- law dawg
- 29 Comments
- 2838 Views
- Nevada Supreme Court orders Jon Gruden case to go to arbitration. [ESPN; RJ]
- DMV says $300M increase for computer upgrade project is a worst case scenario. [TNI]
- Planning commissioners approved LDS temple plan. [RJ; KTNV]
- Almost 120 years ago, settlers bough modern Las Vegas at a land auction. [RJ]
- Judge Mary Kay Holthus asks prosecutors to explain Nevada fake electors case, venue. [8NewsNow]
I was at the Planning Commission meeting last night. I wasn’t surprised the vote was unanimous. I was surprised, however, at how impressive the Church’s overall presentation was. I was even more blown away by how terrible and ineffective the opposition was.
Bud Stoddard did an amazing job of organizing the Mormons within 1,000 feet of the temple site to be the ones to speak in the public comment section. In contrast, the opposition came off like the crazy cat lady on the Simpsons. Their main spokesperson, who spoke for almost a half an hour, was weaving an incoherent tapestry of conspiracies, irrelevant legal citations and insults to the planning commission. I am still blown away by how bonkers it was. The opposition continually contradicted itself, sometimes saying they only wanted traffic and lighting addressed, other times demanding that the temple not be built at all.
Welcome to public meetings.
This is because there wasn’t any real reason to oppose the project. It’s outside the rural preservation zone, complies with zoning regs, and federal law basically requires it to be built. The opposition’s points mostly just showed they had no idea what a mormon temple was and how it operates. Just pure NIMBYism.
Pure NIMBYism is the basis for 90% of public comments at open meetings.
To invoke LeVar Burton: “But you don’t have to take MY word for it: watch it yourself!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYdqR0ApsJA ; timestamp 3:23:00.
I am curious. Was there any expert ty provided (by say, e.g., an appraiser) as to the impact on the property values of the surrounding sites? Also, for those of you who specialize in this area, are there colorable grounds for a meritorious lawsuit?
I am LDS but I roll my eyes at this argument. I’ve seen and heard anecdotes, and it’s probably true. But I’ve never seen any meta analysis or study, and I don’t think one exists. If we are going to argue religious freedom and that we comply with zoning laws (we do), then whether or not property appreciates is irrelevant. Further, it’s reasonable for an opponent to say, “I want open space, not appreciation.”
This is the worst argument on the proponent side and I kind of wish it would be abandoned.
Irrelevant yes, but based in historical fact, also yes.
Residential properties increase in value in the shadow of LDS temples and will be especially true here, as the properties are large lot, high Sq. ft. homes. Happens every time. Zero reason to think that this will be the Lone exception. Pun Intended.
I think most large lot, high Sq. ft. homes increase in value over time.
If the property values don’t go up, does the temple come down?
Profits over people.
I own an investment property on Palora Avenue, “in the shadow of [an] LDS temple.” The church is well maintained, whatever rites take place are non-intrusive, there is ample parking so that the neighborhood is not overflowing with cars. Wonderful neighbors, and the church has not lowered my property values at all.
I think we’re going to need some evidence, and not just post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The temples are often built in the nicer parts of town. I can think of one exception, Winter Quarters, which President Hinckley said he didn’t want to call it shabby, but it was shabby. (That’s if memory serves. He may have been referring to the other parts of Omaha). So you have a pretty, quiet building in an area where property values are already above the median. If the value of nearby houses and lots go up, is that from the temple, or is that from the passage of time? You may have some demand from folks wanting to live near it for ease of access, but I think that effect is very much smaller than we Mormons like to think it is.
The Ogden Temple is/was in a bad neighborhood, but that’s changed over time.
That part of Omaha isn’t upscale, but it’s not awful.
But any exceptions we point out only prove the rule. Look no further than neighboring San Bernardino County, where the Church put a temple in Redlands to avoid placing one in San Berna-Ghetto.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
I’m gonna need President Bartlet to explain that to me
I am not LDS but did spend substantial time in Omaha. The LDS Temple in Omaha is built on the historical site which happens to be in the Florence neighborhood in North Omaha. My grandparents lived in Florence which 50 years ago was home to an aging and changing demographic. They could not and would not live in that neighborhood today. Today it is unequivocally a rough part of Omaha.
Can you provide a more local comparison? Omaha is a city of 500k in Nebraska. Are we talking mean streets of Henderson-rough, dark alleys of Northtown rough, or UNLV general vicinity rough? Or is it it more like the hellhole that is Reno?
Property values are tied to perceived and relative “roughness” anyway.
Florence is now West Las Vegas rough. I loved my stay in Omaha. Honestly one of the best cities in the country for liveability and would move back there in a heartbeat. Very low murder rate for everyone except Black males. However there was a statistic a few years back that Omaha had the highest murder rate per capita for black males of anywhere in the nation.
Real question. Since when is 1/2 acre “Rural”?
It’s not rural, I call BS on that one. That’s why I never gave the opposition much credence on this issue. What they actually have is a mix of mcmansions and shitty run down houses on huge lots with plenty of room for every car they have bought since 1985. On either side of the temple plot is land owned by the school district. Once schools are built there, it will be far worse than anything the temple does in terms of traffic. On the south side of the CCSD lot is straight tract housing suburbia, probably at least 8 houses per acre. They can pretend that its rural all they want, but it is BS. Has been for a long time.
Weren’t applications due yesterday for Department 14? No news on who applied?
I heard there was only one applicant.
The Mormons had so many people at the planning meeting bc they all used their children as fillers. They’re also signing petitions for minors.
This isn’t about property values, it’s about a quiet dim neighborhood where people ride horses on the side of the streets.
lol! For those who actually live in that area, “horses on the side of the streets” is something you see maybe 3x per year, if that.
We see horses regularly. They’re always at the parks. That park is the only covered outdoor run for horses.
It doesn’t surprise me you don’t notice the natural happenings of the neighborhood you want to destroy.
I was there. False. All members of the opposition present were seated IN FULL before any Mormons were seated. This was at the request of the Church. The Church ended its presentation early so that the opposition would have all the time they wanted to speak. Every single member of the opposition that wanted to speak did.
There were a couple of thousand Mormons on the plaza who did not come inside because the Church wanted to be sure the opposition was heard.
If it’s about horses, why was the most sacred building in Mormonism compared to a penis by a member of the opposition during the comment period? If it’s just about horses, why does the opposition change.org petition contain religious slurs from signatories? And why do the opposition leaders refuse to remove those slurs?
Stop pretending this is about horses. What a joke.
Because people are complete taken aback by the fact that the Mormons just want to destroy this small residential neighborhood with this temple. And YES, your temples are PHALLIC. Take it up with your leaders, they design and build them.
Despite opposition from the community you want to FORCE your mark.
I will tell you what tho, it isn’t about religion. I have spent my entire life around Mormons. I ate dinner with missionaries, swam at the bishop’s house — babysat his children. I went to girls’ camp and watched my neighbors get baptized. This isn’t about religion. It’s about the lack of self awareness y’all thrive on. No one but Mormons want the skyline raped by your temple. No one.
This might be the stupidest, unfactual and most irrational, emotionally based answer there is.
Take your exmo nonsense back to the reddit pages. This is not about the skyline and you know it.
Phallic! 🤣🤣