Phoenix Temple passes another hurdle

[Saguaro]

The Phoenix temple rezoning proposal passed the Phoenix Planning Commission last night with a unanimous vote. The meeting was held in a 1300 seat auditorium and there were hundreds more who couldn't get it, most in favor of the temple. The City Council is set to vote on the porposal on December 2nd.

LDS Temple Battle Heads to City Council

[Saguaro]

Looks like the opposition isn't giving up easily.

N. Phoenix residents want new traffic study before Mormon temple vote

Loud protest against proposed Phoenix Mormon temple

Mormon temple opponents in Phoenix raise funds, hire attorney

Rumor here is that they are starting to gather 10,000 signatures needed to bypass the city council and put the vote on the general ballot.

[Moksha]

If this fails, perhaps the Church could use those thousands of Arizona desert acres they purchased last year for the Temple and a really big parking lot.

[Saguaro]

The Phoenix city council voted unanimously to approve the temple zoning request.

City council OKs addition to Phoenix LDS Temple

City Council votes on proposed Mormon temple in Phoenix

[Traveler]

In legal terms it is not really a zoning change but a zoning variance to allow the temple in Phoenix; because the temple is not a business but a religious place of worship – and the right for a religion to peaceable assembly, on its own property is granted under the federal constitution. Lawyers do not lose money with lost cases so it will not be difficult for opposition to employ legal counsel but the reality is there is no legal basis for the opposition. The elected city council has 100% unchangeable authority to grant a zoning variance. The truth is the church would have more legal bases to file than the opposition. The courts cannot overturn city council authority to grant the variance – but if discrimination based on religion played any part there would be basis for the LDS church. If this was a zoning change then the opposition could sue for actual loses.

If opposition is able to use any legal means to move forward with their agenda to delay or hinder the temple this would then clearly become what has become known as a “frivolous law suit”. It will likely be thrown out and therefore it is more of an economic harassment and schedule delay rather than a justifiable legal effort. Many, myself included, believe that tort reform is desperately needed in this country that should force perpetrators to cover all costs incurred by parties defending themselves – and that these costs must be paid before legal counsel are paid – which would mean that said legal counsel must pay to the courts any payment they received in advance until the damaged party is compensated. But since lawyers possess one of the countries most powerful lobby organizations, tort reform is extremely unlikely despite any campaign promises.

The Traveler

[boyando]

I wonder how many of those "neighbors" are going to complain when the value of there homes goes through the roof? Even when most home prices in the US are falling faster the Whoopie Goldberg jokes at a Republican convention.

[Jenamarie]

I wonder how many of those "neighbors" are going to complain when the value of there homes goes through the roof? Even when most home prices in the US are falling faster the Whoopie Goldberg jokes at a Republican convention.

You know, I've heard this said about property values around Temples going up before, but I've never seen any sort of source or anything provided for it. Is there any evidence anywhere that this is true?

(and this is an open question to anyone, not pointing directly at you boyando. )

[ADoyle90815]

You know, I've heard this said about property values around Temples going up before, but I've never seen any sort of source or anything provided for it. Is there any evidence anywhere that this is true?

(and this is an open question to anyone, not pointing directly at you boyando. )

I haven't seen any sources of increased property values, as the recession and foreclosure crisis has affected even neighborhoods close to LDS temples.

[RanMan]

In legal terms it is not really a zoning change but a zoning variance to allow the temple in Phoenix; because the temple is not a business but a religious place of worship – and the right for a religion to peaceable assembly, on its own property is granted under the federal constitution. Lawyers do not lose money with lost cases so it will not be difficult for opposition to employ legal counsel but the reality is there is no legal basis for the opposition. The elected city council has 100% unchangeable authority to grant a zoning variance. The truth is the church would have more legal bases to file than the opposition. The courts cannot overturn city council authority to grant the variance – but if discrimination based on religion played any part there would be basis for the LDS church. If this was a zoning change then the opposition could sue for actual loses.

