Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[UtahDan]

While it may seem that the Church's investments do not further the missions of the Church, I think it could be argued that, on the contrary, they do more to further its missions than any other uses of the funds.

You seem to be making the argument that the good Samaritan, rather than help the beaten naked man, should invest the money so that in a few years he can help two naked beaten people at the side of the road. Meanwhile, the naked beaten guy dies.

[All-American]

I would like to think that no tithing funds are being used but I have my doubts. Cost projections went from $500M, when the project was first announced, to over $3B now. I have a hard time believing this cash came from other profit sources, unless the church makes a LOT more money than any of us realize.

And it might. But not having information there, I won't try to argue one way or another.

My hangup with the project is this: the church claims to be God's one true entity on earth but blows money on projects like this all the while there are roughly 20,000 children who starve to death on a daily basis, on a worldwide level. I have a hard time believing this is how God wants his money to be spent. I believe God would rather have his money spent helping humanity, not improving a couple of city blocks in a city that most of the world's population has never heard of.

I had understood that figure to be much higher. If we're down from 40,000, that's progress, I guess.

Either way, my two earlier points stand here: 1. Why complain about the church doing a good thing? 2. Who's to say that financial investments such as these are not the very things that allow the church the monetary means to go about attacking hunger, poverty, sickness, etc? If I were convinced that a dollar going to the CCC was a dollar that could have otherwise fed a hungry child, I'd be more inclined to your argument. As it is, financial investments such as this may very well give the church the economic freedom to engage in more humanitarian projects.

It will take decades before this project turns a profit, if it ever does.
The timing of the project, given the economic problems, tell me that it wasn't exactly "inspired".

The timing of the project, given the economic problems, makes me try as best as I can to bite my tongue lest I use it as direct evidence of its inspired nature. It would be very insensitive of the great amount of suffering that the recession has triggered to point out that the timing of this construction project could not have been better, both for the church and for those employed in the project. The project is also coming in as a fairly major cultural shift from the suburban to the urban is gaining steam. People are going back to the cities in force. I was very skeptical of the project at first, to be honest, but as things are turning out, it has the looks of a stroke of brilliance.

[cowboy]

I'm just saying there are better projects out there than the CCC, although I understand those projects don't offer an 8% fiscal return. However, those other projects offer a much better spiritual return. I'm fine with keeping downtown SLC looking nice and all, but we are starting to make it look more like the Vatican City, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm not opposed to the CCC, I'm just struggling (not testimony-wise) with the blurred line of church/corporation in this whole deal.

Let's assume that $1 buys one unit of good, and let's assume that the church has $100 dollars of extra tithing money. There are two alternatives for this $100:

1) Buy 100 units of good, or

2) Invest it at a 5% real rate of return and take 10% of the investment's earnings annually and buy units of good. The other 90% of the earnings will be reinvested at 5% real ROI (8% less 3% inflation)

It chose option 2, and by the end of 17 years it had been able to purchase 17 units of good (in Year 0 dollars) with the earnings that were not reinvested, and the current value of the investments themselves is $189 (again in Year 0 dollars.) They have now effectively doubled their investment, buying good with $17 of the return, and leaving $89 of the increase unspent. They now have a decision to make between two options:

1) Take the $189 and buy $189 units of good immediately,

2) Leave the $189 units invested, but take all of the earnings to buy good, or

3) Continue as they have, buying units of good with 10% of the earnings, and reinvesting the other 90%.

At this point, they can't decide between 2 and 3, so they add $11 dollars, and split it $100 each between strategies 2 and 3. Twenty years later, they examine the results (values again in Year 0 dollars):

Option 2                                    Option 3
Initial Investment      $100            Initial Investment       $100
Current Value           $100            Current Value            $222
Cumulative Dividends    $119            Cumulative Dividends     $ 23

While Option 2 paid more in dividends, the purchasing power of those dividends, fixed at $8, is becoming smaller each year, and the church can see that the cumulative dividend payout of Option 3 will surpass that of Option 2 by year 65 (total dividend payout $227 Option 3 vs $226 Option 2.) At that point the real dividend of Option 3 will be nearly $10 compared to less than $2 for Option 2.

The Church is now in a position where they realize that, long term, they can buy the most units of good by allowing their investment to grow and buying good with the dividends. This requires a long-term investment horizon, and it certainly exposes the leaders to criticism from those who see a lot of money that could buy units of good immediately. Over the long run, though, this investment strategy results in more units of good than any other.

