Church to build 32-story apartment building in Philadelphia?

[Smeagums]

You're a victim of disproportionate media attention.

"It seems like a whole lot more $$ is going into non-huminatarian stuff" just about sums it up. Because, nobody ever mentions the $$ that the Church spends on their humanitarian efforts. One high-rise in Philadelphia and one mall in Salt-lake sound like super huge $$. But the little $ here and there that the Church spends on humanitarian aid goes un-noticed even when put together it amounts to a WHOLE LOT MORE $. Because, there's no press coverage for it.

Who reported the amount of money the church spent in Typhoon Yolanda? Nobody. Yet it amounts to millions of $. So much so that there was a big stir in Philippine politics on who in the government worked with the Church because other politicians were getting leary of all the $$ going through corrupt government hands. That typhoon was over 6 months ago and until today, Church funds are still pouring through the region. Sure, some of it went to rebuilding old Catholic Churches... but still...

Did anybody report how much $$ that all amounted to? NOBODY. Did anybody care to look it up? Nope. It's easier to report a ginormous high-rise in Philadelphia.

http://ldscharities.org/bc/ldscharities/content/english/articles/why-we-help/pdf/2011%20Humanitarian%20Summary.pdf

Over a 26 year period the Church spent 1.4 billion in assistance from 1985 to 2011.

The Church spent at least 1.5 billion on City Creek from roughly 2003 to 2012.

From Wiki:

The City Creek Center is part of an estimated $5 billion sustainable design project to revitalize downtown Salt Lake City. The City Creek Center project itself has been estimated to cost around $1.5 billion.

[Guest]

http://ldscharities.org/bc/ldscharities/content/english/articles/why-we-help/pdf/2011%20Humanitarian%20Summary.pdf

Over a 26 year period the Church spent 1.4 billion in assistance from 1985 to 2011.

The Church spent at least 1.5 billion on City Creek from roughly 2003 to 2012.

From Wiki:

This is the problem with google/wikipedia. People just parrot facts and figures from it without analyzing what they're parroting.

$1.4 billion of assistance is a GIVE AWAY. Once spent, it is gone.

$1.5 billion of investment gains money back. So that, you spend $1.5 billion on an investment so you can spend $1.4 billion to GIVE AWAY.

That's a 50% return. Imagine putting your $100 in a savings account and getting $150 from it on the next statement - so you put $100 back in the savings account and give $50 away to some hobo down the street. If you give $100 to the hobo instead of putting it in the savings account, you'll have to figure out where you're going to find another $100 for the next hobo you see.

Got it?

[Guest]

Let us go back to Quin's original question.

He asked for examples of similar high end residential building projects during the last 100 years.

The land ownership of the Catholic church in the Philippines seems rather irrelevant to the actual question asked, don't you think? BTW, the land ownership doesn't seem to be as high as you implied. It seems like different Catholic orders owned approximate 10% of the existing agricultural lands in Philippines at the beginning of the American Colonial rule. This majority of these landholding was purchased by the U.S. Civil Administration in 1904 as a part of a land reform

Land reform in the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church & State in the Philippines during the Spanish Colonial Period | A Sourcebook

I'm sure that the Catholic church as a land owner made money from its tenants. It is, however, not applicable to the question at hand. Quin asked specifically for examples of similar high end residential building project during the last 100 years. Can you agree on that?

Another "research by google" without analysis.

The Philippines is an archipelago composed of over 7,000 islands. And that's just during low tide. In 1902, much of the Philippines is not buildable with the technology available in those days. They may be agricultural, or they may be completely useless. Therefore, over 90% of all land during that time is owned by the government. Public property. All the way up to 1902, the Catholic Church is the State Religion. Therefore, any land the Spanish Crown owns is subject to Catholic tithes.

Of the 10% of Private land in 1902 - almost half of it is owned by the Roman Catholic Church. In 1902, the Americans took down the Roman Catholic as the State Religion. Therefore, the Catholic Church sold those land in pieces - some to American business ventures, some to Catholic business ventures.