If opposition is able to use any legal means to move forward with their agenda to delay or hinder the temple this would then clearly become what has become known as a “frivolous law suit”. It will likely be thrown out and therefore it is more of an economic harassment and schedule delay rather than a justifiable legal effort. Many, myself included, believe that tort reform is desperately needed in this country that should force perpetrators to cover all costs incurred by parties defending themselves – and that these costs must be paid before legal counsel are paid – which would mean that said legal counsel must pay to the courts any payment they received in advance until the damaged party is compensated. But since lawyers possess one of the countries most powerful lobby organizations, tort reform is extremely unlikely despite any campaign promises.

The Traveler

From what one of the opponents had to say at the meeting, it seems to be part of their goal to delay the temple. They specifically asked that the LDS be forced to go back and start the whole process all over.

I was surprised at the anger the opposition demonstrated as they spoke against the zoning change. The tone of voice and word choice demonstrated something more than an opposition to the matter of rezoning for a building. And many times what was presented turned out to be false.

It was an education experience for me, having never attended a function like this before.

:)

[Saguaro]

This was the third meeting I attended, I also went to the Deer Valley Village planning meeting and the Phoenix Planning Commission meeting. With each successive meeting the opposition seems to have grown more desperate. All of their arguments have been addressed and the only thing they are left with is their simple desire to keep the temple out, eventhough they have no legal leg to stand on.

I loved it when Mayor Gordon read a list of other church building projects throughout the city that all worked with the city to attain proper zoning and variances, it showed that the city is sincere in working with all faiths to allow them to build their places of worship. The Mayor also talked about how he has worked with the Church in the past on projects and has confidence that the temple will be a good neighbor and the Church will continue to work with the neighbors during and after construction.

The "what the heck?" moment for me at the meeting was when the lady representing Thunderbird Park (a large park just down the street from the temple site with lots of open space and hiking trails) said that the temple would be an eye sore to those at the park, that the environmental impact from the temple would cause the extinction of four animal species, and would cause breast cancer in the women who live in the neighborhood. I think she did more harm to the opposition's credibility than good.

[john doe]

I would ask for evidence on the breast cancer claim. How exactly does a temple differ from any other building in contributing to breast cancer? How about if they limited the damage to breast cancer only in men? Would she be okay with it then?

[john doe]

I wonder if the opposition would be so high if a tavern or gentlemen's club were proposed on the lot instead?

[RanMan]

The "what the heck?" moment for me at the meeting was when the lady representing Thunderbird Park (a large park just down the street from the temple site with lots of open space and hiking trails) said that the temple would be an eye sore to those at the park, that the environmental impact from the temple would cause the extinction of four animal species, and would cause breast cancer in the women who live in the neighborhood. I think she did more harm to the opposition's credibility than good.

I missed the last part of what she had to say because I was trying so hard not to laugh at it. I expected a protest that the lights would draw the unwanted attention of ETs as part of the list, but it didn't happen. Then again, she might be afraid it would scare the ETs away.

[RanMan]

I wonder if the opposition would be so high if a tavern or gentlemen's club were proposed on the lot instead?

There is already a water park in the area that causes more to the problems that they are protesting than the temple will. They claim they would protest even if it were a school or other similar structure, but I have to wonder about that. They made a lot of untruthful claims during the meeting that were rebutted by the LDS spokesman and even corrected by the council woman in charge of the zoning effort.

:)

[Elphaba]

Battle over Phoenix Mormon temple likely to continue

Opponents said city leaders ignored their concerns about the size of the temple and the amount of traffic it will bring to the neighborhood. After the council's vote, they organized a new political group called the Phoenix Property Rights Coalition to collect the necessary signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

. . .

Paul Gilbert, the church's zoning attorney, said he can meet with the coalition to discuss the traffic issues. He believes the group is upset about the congestion that traffic might bring to the area because there is a two-lane road that fronts the temple site.

Gilbert said he gave an updated traffic report, which counts out-of-state temple visitors, to the city. Transportation officials, who reviewed the church's traffic report, did not raise any concerns with cars and visitors congesting the area, he said.

"They have a right to seek a referendum," Gilbert said. "I think we can address those (traffic) concerns. "I don't like to negotiate in the press. I think there is some potential added traffic mitigation factors that I would like to discuss with them."

