest entering your house and disrupting some sort of social event in your home? You believe in the right of the governement, in the name of free speech, to vacate your control of your property? Most interesting, Six
Unregistered(d)	I'd venture a guess...	#14	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 10:18:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'd venture a guess that the LDS Church's holdings in Salt Lake City are less than 1% of the city. But don't let that stop anyone from being paranoid. Cheers, Six
harmony	Re: I'd venture a guess...	#15	[-]
Posts: 3691 (05/04/04 10:23:09) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	1% of downtown? or 1% of the whole city? I don't think anyone is arguing for the whole city, but I've been to downtown SLC, and the church definitely owns more than 1% of it. Temple Square itself is more than 1% of downtown.
Unregistered(d)	Re: Get serious	#16	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 11:07:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Pent - *Quote:* Everyone in SLC gripes and whines about the Church. This is true. There is a sensation of such polarization in Salt Lake (or, possibly, in my head when I hang out there). I hate it. I don't even know why it is, but I hate it. I would like to figure out why it feels like a polarized environment to me, though, because it almost scares me in a strange, lame way. I don't place the blame on one side or the other, but. Do you think Salt Lake feels polarized also? I would like to know if it is just in my head. Some parts of Salt Lake are great for friendly neighborhoodiness, though! Maybe it depends. Or maybe I really just don't get it. *Quote:* The only thing keeping downtown alive at this moment is the Church. Let the Church leave and the place will be a morgue in less than a year. Aaaaaaah. Is that an exact quote from It's a Wonderful Life? It sounds like it. Aaaaaaah. *Quote:* Anybody familiar with the geography of downtown should realize that the mainstreet purchase simiply made sense. It consolidated Temple Square with the neighboring Joseph Smith Building creating a single, unified block that was no longer transversed by a city street. Fine. I did say I think this battle is a waste of time, right? I don't really like the non-transparent wealthy corporate aspect of the church, but I also don't see the point in challenging its right to do what it wants. This isn't a battle I want to pick. The comment about not liking the church "taking over Salt Lake" was possibly too extreme, and not my central point, though I do think if we begin to look at businesses under the church (those under Deseret Management Corp, etc), it does have a rather strong economic presence of power in SLC. I will refrain from accusing it of literally taking over, however, in the future. *Quote:* The only other recent "take over" of the Church (more commonly known as a "purchase" when anyone else but the Church does it) was the Crossroads Plaza. And the reason they did it was try and keep downtown viable and from turning into a slum. Maybe we could explore other ways of avoiding Salt Lake turning into a giant slum. There are so many possibilities! We can be creative. Abercrombie&Fitch is not the only solution to all of life's worries about slums (if it is even a genuine solution to begin with, which I question). EDIT: This is just a thought. I just think we can consider things more. I am not intending to imply that the church's motives in buying the Crossroads Plaza were evil. I am familiar with and understand the reasoning. "Life's splendor forever lies in wait about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, invisible, far off. It is there, though, not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If you summon it by the right word, by its right name, it will come." -Franz Kafka, Diary
Unregistered(d)	> 5% of downtown, >1% of the city proper.	#17	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 11:45:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I offered the perspective that the LDS Church most likely owns less than 1% of Salt Lake City. How much of "downtown" property in Salt Lake City does the LDS Church own? Depends on what you define as "downtown." I also have to wonder how that is a relevent measure. But to answer your question, here's an estimate. Mapquest places the center (downtown) of Salt Lake City at City Hall at Washington Square. This, by the way, is about the center of the business/commercial area of the City. Of the 100 blocks surrounding that point is about from North Temple down to 900 South, and 400 East to about 600 West. This includes the Delta Center, Temple Square, the Church office building, the Gallivan Center, the three major shopping downtown shopping centers, the Triad Center, all of Salt Lake's main office towers, the Federal courthouses, the Salt Palace, the Capital Theater, Abravinal Hall, the Art Center, the city library, and most of downtown Salt Lake City's high rise apartment buildings. (in other words, down town Salt Lake City.) As I quickly scanned the grid, I counted about 6-8 blocks owned by the LDS Church. (That includes about three blocks the Church leases to the city for $1 per year.) Most of these holdings are in the north part of the downtown area. So if you want to be precise, the LDS Church owns and controls only about 3-8% of downtown Salt Lake City. That's just a quick estimate...but the Church really does not "own" downtown Salt Lake. Outside of the downtown area, the Church's level of ownership falls off quickly. But don't let that stop anyone from being paranoid. Regards, six
harmony	Re: > 5% of downtown, >1% of the city proper.	#18	[-]
Posts: 3691 (05/04/04 11:58:39) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks for validating what I said, B6 (which is that the LDS church owns more than 1% of downtown SLC, but likely considerably less than 1% of the entirety of SLC). Are you including all of the church's holdings? (both the for-profit and the not-for-profit)?
Unregistered(d)	A	#19	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 12:19:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	----- Thanks for validating what I said, B6 (which is that the LDS church owns more than 1% of downtown SLC, but likely considerably less than 1% of the entirety of SLC). Are you including all of the church's holdings? (both the for-profit and the not-for-profit)? ----- Six: You seem to feel like you have scored some sort of debate point in the fact that the Church owns so little of downtown Salt Lake City. I think such a fact makes the paranoid declarations of the Church being in "take over mode" seem silly. My estimate included both profit and non-profit areas in a 10 x10 block area approximately surrounding the center of the city. As I said, that is roughly 6-8 blocks (whole or part) that I'm aware of. The church does not control all of that property. I'm also sure that there could be a few lots here and there that I'm not aware of. Regards, Six
Unregistered(d)	Re: Will this be a long thread?	#20	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/04 14:18:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Meanwhile, as Thomas Jefferson spins 10,000 RPM in his grave, those of us who would not like to turn back the clock on 1,000 years of personal rights progress are pleased with the court's decision. If Jefferson is spinning anywhere it is on a spit in Hell. *Quote:* Calculus Crusader would like to thank Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin, if I understand him correctly. No, you don't. The Basilica of Light

Yuku free message boards

Main Street Plaza Decision