New Plaza Signs

[Green Lantern]

Why not just say nothing about Big Love? I think making a statement draws more attention to it.

Oh I generally agree with that completely. But in this case the reactionary behavior had already begun and the press release was essentially a message to the members to not worry about it. From a purely PR perspective, I thought it was a rather brilliant release (if brilliance can be assigned to something as mundane as press releases.) Speaking only from my own anecdotal experience, I had already received half a dozen "WE NEED TO BOYCOTT THIS SHOW!!!" type emails before the release went out. Once respondents of those angry emails started referring the senders to the church's statement, those emails stopped.

I think if the same principles had been applied in the kiss-gate fiasco, this whole thing could have gone a different direction.

[SoonerCoug]

I actually thought it helped to stop the zealots from starting anti-HBO movements.

I'm not convinced the zealots actually read Church statements unless they are proclamations to the world. I think the statements generate CNN stories, and the zealots still send their mass emails about Big Love. (I have received several of these emails.) I think the zealots didn't start an anti-HBO movement because the zealots don't have HBO (out of sight, out of mind). If it were on TNT, then there would be more shouting.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not convinced the zealots actually read Church statements unless they are proclamations to the world. I think the statements generate CNN stories, and the zealots still send their mass emails about Big Love. (I have received several of these emails.) I think the zealots didn't start an anti-HBO movement because the zealots don't have HBO (out of sight, out of mind). If it were on TNT, then there would be more shouting.

I am with Green Lantern (see above). I think it made a difference. And you don't know your Mormon zealots very well if you think they don't care about HBO, even though they would never subscribe.

[SoonerCoug]

I am with Green Lantern (see above). I think it made a difference. And you don't know your Mormon zealots very well if you think they don't care about HBO, even though they would never subscribe.

I'm used to zealots talking about MTV and internet porn. Speaking of which, I went to all three hours of Church on Sunday for the first time in months, and both Prop 8 and porn were mentioned in a lesson about the Westward movement of the Saints. Prop 8 and porn are the new reasons why we are like the pioneers.

[Green Lantern]

Prop 8 and porn are the new reasons why we are like the pioneers.

That is awesome. That pioneer porn was some dirty, dirty stuff.

[Art Vandelay]

That is awesome. That pioneer porn was some dirty, dirty stuff.

Semi-serious question: How was privacy maintained while taking care of basic biological needs on the wide open plains of the Mid-West?

[wuapinmon]

Semi-serious question: How was privacy maintained while taking care of basic biological needs on the wide open plains of the Mid-West?

They had stillsuits.

[Green Lantern]

They had stillsuits.

And Brother Brigham was most definitely trained in the Weirding Way.

[Art Vandelay]

They had stillsuits.

So it wasn't privacy they needed to worry about while taking care of business, but huge man-eating worms coming out ground to devour them?

[SoonerCoug]

Here is a little background on the Plaza from the ACLU:

February 4, 1999: City report prepared for the first Planning Commission hearing stated: "A perpetual easement for 24-hour public access must be retained by the City from North Temple to South Temple within the existing street right-of-way. The easement should be designed and improved so as to maintain, encourage and invite public use."

March 4, 1999: Public easement requirement was very first condition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that City Council approve sale of Main Street. Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve sale of Main Street to LDS Church on condition that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.”

April 13, 1999: At City Council public hearing, no one from City attorneys draws attention to disappearance of the Planning Commission’s Condition 15 that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” During public comment a citizen-member of Planning Commission notes the petition before you is not the same petition that was approved by the Planning commission.” Council votes 5-2 to sell Main Street to LDS Church.

