Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[NorthwestUteFan]

The people who are willing to pay incredibly high prices to have a condo that overlooks the temple are members of the Church. Moreover, they are members of the Church who have a high level of devotion, a high level of affluence, and no aversion to living downtown. I believe the Church was willing to fund the urban renewel at the CCC because it would allow them to move those people into the neighborhood who could turn the neighborhood around.

Speaking of condos, are they going to follow the standard set by the city for Gateway regarding the minimum number of these condos will be set aside as 'low income' housing units? I didn't think so.

Also if Bene Life is moving to CCC, what will they do with the old building over at TriAd?

It WILL be nice to have a Harmon's GC downtown...

[Sullyute]

I see a flaw here.

Only one? I'll take it!

[Portland Ute]

Maybe the church needs to take a look at its own history and see how well this same rhetoric worked for (or against) them in Missouri.

I see a flaw here.

[Portland Ute]

I don't know, either, which is why I am asking.

I think this is why there have been no express rationalizations to support this expensive project. The Church would have a tough time justifying any of them, so it simply stays quiet (which is its right, of course) and spends its money as it sees fit.

The crime thing is bogus, though. Sounds like something right out of the script from those Apex security sales people in everyone's ward.

Look, I am uncomfortable with what is going on at the City Creek Center. It doesn't sit well with me.

HOWEVER, downtown SLC to the south of temple square was dying. Main Street was becoming an area of blight with various abandoned buildings, little foot traffic. I say it was becoming that way.

State Street has always had it's fame. It's not many blocks south of TS that you've got an adult bookstore.

Gateway dealt a pretty big blow to the city center. Nobody was going t there anymore except for work. ZCMI center was a ghost town and Crossroads was dying. Nordstrom was leaving. The place was dying.

Granted, I think the church was, in part to blame. Blocking Main Street was and will continue to be a completely STUPID idea as far as traffic flow downtown. It's idiotic. It's made it a royal pain in the ass to get downtown from the north. It used to be a quick drive up Victory Road and then down main with a turn into Crossroads or into ZCMI center.

Following the barricade of Main Street, you had to take a circuitous route to get to Main Street and the malls. It royally F-ed up traffic downtown.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. There was a lot of vacancy on Main Street and State, very little ped traffic, few retail outlets, no restaurants to speak of and very little residence. There was a problem and a bigger problem was brewing.

I guess, the bigger questions is this: Does downtown SLC really have the need for two huge retail spaces with CCC and Gateway? I still think CCC is going to have issues. Getting there is going to be a PITA compared to getting to Gateway.

[Sullyute]

I don't think it is about crime or poverty. I think the Church keenly feels the exodus of Mormons from downtown SLC. The number of LDS is in dramatic decline and the number of active LDS is in even more dramatic decline. The saints are hemorraging out of the Avenues and Marmalade and flowing to other locales.

Since 2001 I have watched 3 vibrant stakes become two stakes and now one of those stakes is down to 5 units. In that time period I have seen members of the quorum of the 12 (two different members) and many members of the 70 come to stake and ward conferences and talk about how we need to "take back downtown SLC." They aren't talking about taking it from the poor and needy, they are talking about taking it from the non-Mormons.

The people who are willing to pay incredibly high prices to have a condo that overlooks the temple are members of the Church. Moreover, they are members of the Church who have a high level of devotion, a high level of affluence, and no aversion to living downtown. I believe the Church was willing to fund the urban renewel at the CCC because it would allow them to move those people into the neighborhood who could turn the neighborhood around.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Maybe the church needs to take a look at its own history and see how well this same rhetoric worked for (or against) them in Missouri.

[Portland Ute]

I think they're worried about Temple Square becoming a fortress in the midst of Sodom and Gomorrah. You get bars and strip clubs on South Temple and are members going to want to drive in from the suburbs? What will visitors think? Things like Main Street Plaza, City Creek, moving BYU SL downtown are attempts to create sort of a buffer between TS and the rest of the city, to retain some of the mormon-ness around TS. Call it image, PR, missionary work, but that's the thinking as far as I'm concerned.