While it may seem that the Church's investments do not further the missions of the Church, I think it could be argued that, on the contrary, they do more to further its missions than any other uses of the funds.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I would be curious to see the pro forma on this project. Why is retail and domestic housing a great investment? Those sectors are hating it.

I have a friend who works for a huge mall-building company. The conventional wisdom in that industry is the mall will make money for the first 3 years, and anything after that is gravy.

Of course his company's goal was typically to have the entire property sold by around the 2.5 yr mark, even if it was at an apparent "loss" compared to the current "market value".

Interesting side note: his company would completely build and fit out the building for a select few, profitable companies (first tier - Nordstrom, Kohls, Macy's, Dillards, Nieman Marcus, Saks...) and would require other 'second-tier' companies to build their own buildings (second tier - JC Penney, etc).

This place will undoubtedly be excellent. Ironically it will also serve as a good buffer zone downtown.

[Spicy McHaggis]

I would like to think that no tithing funds are being used but I have my doubts. Cost projections went from $500M, when the project was first announced, to over $3B now. I have a hard time believing this cash came from other profit sources, unless the church makes a LOT more money than any of us realize.
My hangup with the project is this: the church claims to be God's one true entity on earth but blows money on projects like this all the while there are roughly 20,000 children who starve to death on a daily basis, on a worldwide level. I have a hard time believing this is how God wants his money to be spent. I believe God would rather have his money spent helping humanity, not improving a couple of city blocks in a city that most of the world's population has never heard of.
It will take decades before this project turns a profit, if it ever does.
The timing of the project, given the economic problems, tell me that it wasn't exactly "inspired".

[All-American]

I am not a lawyer, but here is the conundrum as I see it.

Isn't all the money from the 'for-profit', tax-paying side kept strictly seperate from the 'non-profit', tax-exempt side? Isn't that the purpose of running the holding company?

Or is there a significant amount of crossover?

I recognize it is essentially the same people running each endeavor but is it allowable by law to shift money from one side and back to the other per the whims of the board?

I ask this question specifically because, as I understand it, ALL of the moneys used for humanitarian purposes are derived from contributions and are church moneys. I do not believe the can take a chunk of cash out of the for-profit side and send it to Haiti, for instance.

On the other hand perhaps they ARE able to do that. I assume there would be significant tax advantages to donating billions of dollars directly to charitable efforts. Maybe this is the reason after all for byu to have a top-tier accounting program...

Can somebody get me straight on this issue?

You touch at another point, complicated by the fact that the church's ledgers aren't open to the public. We don't know the extent to which the operations of the for-profit businesses which the church owns affects the operations of the not-for-profit church. One wonders if it is appropriate to treat the entities as the same. Goodness knows I have loudly and longly advocated for people to consider BYU as a different organization than the church, lest their respective actions and leaders be considered in the same light. At the same time, though, when President Hinckley gets up at a pulpit and tries to explain why the church is involved in the project, I'm not going to try to split that hair on this point of controversy.

Anyway, yeah, I don't know what the church is doing with its money. That doesn't bother me that much, either, though I can understand why it would make others uncomfortable.

[All-American]

You are probably right in a couple regards, but I'm sure there are places that are being considered for temples that pushing a lot fo money that way would actually get it done. Paris is one area for example. GBH announced his desire to build a temple in that area all the way back in 1998 but alas nothing has happened.

Also, a general fund used for Temple Transportation would be a way to subsidize or fully pay for temple travel for branches and wards that have to incur significant costs to get there. Last year I participated in a family service project where we all donated money to a family member couple who was serving a mission in the Philipines. They used the money to pay for temple trips for the local saints, who are mostly poor and can't afford such a trip. We sent over 500 people to the temple and it didn't take a ton of money. Some couples who had been married for sometime finally were able to get sealed and many others were able to receive their endowments.

I'm just saying there are better projects out there than the CCC, although I understand those projects don't offer an 8% fiscal return. However, those other projects offer a much better spiritual return. I'm fine with keeping downtown SLC looking nice and all, but we are starting to make it look more like the Vatican City, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm not opposed to the CCC, I'm just struggling (not testimony-wise) with the blurred line of church/corporation in this whole deal.

My experience with the church trying to get buildings up in Europe is that money isn't really the problem. There's are several plots of land which the church owns in my old mission where the only thing we're waiting on to put up a building is a bureaucrat's stamp. It was years in the waiting when I was there years ago, and still no building.