Now, when you're talking LDS - it is clear that an LDS business venture is LDS because they're small enough to track. In Catholic, not so. The Roman Catholic Church is ginormous with a jillion business ventures all over the place. The Roman Catholic Church business arm is not clearly tied to the Church. Only the schools and charities are because they claim tax exemption. But in the Philippines, it is clearer. Because, there's a competitive edge to being tied to the Catholic Church as 80% of the population is Catholic. So, you'll find entire subdivisions named St. something or other that are Catholic ventures.

Now, you're asking - But it's not a high-rise. Well, high-rise condos are an American thing. So sure, if you're only going to talk about American society, then you may not have high-rise condos clearly owned by Church venture capitalists. Unless you work for the IRS, you will have a harder time finding any non-tax-exempt business arm clearly tied to the Catholic Church.

But what's the difference between a high-rise condo in Philly and a housing subdivision in the Philippines?

But one thing is certain - the Vatican does not have the resources that it has because members pay tithes. If you notice, most Catholics are not 10 percent tithe payers... they're satisfied just dropping 10 bucks in the church basket at mass every week.

[Lakumi]

I never heard of a 10% tithe thing until rather recently, my Grandparents who are quite Catholic just drop a few dollars in the plate and consider 10% a crazy concept when they were asked.

I was never told about that in school (and I went to Catholic School from grade 3-7)

Weird...

[Vort]

I never heard of a 10% tithe thing until rather recently, my Grandparents who are quite Catholic just drop a few dollars in the plate and consider 10% a crazy concept when they were asked.

I was never told about that in school (and I went to Catholic School from grade 3-7)

Weird...

The word "tithing" means "a tenth".

[Guest]

The word "tithing" means "a tenth".

Yes, but in Catholic teaching, the tithe is an Old Testament Law. Jesus Christ demanded of everyone to give up everything to follow Him. So that is what is taught... the law of consecration, basically. So, if you're not living the law of consecration - of voluntarily giving everything you can, then 10% is a lower law which has the same magnitude as 10 bucks at the plate every week... because, it is then assumed that 10 bucks is all you can give.

[Lakumi]

The word "tithing" means "a tenth".

I never knew that either

[Vort]

Yes, but in Catholic teaching, the tithe is an Old Testament Law. Jesus Christ demanded of everyone to give up everything to follow Him. So that is what is taught... the law of consecration, basically. So, if you're not living the law of consecration - of voluntarily giving everything you can, then 10% is a lower law which has the same magnitude as 10 bucks at the plate every week... because, it is then assumed that 10 bucks is all you can give.

This is all well and good, but it does not change the fact that the idea of a tenth is implicit in the word "tithing".

[Wingnut]

Additionally -

1) If the new store is high end and the original store is low end it is unlikely to interfere with the market covered by the local Mom and Pop's Grocery or what have you. That is to say, a $250 a haircut boutique does not steal Supercuts' customers, the overlap on the market is negligible.

2) If the store's market is the same, or has sufficient overlap, as the local Mom and Pop store's and they out-compete them then the new store is providing better value than the local Mom and Pop as determined by the market. A new store doesn't just magically gain market share, it does so by convincing customers it is the better alternative (either objectively or as a value judgement of the market).

If the locals determine that the new place is the superior value who am I to insist they are wrong simply because it is newer, or bigger, than the Mom and Pop?

My concern with this objection isn't the clientele, but the overhead. If the district is revitalized to the point that Mom and Pop shops can no longer afford to run their business because the monthly rent in their lease agreement skyrockets because of property values, that's quite unfortunate.

I own a small business myself, and am actually in the process of finding a balance between Supercuts and a high-end boutique. I don't want to be a boutique, but I don't want to be cheap either. So I understand this conundrum, and my concern with it is Mom and Pop's behind-the-scenes.

[Dravin]

Sometimes new businesses come and under cut the mom & pop's prices to drive them out of business. Once the mom & pop is gone they raise their prices, but because the mom and pop is gone, the consumers have no choice about where to shop and the person that used to be a business owner is reduced to being a Wal-Mart greeter.

We have many mid-western towns that are essentially ghost towns with a Wal-mart on the outskirts because of this. We lose the local flavor and uniqueness of communities.