It's the approach that was/is being used in Ogden around the Ogden temple grounds.

[KillerDog]

I don't think it is about crime or poverty. I think the Church keenly feels the exodus of Mormons from downtown SLC. The number of LDS is in dramatic decline and the number of active LDS is in even more dramatic decline. The saints are hemorraging out of the Avenues and Marmalade and flowing to other locales.

Since 2001 I have watched 3 vibrant stakes become two stakes and now one of those stakes is down to 5 units. In that time period I have seen members of the quorum of the 12 (two different members) and many members of the 70 come to stake and ward conferences and talk about how we need to "take back downtown SLC." They aren't talking about taking it from the poor and needy, they are talking about taking it from the non-Mormons.

The people who are willing to pay incredibly high prices to have a condo that overlooks the temple are members of the Church. Moreover, they are members of the Church who have a high level of devotion, a high level of affluence, and no aversion to living downtown. I believe the Church was willing to fund the urban renewel at the CCC because it would allow them to move those people into the neighborhood who could turn the neighborhood around.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

BTW, on the subject of Deseret Managemetn Corp., I was under the impression that donations (not necessarily tithing) secured the Church's stake in the organizations and/or funded the startup or insured the survival of the organizations. The Church kept them as "for profit" organizations because it allowed greater flexibility. I believe the organizations donate to the Church (pay their own tithing) and only have general authority involvement at the board level. All of this could be false but that is my understanding from someone who would know.

[RC Vikings]

Not much to tell. Parked over by the old Salt Palace for a Jazz game. Came back and my side window was smashed in and my Garmin was gone. They also rifled through the glove box. A dozen or so cars in the parking lot were hit at the same time.

I'm sorry to hear about that but I'm glad it's not what I was thinking. I was thinking a smash-and-grab was where they grab something from you while you are walking, push you over and run away. I thought that only happened to little old ladies and I wondered how it happened to you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would like to hear more about this.

Not much to tell. Parked over by the old Salt Palace for a Jazz game. Came back and my side window was smashed in and my Garmin was gone. They also rifled through the glove box. A dozen or so cars in the parking lot were hit at the same time.

[TripletDaddy]

I would like to hear more about this.

My guess is that tooblue was in town for one reason or another.

[RC Vikings]

But I was the victim of a smash-and-grab a few blocks from temple square. But I don't have an opinion on the overall level of danger so I will bow out of the discussion now.

I would like to hear more about this.

[TripletDaddy]

But I was the victim of a smash-and-grab a few blocks from temple square. But I don't have an opinion on the overall level of danger so I will bow out of the discussion now.

I don't know, either, which is why I am asking.

I think this is why there have been no express rationalizations to support this expensive project. The Church would have a tough time justifying any of them, so it simply stays quiet (which is its right, of course) and spends its money as it sees fit.

The crime thing is bogus, though. Sounds like something right out of the script from those Apex security sales people in everyone's ward.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is the area around temple square crime ridden? has it traditionally been an area with higher instances of crime than other parts of SLC? I don't know the answers but it doesn't ring true to me. For as long as I can remember, Temple Square is surrounded on all sides by Church owned property (as well as a large mall). What is the danger?

I was the victim of a smash-and-grab a few blocks from temple square. But I don't have an opinion on the overall level of danger so I will bow out of the discussion now.

[TripletDaddy]

You're not visionary enough. You're thinking short term: now and in the next decade. The church is thinking in terms of much longer. More than enough time for urban plight to set in.

I don't need to be a visionary. I just need to look at a map. The Church owns the property on all sides of temple square minus the mall. I suppose it is possible that the mall becomes a massive strip club. Here you go, just for you:

[TripletDaddy]

I can personally verify the crime ridden part.

Is the area around temple square crime ridden? has it traditionally been an area with higher instances of crime than other parts of SLC? I don't know the answers but it doesn't ring true to me. For as long as I can remember, Temple Square is surrounded on all sides by Church owned property (as well as a large mall). What is the danger?