Las Vegas Planning Commission meeting - talking about getting temple zoning approved

[NeuroTypical]

Not everybody gets excited about local government stuff, and fewer yet are willing to watch an hour of YouTube on it.   But for those who are - here's a link to the LVPC meeting where we sought zoning for our upcoming temple in LV.   Thing starts an hour earlier than this link, but here's where it starts getting interesting:

 

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not everybody gets excited about local government stuff, and fewer yet are willing to watch an hour of YouTube on it.   But for those who are - here's a link to the LVPC meeting where we sought zoning for our upcoming temple in LV.   Thing starts an hour earlier than this link, but here's where it starts getting interesting:

I'm kinda split on this.

She does make very good legal arguments.  And if that was the only motivation, then I'd say she's right.  And we ought to look elsewhere.

On the other hand, she's also making a lot of unreasonable arguments as well.  And this reveals that the motive behind it is clearly prejudicial.  If she was sincere, she would have stopped with just the reasonable legal arguments.

Because she doesn't, I don't really want to listen to her.

Edited May 17, 2024 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:47 AM, Carborendum said:

I'm kinda split on this.

She does make very good legal arguments.  And if that was the only motivation, then I'd say she's right.  And we ought to look elsewhere.

On the other hand, she's also making a lot of unreasonable arguments as well.  And this reveals that the motive behind it is clearly prejudicial.  If she was sincere, she would have stopped with just the reasonable legal arguments.

Because she doesn't, I don't really want to listen to her.

Anyone wanna summarize the arguments, for those of us without the patience to watch the video?  🙂

[mikbone]

I watched it for a few minutes.

My prediction?

I know someone who is going to be very disappointed.

[JohnsonJones]

Quick listen on my part.  Skipped through it somewhat.

I.  Asks all in favor who support the temple to stand up.  2/3s of those attending stand up.  all on the chair's left.  The 1/3 on the chair's right do not stand up.

II.  Gives Valerie 27 minutes to speak

      A.  Normal Laws do not allow churches in U or R districts.

              1.  Does not have compatibility with the surrounding areas.

               2.  Are restricted to a 19 ft ceiling height, but temple will have a 35 foot ceiling height.

      B.    The neighborhood is zoned as residential zoning.  The Temple is a commercial zoned building.

               1.  In order to do so they had to change the laws and make a loophole.

                     a.  This loophole is not done for any other religion,

                     b.  There is separation between the government and religion

                     c.  Showing favoritism to a specific religion is forbidden by the constitution and other laws.

                     d.  They did this by spot zoning which is illegal in some states (but I note, obviously not nevada).

             2.  This was done by Spot Zoning and as such indicates corruption and favortism.

                    a.  Once again, showing favoritism to a specific religion is not allowed by the law

             3.  This is putting a commercial zoning in the middle of a residential neighborhood and detracts from it being a residential neighborhood.

                         1.  It will be a substantial burden on the neighborhood due to several factors (lighting, obstructing view, etc).

                         2.  Worship for the church could be anywhere else, even a normal commercial area rather than a residential.

         C.  Goes on long winded rant restating the above items over again.

III.  Calls in others who are for the temple, they also have equal time.

         A.  First up is the Stake president of the area around where the temple will be built.

               1.  He lives 1700 feet from the spot.

               2.  He is in favor of the Temple

               3.  His membership in the stake also live in the area around the temple (implies they are the majority).

               4.  The members want the temple.

 

        B.  Others come up and basically reflect what the Stake President says (implying that most of those in that neighborhood actually want the temple there).

        C.  Others come up for and against.  Most of those against are saying it will be an eyesore, light pollution, etc.

 

I have summarized the arguments as I spottily heard them and listed them above.

I think the lady who is opposed to it may actually have a case...IF SHE HAS THE MONEY TO PAY FOR A LONG EXTENDED LEGAL BATTLE WITH THE CHURCH (which I find doubtful).  I think she has valid points of favoritism of the government to a specific religion as well as spot zoning (due to said favoritism and an inclination of investigation to see if corruption was also involved because of that).

I don't think most of the other items they complain about will have any weight (burden to the neighborhood, etc).

That said, I expect she doesn't have the money to spend on it, and that since the majority of the neighborhood is in favor of the temple being built, it will be built.

PS: Motion was approved.  Goes to City Council meeting on July 17th.

Edited May 20, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Anyone wanna summarize the arguments, for those of us without the patience to watch the video?  🙂

I think JJ did a good job of summarizing.  There is a concern about favoritism which (depending on legal arguments) could be real or imaginary.  And there are specific zoning rules to consider. But that may be more procedural, more than legal.

The things that I found to be foolish arguments were the subjective arguments: eyesore, doesn't fit into the community (especially when the neighboring residents are largely LDS) decrease the "character" of the neighborhood... Decrease land value???  Really?

I'm reminded of the Denver temple (actually in Littleton, CO).  It sits nested in a subdivision which is surrounded by light commercial zoning.  It looks like it fits perfectly.

She also made an argument about the heat island effect from the asphalt parking lot.  I'd think that the Church would be perfectly happy with a concrete parking lot, especially in such a sunny/hot climate as LV.  And although she said that concrete also contributes to heat island, it really doesn't -- at least, not nearly as much as a house or commercial building with composition (asphalt) shingles. And if we're comparing to native sand (Las Vegas is not known for its abundant greenscapes) it is about the same as concrete.

And if she's thinking it will otherwise remain undeveloped, then she's asking for HUGE HOA fees to upkeep that greenspace -- and I'd guess that they already have several parks if it is a large subdivision.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

By the way folks, I started the video at the end of the LDS presentation.  In the 30 min before y'all started watching, she made the legal, moral, and common-sense cases for why the temple should be allowed, and also pre-addressed many of the opposing points.  If anyone is actually thinking the opposing lady's presentation is going without substantive consideration or refutation, just start the video earlier.

This is the first time I've sat through a long video like this, but it's my understanding that no matter where we try to put a temple, people will show up to oppose and present arguments.  For that matter, whenever any human tries to do anything in any neighborhood or town or city, there will be opposition.