That's the choice the communities made with their wallet. They decided the value that Wal-Mart provided was greater than the value the local businesses provided (which includes things like local flavor). The presence of Wal-Mart doesn't drive Mom and Pops out of business, the market deciding that Wal-Mart provided the greater value does.

My concern with this objection isn't the clientele, but the overhead. If the district is revitalized to the point that Mom and Pop shops can no longer afford to run their business because the monthly rent in their lease agreement skyrockets because of property values, that's quite unfortunate.

It's not unfortunate for the owner of the building who has found a new equilibrium for what the market will bear with regards to rent. It's also no unfortunate for the municipality collecting property tax with now has greater tax revenue. It's also not unfortunate for a new business that decides it can capitalize on the changes in the area to open up shop (either to start, to expand, or to move). It does suck for the owner who has to close up shop, but it's not obvious to me why they should be favored over the property owner, the municipality, and the new business owner.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Dravin

[carlimac]

I never heard of a 10% tithe thing until rather recently, my Grandparents who are quite Catholic just drop a few dollars in the plate and consider 10% a crazy concept when they were asked.

I was never told about that in school (and I went to Catholic School from grade 3-7)

Weird...

A friend of mine who is very active Catholic said they are encouraged to give 1% to the diocese, 4% to the parish they belong to and 5% to charities of their choice.

[Guest]

A friend of mine who is very active Catholic said they are encouraged to give 1% to the diocese, 4% to the parish they belong to and 5% to charities of their choice.

Yes, but that's not what is taught in catechism. That's just a suggestion of how to manage your donations.

[RMGuy]

Who reported the amount of money the church spent in Typhoon Yolanda? Nobody. Yet it amounts to millions of $.

Source please?

[Lakumi]

A friend of mine who is very active Catholic said they are encouraged to give 1% to the diocese, 4% to the parish they belong to and 5% to charities of their choice.

I assume things have changed, or they don't tell that to school children in my day, who knows

[carlimac]

Yes, but that's not what is taught in catechism. That's just a suggestion of how to manage your donations.

My point was that it all adds up to 10%. She's in North Dakota. If she can know this there (not exactly Rome) it must not be a really obscure teaching.

Actually I should be directing my comments to Lakumi.

[RMGuy]

I don't understand the implication behind some of these questions. Is it that churches are allowed to invest their money unless--heaven forfend!--those investments tend to be successful?

I think it is more a question of "Is this how you really believe Jesus would spend the money?"

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that statement, but I do understand how individuals can ask that question after reading the scriptures. I also understand how certain members of this forum can answer it by saying that as long as you support the leaders of the church that they are doing as the Lord would have them do, and I understand that other members of the forum and church disagree.

-RM

[Lakumi]

My point was that it all adds up to 10%. She's in North Dakota. If she can know this there (not exactly Rome) it must not be a really obscure teaching.

Actually I should be directing my comments to Lakumi.

As I said, I have no idea why I never knew that, I mean I seldom went to church and I get the sense our Catholic schools aren't as... I donno devout as some would say they should be...

Life went how it went

[NeuroTypical]

I always like watching people fight over how churches or religious figures use their power/influence/money.

I'm reminded of Mother Theresa. When she died, she left behind two pairs of shoes, a bucket, a pair of glasses, and a simple covering. According to Wikipedia, this lady at the time of her death, ran an organization of "over 4,000 sisters, and an associated brotherhood of 300 members, operating 610 missions in 123 countries." Her organization ran hospices and homes for the dying, soup kitchens, dispensaries and mobile clinics, children's and family counseling programs, orphanages, and schools.

And yet she also had critics and naysayers at least as passionate and concluded in their opinions as the folks in this thread. They were ticked off at how she used her status as recipient of Nobel Peace Prize. They were mad about the advice she gave governments of the nations and the UN. They figured Jesus would have done it differently, and accused her of not being Christlike and following Jesus.

Folks will always be mad about how other people and organizations use the resources at their disposal. It's human nature.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[RMGuy]

I always like watching people fight over how churches or religious figures use their power/influence/money.

