LDS church getting played?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You have questions marks in your response as if you suddenly have selective memory. lol...that's funny. You truly are a lawyer.

Rocky I don't understand what you are saying here.

And I don't know anything more about the issue than hoya just described. My question involves if the Church is offering a fair price, or is Van Cott just hard-balling the Church.

In negotiations with the Church, its minions often expect members to donate things for free. From my limited dealings with the Church, the Church is frugal with its negotiations. So perhaps the Church is low-balling Van Cott. OTH, I would not put it past the law firm to hard-ball the Church. IOW, I have no idea what is going on.

[UteStar]

I have to agree with Arachaea. If the church is lowballing the firm, I have no problem with Van Cott not budging until they receive fair market value. But if the firm is basically trying to just 'extort' the money out, then they are in the wrong. I guess we just don't know though...

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by UteStar

I have to agree with Arachaea. If the church is lowballing the firm, I have no problem with Van Cott not budging until they receive fair market value. But if the firm is basically trying to just 'extort' the money out, then they are in the wrong. I guess we just don't know though...

I have heard from many friends that it sucks to do business with the church. That said, the church is paying millions for each month they own those huge properties and get no rent from any other tenants.

Also, every other business has already moved out. There is just this one left. It does sound like a hold-out kind of deal to me.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Read first, then respond. I DO have a problem with the church getting involved in politics. I DON'T think this is a political matter. They are purchasing real estate.

Why do I even read your posts anymore? Crap- another question mark. I must have selectively forgotten the answer to that.

If you think real estate and the growth of downtown is not a political issue then you're up in the night.

It's okay to admit that you're hypocritical in this situation.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

hoya, you're a lawyer. the actions of other lawyers surprises you? if VCB behaved in any way to benefit the community--now THAT would be surprising.

I don't actually see what they are doing as being irrational or wrong at all. If the shoe were on the other foot and this firm were wanting out of its lease early, the church would not be telling them that they could do so free from consequence. Does anyone think that when persons or entities want to be relieved of their obligations under contracts with the church that they church just lets them out for nothing?

If a client comes into me telling me that someone wants out of a contract, I first tell them that they don't have to allow that, and then tell them that if they do allow it they should get something for it because they are losing something of value.

This is like the guy who holds out and doesn't want to move when a new highway is needed through his living room. Is he crazy to not care that the public good is served by it? If the church wants out it should buy its way out or wait for the lease to expire. If this were WalMart doing this everyone would be saying "yeah! stick it to the man!" Why does it matter that it is the church?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by UteStar

I have to agree with Arachaea. If the church is lowballing the firm, I have no problem with Van Cott not budging until they receive fair market value. But if the firm is basically trying to just 'extort' the money out, then they are in the wrong. I guess we just don't know though...

I think my point boils down to there being no objective way to quantify that. They only fair offer here is the one that gets accepted. That is how the value is established.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think my point boils down to there being no objective way to quantify that. They only fair offer here is the one that gets accepted. That is how the value is established.

In a pure economic sense, no way to disagree, but ...


if space in the surrounding areas is running for 24.00 per square foot and the Church is offering 10.00, then that's lowballing, and if Van Cott is holding out for a 100.00 per square foot, knowing they are the last piece to the puzzle, then I have some problem with those negotiation tactics.

[UteStar]

Downtown space in SLC is pretty easy to quantify. Yes, the situation is a little different because it is paying for someone to leave their lease...but c'mon, its not like the first time this has ever happened where an owner of a building asks those using it to leave their lease early.

Once again, as archaea said, if the typical termination fee for this type of contract is X amount and the church is not coming anywhere near that figure, why should Van Cott accept it? But on the flip side, if the church's offer is right on line to typical and fair, then Van Cott is greedy. Still not a bad thing...we just don't know which side is the hold up.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In a pure economic sense, no way to disagree, but ...


if space in the surrounding areas is running for 24.00 per square foot and the Church is offering 10.00, then that's lowballing, and if Van Cott is holding out for a 100.00 per square foot, knowing they are the last piece to the puzzle, then I have some problem with those negotiation tactics.

If the economics are immoral then really it is just capitalism that is bothering you. :-)

There is nothing morally that requires this firm, ever, to allow the church to terminate the contract. Maybe I am just meaner than you are, but the litigator in me says that when your advantage is greatest is when you press it the hardest. The church is a "big boy", plays hard ball itself sometimes and is not, in a business setting (I don't imagine this venture is being done at a loss) deserving of anyones sympathy, IMO.

All I see here are sophisticated parties each trying to maximize value. They will either do it by compromise or they won't.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If the economics are immoral then really it is just capitalism that is bothering you. :-)

There is nothing morally that requires this firm, ever, to allow the church to terminate the contract. Maybe I am just meaner than you are, but the litigator in me says that when your advantage is greatest is when you press it the hardest. The church is a "big boy", plays hard ball itself sometimes and is not, in a business setting (I don't imagine this venture is being done at a loss) deserving of anyones sympathy, IMO.

All I see here are sophisticated parties each trying to maximize value. They will either do it by compromise or they won't.

What bothers me is that downtown is dying, if it isn't dead already. The impending construction mess won't help much either. The church stuck its neck out to the tune of 1 billion dollars to try to save downtown. They aren't doing this as a business decision, they are doing it to enhance downtown (which does make the church look better overall since it is headquartered downtown).

Now you have a law firm digging in its heals, trying to get a disproportionately high amount of money at the expense of the rest of the community. That bothers me. At some point, we have a civic duty to look out for the well-being of our communities.