City Creek Center

[_Analytics]

For years I've been reading comments about how the City Creek Mall is an example of the church wasting funds that could be used to help the poor etc...
I suppose what puzzles me a bit about this criticism is that people talk about this money as if it were just thrown away. In reality, the church converted one asset (cash) into another asset (property and other businesses). The key difference being that City Creek has the potential (and is quite likely) to produce consistent returns in the coming years…
City Creek was not an expense, it was an investment because no value was lost and the investment will provide returns. These returns can then be used to fund a wide range of church activity -- including providing for the poor. Keeping this in mind, doesn't the investment demonstrate responsible stewardship?
What am I missing?

It’s far from clear that from the perspective of pure business that this was a good investment.

Just to throw some numbers out there, say that after all maintenance expenses, management expenses, taxes, insurance, etc., are paid, the mall generates $100,000 a day in profit. Being open 6 days a week, this translates to about $30,000,000 a year in profit. What would somebody in the free market pay for an income stream of $30 million a year? Perhaps $300 million? Certainly no more than $500 million.

So from a business perspective, what is the mall worth? If it isn’t pulling in a cool million dollars in net profit every day, probably a lot less than what they paid for it.

Just because somebody spends a million dollars to build a really nice lemonade stand, it doesn’t mean the resulting lemonade stand is worth a million dollars.

[_brade]

This is exactly why I only give a tiny, tiny portion of my money to the poor and invest all the rest of my excess. I'll help them later when I've made loads.

[_sock puppet]

This is exactly why I only give a tiny, tiny portion of my money to the poor and invest all the rest of my excess. I'll help them later when I've made loads.

zing!

[_Drifting]

Seth, the problems with the City Creek Mall come when you ponder what Jesus Himself would have done with that money...

[_hobo1512]

No matter what the LDS church does, the critics will find something to moan about. It is in their DNA. The city creek mall because it is a mall, found a fertile ground among the critics now and for years to come. However, it was a good investment and has provided people with work in the present and in the future. And those students who are now working in the mall are grateful for the job and for the chance to have some money in their pocket.

To complain about the mall is nothing but claptrap. And if any critics on this board have any sons and daughters working in this mall, they are hypocrites.

Nothing says contentment like a minimum wage, part time job.

The only ones making money off this venture is LDS inc, and its "profits".

How many LDS adoption fees could have been waived with the building costs?

How many hospitals or free clinics could have been built?

How many job training centers?

How many shelters for homeless or abused?

Oh wait, what am I thinking? None of those bring in money for LDS inc. and its "profits".

[_zeezrom]

Seth, the problems with the City Creek Mall come when you ponder what Jesus Himself would have done with that money...

Isn't there some place in the New Testament where a disciple asks Jesus why not give this feast or money or something to the poor instead of enjoy it now with these non-poor folks? This rings a bell. Anyway, this is my response to you, Drifting, if I find that quote.

[_sethpayne]

All,

Thanks so much for your replies. Everyone has made excellent points, with the exception of why me. Jenn Kamp, why me!

Seems to me transparency lies at the root of this issue. If members and others 1) knew where the money came from and 2) knew how income from this venture were being used by the church, they may feel more comfortable with the idea of such a large capital expenditure.

I think the points made about the Church pursuing business interests which may conflict with its moral core are very thought provoking. The question of how Jesus would use the funds is also interesting and one, which I will need to ponder.

I suppose I see the Church's business arm much like a university endowment. Universities use endowments to continue their stated missions and if they just "cashed out", so to speak, they would be unable to continue serving future students and research.

In any case, thanks again for providing much food for thought. I now have a *much* better understanding of the criticism.

Seth

[_sethpayne]

Seth, the problems with the City Creek Mall come when you ponder what Jesus Himself would have done with that money...

A very good question indeed. Would Jesus invest the money to serve present *and* future needs of the poor or would he be primarily concerned with the present moment? I don't know but it is a question I am going to certainly ponder.

Seth

[_Doctor Scratch]

For years I've been reading comments about how the City Creek Mall is an example of the church wasting funds that could be used to help the poor etc...

I suppose what puzzles me a bit about this criticism is that people talk about this money as if it were just thrown away. In reality, the church converted one asset (cash) into another asset (property and other businesses). The key difference being that City Creek has the potential (and is quite likely) to produce consistent returns in the coming years. In other words, the church still retains a value of 2 billion but in reality, the asset has a much higher value when we consider the Net Present Value. Depending on the expected return rate and the cashflow generated by City Creek, perhaps the value is now 3 or 4 billion (probably more).

City Creek was not an expense, it was an investment because no value was lost and the investment will provide returns. These returns can then be used to fund a wide range of church activity -- including providing for the poor. Keeping this in mind, doesn't the investment demonstrate responsible stewardship? Spend the cash and its gone forever. Build City Creek and cash returns continue for as long as the business remains operational/profitable.

You may be right, Seth. This may be a case where the Lord has commanded his prophets to consolidate their assets and make investments. Of course, time will elapse, the poor will suffer and die in the interim, but this is what the Lord hath commanded, so it shall be done. Those who could have been saved or helped during the time it took to collect a return on investment will be dealt with beyond the veil.

[_sethpayne]

For years I've been reading comments about how the City Creek Mall is an example of the church wasting funds that could be used to help the poor etc...

I suppose what puzzles me a bit about this criticism is that people talk about this money as if it were just thrown away. In reality, the church converted one asset (cash) into another asset (property and other businesses). The key difference being that City Creek has the potential (and is quite likely) to produce consistent returns in the coming years. In other words, the church still retains a value of 2 billion but in reality, the asset has a much higher value when we consider the Net Present Value. Depending on the expected return rate and the cashflow generated by City Creek, perhaps the value is now 3 or 4 billion (probably more).

City Creek was not an expense, it was an investment because no value was lost and the investment will provide returns. These returns can then be used to fund a wide range of church activity -- including providing for the poor. Keeping this in mind, doesn't the investment demonstrate responsible stewardship? Spend the cash and its gone forever. Build City Creek and cash returns continue for as long as the business remains operational/profitable.

You may be right, Seth. This may be a case where the Lord has commanded his prophets to consolidate their assets and make investments. Of course, time will elapse, the poor will suffer and die in the interim, but this is what the Lord hath commanded, so it shall be done. Those who could have been saved or helped during the time it took to collect a return on investment will be dealt with beyond the veil.

Hi Scratch,

Just to be clear, I'm trying to better understand the criticism. I'm not arguing in support of City Creek, nor am I necessarily arguing against it. However, based on the comments in this thread I am beginning to think the church could have used these funds in more appropriate ways and that they could have addressed the urban blight issue without creating competition for tithe paying members.

Seth