LDS church getting played?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

I see your point.

It is hard to know who is hanging it up. If the church has already spent a billion, it is hard for me to think that they couldn't spend a little more.

Civic duty is one of those tough things that is always easier to ask someone else to bear the burden of. If it is as you say, it may be that the law firm is making a PR mistake. Maybe they aren't in a position to easily relocate. Maybe they are just maximizing dollars. I guess I will just say that it will be interesting to see if someone is miscalculating in the long run. If either side is standing on "priciple', those are pretty pricey principles.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I see your point.

It is hard to know who is hanging it up. If the church has already spent a billion, it is hard for me to think that they couldn't spend a little more.

Civic duty is one of those tough things that is always easier to ask someone else to bear the burden of. If it is as you say, it may be that the law firm is making a PR mistake. Maybe they aren't in a position to easily relocate. Maybe they are just maximizing dollars. I guess I will just say that it will be interesting to see if someone is miscalculating in the long run. If either side is standing on "priciple', those are pretty pricey principles.

It is exactly that line of thought that I take issue with, though. Sure, the church could AFFORD to pay more. Nobody questions that. They could afford to give the firm another billion if they wanted to. But SHOULD they pay more? They have paid a billion to rejuvenate downtown. I find it hard to imagine they will make that money back anytime soon, and I doubt they expect to. But a firm sees them spending money and says, hey, why shouldn't we hold out since we know we have the church over a barrel here? They can afford to pay us, and we know they are desperate to get started. We have all the leverage in the world working in our favor!

Economically, you can't argue with them. They are using their leverage to exact a higher payment. Morally, I think I can argue with them. True, civic duty is (as you note) easy to tout when someone else is footing the bill. But the church has already put their money where their mouth is. What has the firm done to help? The firm is NOT going to leave hurting. They will do just fine in an early termination of the lease. Do they really need to stay until they have bled all the money they can bleed out of the church?

I don't think they will bend unless there is social pressure. That goes back to my earlier question: why isn't the church making this a news item? They could easily leak the story to the press who would love to run with this. Why isn't the public outraged that one firm is holding up the progress of the rebirth of downtown?

I know I am a strange guy, but this has to annoy more than just me.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

It is exactly that line of thought that I take issue with, though. Sure, the church could AFFORD to pay more. Nobody questions that. They could afford to give the firm another billion if they wanted to. But SHOULD they pay more? They have paid a billion to rejuvenate downtown. I find it hard to imagine they will make that money back anytime soon, and I doubt they expect to. But a firm sees them spending money and says, hey, why shouldn't we hold out since we know we have the church over a barrel here? They can afford to pay us, and we know they are desperate to get started. We have all the leverage in the world working in our favor!

Economically, you can't argue with them. They are using their leverage to exact a higher payment. Morally, I think I can argue with them. True, civic duty is (as you note) easy to tout when someone else is footing the bill. But the church has already put their money where their mouth is. What has the firm done to help? The firm is NOT going to leave hurting. They will do just fine in an early termination of the lease. Do they really need to stay until they have bled all the money they can bleed out of the church?

I don't think they will bend unless there is social pressure. That goes back to my earlier question: why isn't the church making this a news item? They could easily leak the story to the press who would love to run with this. Why isn't the public outraged that one firm is holding up the progress of the rebirth of downtown?

I know I am a strange guy, but this has to annoy more than just me.

No, you're making a valid point. Perhaps the fact it is not in the news means that the church doesn't want attention directed toward the situation because it is not wearing the white hat you think it is. Maybe that just isn't something they do OTH. Hard to say.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, you're making a valid point. Perhaps the fact it is not in the news means that the church doesn't want attention directed toward the situation because it is not wearing the white hat you think it is. Maybe that just isn't something they do OTH. Hard to say.

Could be. I hadn't viewed it like that. I simply can't imagine that the church is willing to lowball a firm when it is costing them literally millions of dollars a month to hold an empty property downtown (especially after the firm has held out this long, indicating they wouldn't be bought with a lowball offer). It would make absolutely no sense at all for them to not offer at least fair value. In fact, it would make little sense for them to not offer fair value plus a modest premium. The waiting game is simply too expensive, and getting pricier each day. They are concerned not only about the costs of an empty building (or many empty buildings), but they are on the verge of losing some of their anchor tenants already due to delay. I know they are better businesspeople than that.

What seems far more likely to me is that the firm is asking for an exhorbitant premium. If that isn't the case, I am truly shocked.