I'm reminded of Mother Theresa. When she died, she left behind two pairs of shoes, a bucket, a pair of glasses, and a simple covering. According to Wikipedia, this lady at the time of her death, ran an organization of "over 4,000 sisters, and an associated brotherhood of 300 members, operating 610 missions in 123 countries." Her organization ran hospices and homes for the dying, soup kitchens, dispensaries and mobile clinics, children's and family counseling programs, orphanages, and schools.

And yet she also had critics and naysayers at least as passionate and concluded in their opinions as the folks in this thread. They were ticked off at how she used her status as recipient of Nobel Peace Prize. They were mad about the advice she gave governments of the nations and the UN. They figured Jesus would have done it differently, and accused her of not being Christlike and following Jesus.

Folks will always be mad about how other people and organizations use the resources at their disposal. It's human nature.

Excellent point. Just think what they would have said about her if she owned a cattle ranch or too, a hunting resort, a couple of universities, a high end mall, a retail property in a major east coast city, and was driven around in an armored Audi A8. :)

[NeuroTypical]

You're missing my point, RMGuy.

[Just_A_Guy]

Sometimes new businesses come and under cut the mom & pop's prices to drive them out of business. Once the mom & pop is gone they raise their prices, but because the mom and pop is gone, the consumers have no choice about where to shop and the person that used to be a business owner is reduced to being a Wal-Mart greeter.

Just a note that this kind of thing (lowering your prices until you've driven your competition out of business, then jacking them up) is a violation of federal antitrust law. If that's what's happened in your community, you should contact your local US Attorney's office.

Over a 26 year period the Church spent 1.4 billion in assistance from 1985 to 2011.

The Church spent at least 1.5 billion on City Creek from roughly 2003 to 2012.

Long-term investment is often going to outweigh philanthropy, both by entities and individuals. The precise ratios are going to depend upon the individual/institutions resources, liabilities, and long-term financial goals.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Jenamarie. I hope you are having a good day! :)

*sigh* This makes me so uncomfortable. WHY is so much money being put into building projects? Why not build a hospital, or some homeless shelters? Yes, I KNOW the church also does humanitarian stuff too, but it seems like a WHOLE lot more $$ is going into NON-humanitarian stuff, and I don't care if it's my tithing money or not, I'd much rather see more $$ going into helping the poor and needy, and the poor and needy don't need shiny new high-rises.

Ever since I walked through the new mall in Salt Lake with "Your Sex Takes Me to Paradise" blaring over the sound system, the business side of the church has made me feel increasingly uncomfortable.

Consider this: Someone is going to have to build these structures. I can't think of many things that helps to put an end to poverty more than having a steady job that provides a good income.

-Finrock

Edited February 22, 2014 by Finrock
added: ...to put an end to....

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it is more a question of "Is this how you really believe Jesus would spend the money?"

. . . .

Just think what they would have said about her if she owned a cattle ranch or too, a hunting resort, a couple of universities, a high end mall, a retail property in a major east coast city, and was driven around in an armored Audi A8.

So, the core issues here are whether Jesus (or a church truly under His direction) would a) invest money now, the better to do even more good later; b) whether He would run a non-profit-returning school; and/or c) invest insecurity for leaders of said Church whose lives have been repeatedly threatened.

Correct?

[Irishcolleen]

Just a note that this kind of thing (lowering your prices until you've driven your competition out of business, then jacking them up) is a violation of federal antitrust law. If that's what's happened in your community, you should contact your local US Attorney's office.

I hate to say it, but your answer is rather naive and idealistic. It doesn't work that way in the real world- theoretically in academic conversations it's a nice idea. But, money buys influence. Small businesses don't have the money to sustain themselves during a protracted legal battle and government officials where the money goes. If you know Chicago, you know this. You can't fight the machine.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you're in Chicago, then all bets are off--I remember a law professor who had practiced there explaining to us that when deciding whether to take a case to trial, one of the things they had to seriously consider back there was whether the judge was known to be on somebody's payroll.

That said--where the system is working, it shouldn't be an issue of a small business suing Wal-mart. It's a matter of reporting a criminal offense--same as reporting a stolen car or a convenience store holdup.