[NorthwestUteFan]

...As it is, though, the church runs one of the world's largest and most effective humanitarian programs and donated as much to Haiti after the earthquake as many small countries.

I am not a lawyer, but here is the conundrum as I see it.

Isn't all the money from the 'for-profit', tax-paying side kept strictly seperate from the 'non-profit', tax-exempt side? Isn't that the purpose of running the holding company?

Or is there a significant amount of crossover?

I recognize it is essentially the same people running each endeavor but is it allowable by law to shift money from one side and back to the other per the whims of the board?

I ask this question specifically because, as I understand it, ALL of the moneys used for humanitarian purposes are derived from contributions and are church moneys. I do not believe the can take a chunk of cash out of the for-profit side and send it to Haiti, for instance.

On the other hand perhaps they ARE able to do that. I assume there would be significant tax advantages to donating billions of dollars directly to charitable efforts. Maybe this is the reason after all for byu to have a top-tier accounting program...

Can somebody get me straight on this issue?

[Moliere]

Are you suggesting the current pace of temple building is slowed by the downtown project? My understanding is that temple building is driven by membership and temple attendance #s and has no relevance to the downtown project.

You are probably right in a couple regards, but I'm sure there are places that are being considered for temples that pushing a lot fo money that way would actually get it done. Paris is one area for example. GBH announced his desire to build a temple in that area all the way back in 1998 but alas nothing has happened.

Also, a general fund used for Temple Transportation would be a way to subsidize or fully pay for temple travel for branches and wards that have to incur significant costs to get there. Last year I participated in a family service project where we all donated money to a family member couple who was serving a mission in the Philipines. They used the money to pay for temple trips for the local saints, who are mostly poor and can't afford such a trip. We sent over 500 people to the temple and it didn't take a ton of money. Some couples who had been married for sometime finally were able to get sealed and many others were able to receive their endowments.

I'm just saying there are better projects out there than the CCC, although I understand those projects don't offer an 8% fiscal return. However, those other projects offer a much better spiritual return. I'm fine with keeping downtown SLC looking nice and all, but we are starting to make it look more like the Vatican City, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm not opposed to the CCC, I'm just struggling (not testimony-wise) with the blurred line of church/corporation in this whole deal.

[All-American]

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

There are a couple hundred current and prospective employees and a few hundred thousand citizens of a city whose downtown is being renovated and whose infrastructure is being improved for the better that might have something to say about whether these are "good works."

[beelzebabette]

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

Are you suggesting the current pace of temple building is slowed by the downtown project? My understanding is that temple building is driven by membership and temple attendance #s and has no relevance to the downtown project.

[Moliere]

This isn't meant as a shot to pellegrino and others, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, but this all reminds me a bit of the story of Mary when she anointed the Savior's feet. The apostles, Judas especially, were upset by the wasteful expenditure, suggesting that she should have sold the stuff and given the money to the poor. The Savior rebuked them; she did a good work-- why trouble her over it?

It seems to be a good thing they're doing. It just doesn't bother me.

Buying spices and oil to annoint the feet of the Savior is, at least in my mind, different than building luxury apartment buildings or building malls to keep Nordstrom and other high-end retailers downtown. I see no "good works" in apartment buildings and malls. Now, if we were spending $3 billion dollars on more temples (which are very ornate and beautiful) or church buildings then I would understand your comparison.

[scottie]

I know a lot of LDS farmers, some of them stake presidents and bishops, and not one of them has any qualms about growing malt barley. Any who do have a far different understanding of the WoW than I.

I know LDS farmers like that too, and I would imagine you also know some like I described.

[cowboy]

What message does this send LDS farmers and owners of gas stations/grocery stores who for all these years have taken financial hits by not selling barley to Coors/Anheuser-Busch and alcohol in their stores? or the LDS farmers and store owners who did sell to Coors/Anheuser-Busch and alcohol in their stores but felt extremely guilty doing it?

I know a lot of LDS farmers, some of them stake presidents and bishops, and not one of them has any qualms about growing malt barley. Any who do have a far different understanding of the WoW than I.

[creekster]

Not that I'm aware, but I don't think they'd buy the "Hey we never told you that" defense, would you? I've personally witnessed both the financial hits and the guilt.

If they never told them to do it I am not sure a 'defense' would be necessary. It's like poeple who don't eat chocolate. THey feel better abotu themselves for abiding what they see as a higher law and don't worry abotu the rest. My guess is any farmers who did what you are saying will feel the saem way. If not, they probably were already ticked about the Marriotts and so have long since dealt with it.