Originally Posted by All-American
This is certainly an interesting move by the Church. I don't believe for a minute that the church is lying or being misleading in any way when they say that tithing funds are not being used. That doesn't mean that they've got $2 billion to throw around just for fun. Here's the thing: this is not a $2 billion GIFT-- it is an INVESTMENT. As far as the investment goes, this may not be a slam dunk, but it certainly has great potential for significant success. The first three rules of playing the real estate game are location, location, location; and you can't get a much more viable location than the heart of downtown. The fact that others have not capitalized on this supposedly ideal location does suggest that there may be more obstacles which will have to be overcome in order for this to work, but certainly, the potential is there.
I do see some potential problems, however. The first potential concern I have is the exposure to criticism. We are all fairly well aware that a first draft is rarely, if ever, as good as the final result, but that through critical evaluation and exposure to opposing thought, the final product is one that all can approve of. I worry that the way in which the money is to be invested will not be subject to enough evaluation. The city won't object, being the primary benefactors. Internally, the church will have little opposition, as few are willing to challenge the church. It will basically be up to the church to internally audit itself-- which may result in a product that did not do as much good as it could have.
The second problem may be an even bigger issue. When the church involves itself in extra-ecclesiastical projects such as this, there's the risk of dragging its image through the mud. We all saw the result of the main street plaza episode, for example: what started out as a simple land purchase and the construction of a small park was labeled a breach of first amendment rights, and the good that was done is marred to this day. I suspect that many of the protestors we see at conference would not be there if it weren't for plazagate. Now, as the church will own residential, commercial, and office space, how much will it attempt to impose upon those entities? Fusnik already pointed out the sale of alcohol, which I suspect will take place. Will people be upset by the apparent hypocrasy?
Or, for example, the already stated intent of forcing closure on Sundays. Tell me if this scenario is not plausible: a business owner, responding to an increase in demand and attempting to accomodate is customers, tries to keep his shop open on Sunday. The church is then forced to decide between statuatory neglect, which would weaken their position, or expelling the tenant, who did not honor his contract. As a result of the action, a lawsuit is taken up by the ACLU and others who question the right of the church to enforce their morals upon the business owners. The Church wins the lawsuit, since it is private property (and will doubtlessly make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, after the main street debacle), but in the meantime, papers all over the country are wondering why the church is trying to enforce the Sabbath Day commandment and what it is doing trying to buy up Salt Lake City in the first place. This has the potential for a public relations nightmare if not properly handled.
I have no problem with the church making this investment, but I hope that they are able to keep above the fray.
|