Other background info from the ACLU site:
However, the final documents included a public easement in which the city gave the LDS Church unbridled discretion to prohibit, among other things, “loitering, assembling, … demonstrating, picketing, distributing literature, … erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages, engaging in any … offensive, indecent, … lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct …” on Main Street. Importantly, these prohibitions applied only to members of the public. Under the conditions of the sale, the LDS Church could make exclusive use of the property for expressive purposes, “including, without limitation, the distribution of literature, the erection of signs and displays by [the LDS Church], and the projection of music and spoken messages by [the LDS Church]." Such one-sided restrictions violate both the free speech and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Also, by granting the LDS Church absolute control over the views expressed and the nature of the conduct permitted on the property, the city delegated some of its governmental powers to a church. After all, it would be church security and not the Salt Lake City Police Department who would determine when a visitor had violated the terms of the easement and impose punishment for that violation. Even if an easement were drafted with conditions consistent with a traditional public forum, the First Amendment’s demand for the strict separation of church and state does not allow the city to grant this traditional state function to a church.

[beefytee]

Here is a little background on the Plaza from the ACLU:

February 4, 1999: City report prepared for the first Planning Commission hearing stated: "A perpetual easement for 24-hour public access must be retained by the City from North Temple to South Temple within the existing street right-of-way. The easement should be designed and improved so as to maintain, encourage and invite public use."

March 4, 1999: Public easement requirement was very first condition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that City Council approve sale of Main Street. Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve sale of Main Street to LDS Church on condition that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.”

April 13, 1999: At City Council public hearing, no one from City attorneys draws attention to disappearance of the Planning Commission’s Condition 15 that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” During public comment a citizen-member of Planning Commission notes the petition before you is not the same petition that was approved by the Planning commission.” Council votes 5-2 to sell Main Street to LDS Church.

Other background info from the ACLU site:
However, the final documents included a public easement in which the city gave the LDS Church unbridled discretion to prohibit, among other things, “loitering, assembling, … demonstrating, picketing, distributing literature, … erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages, engaging in any … offensive, indecent, … lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct …” on Main Street. Importantly, these prohibitions applied only to members of the public. Under the conditions of the sale, the LDS Church could make exclusive use of the property for expressive purposes, “including, without limitation, the distribution of literature, the erection of signs and displays by [the LDS Church], and the projection of music and spoken messages by [the LDS Church]." Such one-sided restrictions violate both the free speech and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Also, by granting the LDS Church absolute control over the views expressed and the nature of the conduct permitted on the property, the city delegated some of its governmental powers to a church. After all, it would be church security and not the Salt Lake City Police Department who would determine when a visitor had violated the terms of the easement and impose punishment for that violation. Even if an easement were drafted with conditions consistent with a traditional public forum, the First Amendment’s demand for the strict separation of church and state does not allow the city to grant this traditional state function to a church.

That wasn't the end of it.

I believe because the ACLU won a court case, the city waived the easement in 2002 in exchange for some church land. So the church owns it outright with no restrictions.

[RobinFinderson]

I keep misreading the title of this thread as "New Pizza Signs," and it makes me happy. So the actual content of this thread has been a great disappointment. "New Pizza" in the plaza would be a great PR move. Everyone likes pizza.

[statman]

I think the church HQ should relocate to Draper and they let downtown do what it's desperately been trying to do for the last 20 to 30 years: go to hell.

lol

[statman]

Utah lawyers - correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Utah have laws about public use of private land - if a property owner allows for unrestricted use of a property for X number of years, the free use of that land reverts to the public domain.

This was explained to me as being the reason why there are gates on all the access points to roads on BYU campus - and that once a year, they shut all the gates and don't allow public access to the roads. If they didn't do this, the unrestricted access to roads that are owned by BYU would revert to the public domain.

So the sign is just a way for the church to show that it is still exercising its ownership rights over the property. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

Is that a valid explanation of private property rights in Utah?

[SloanHater]

That wasn't the end of it.

I believe because the ACLU won a court case, the city waived the easement in 2002 in exchange for some church land. So the church owns it outright with no restrictions.

Indeed. Who would have thought Rocky would be the savior of the Plaza?