Gilbert also said he does not expect a large number of visitors because the Mesa Temple is far fancier and has a visitor center, he said.

Apparently the height of the temple is an issue, as it would be surrounded by mostly single-story dwellings.

I searched and searched for a reference as to how the temple would cause breast cancer, but came up with nothing. I can only imagine the eye-rolling that caused.

Elphaba

[Saguaro]

I searched and searched for a reference as to how the temple would cause breast cancer, but came up with nothing. I can only imagine the eye-rolling that caused.

I think it had something to do with the temple lights causing the cancer, which makes no sense because the church has agreed to turn the lights off at 10:00, so in the winter they would only be on for four or five hours and only one or two in the summer.

[Dravin]

Okay, fess up, who leaked information on the proposed uranium Moroni?

[RanMan]

Battle over Phoenix Mormon temple likely to continue

Apparently the height of the temple is an issue, as it would be surrounded by mostly single-story dwellings.

I searched and searched for a reference as to how the temple would cause breast cancer, but came up with nothing. I can only imagine the eye-rolling that caused.

Elphaba

The key to this is the portion of the temple between the 30 and the 40 foot mark. That is what is being considered for purposes of this rezoning - although the opponents claim the area between the 30 and the 48 foot mark is what should be considered. Everything above the 48 foot mark is considered a spire and is allowed by current city ordinances. In fact, if they declined the rezoning the Church could tack on an extra 10 or 18 feet to the height of the spire and it would be within the present zoning ordinances.

The opponents want everyone to focus on the height of the spire. What this illustration also does not do is demonstrate how the effect the height of the temple has on blocking the view when it is set back from the property edge. As in - you stand 1 foot away from a building it blocks your entire view. Stand 100 feet back and how much of the view is blocked.

The City Council states that with the extra 10 feet height, the temple has a smaller footprint than if they redesign it without the added height.

The Church (any chruch) has the right to build the temple there. They are just limited in the height of the building. If they stay at 30 feet, there is nothing in the zoning to prevent them from building the temple. In a way, the traffic issue and the lighting issue is really not relative to the zoning issue.

:)

Edited December 8, 2009 by RanMan

[Islander]

I wonder if the opposition would be so high if a tavern or gentlemen's club were proposed on the lot instead?

Of course not! I remember years ago when the San Diego Temple was announced that it took years for the church to defend the host of lawsuits filed to block the construction. There is no new or novel arguments against Temple building. For almost 100 years it has been the same unfounded, non-descript, vague and blurry arguments. It is opposition for opposition sake.

[Saguaro]

The efforts of the opposition to force a referendum are in full swing.

Foes seek referendum on approval of temple

Here's the opposition's website.

Little Deer Valley Homeowners

[bytebear]

I never understood the traffic issue. Every residential temple I have been to has very little traffic, if any. The local Starbucks attracts more cars than a temple. I actually wish the church would go for the big landmark temples. The DC Temple and San Diego temple come to mind (although the SD temple is actually quite small, but it looks big).

[Saguaro]

Looks like it's not over yet. The opposition submitted 16,000 signatures to the city in an effort to force a ballot referendum.

People continue opposition against construction of LDS temple

Residents in N Phoenix protest proposed Mormon temple...again

[Islander]

This is, by far, an anti-religious drive. The ONLY reason why the city has not argued against the proposed plan is because the Church has provided study after study, including statistics on traffic flow and urban development that the Temple does not cause congestion, accidents or otherwise a hazard to the community.

Everybody else is arguing a different point but they are all mute since ALL the relevant factors have been accounted for and addressed. The Church has been building Temples the world over for 100 years. There is no new argument.

[talisyn]

That picture kind've says it all, doesn't it? So the church leaves the building at 30 ft, steeple same height, plants trees, what other excuses will the opponents have?

[dazed-and-confused]

if HF wants it...it will get done.......

but since the MESA TEMPLE was my first....i have a tender spot in my heart for it,

even tho the water is probably the worst in the continental U.S.