City Creek Center

[_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.

What am I missing?

[_Stormy Waters]

Keith McMullin said that it wasn't a great investment.

McMullin said City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. "Will there be a return?" he asked rhetorically. "Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment — the real return comes in folks moving back downtown and the revitalization of businesses."

Salt Lake Tribune.

[_sethpayne]

Keith McMullin said that it wasn't a great investment.

McMullin said City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. "Will there be a return?" he asked rhetorically. "Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment — the real return comes in folks moving back downtown and the revitalization of businesses."

Salt Lake Tribune.

Thanks Southwest.

Forget my NPV assumptions. Even still, the church didn't just spend 2B, they now have a tangible asset worth at least 2B and maybe a *bit* more.

Is the criticism that the Church should have invested this money elsewhere? Is it that revitalizing downtown SLC isn't a worthy goal -- even if no assets were lost in the process?

Seth

[_Cicero]

Seth: I started a thread on this back in July with a long OP detailing my thoughts on this topic (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24860&hilit=+juxtaposition).

[_sethpayne]

Seth: I started a thread on this back in July with a long OP detailing my thoughts on this topic (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24860&hilit=+juxtaposition).

Thanks Cicero. What a great OP. You make some excellent points. I can absolutely see where you are coming from.

More thoughts later....

Seth

[_Fence Sitter]

I realize the Church need funds to operate. Beyond that, is it in the business of religion or does it conduct its religion as a business?

In other words while it may retain the value of its cash investment in the nature of property should it be doing so? Or should it be spending its excess funds as one would expect from a Church?

[_Alfredo]

When I was younger my family took a trip to Disney world. During the car ride near the park, we were listening to the park's radio station. We thought my mother was mumbling about how evil all the excess was and effectively stating that all the inflation and materialism was a specifically demonic waste of money. She appreciated the Holy Land much more, but I'm not sure if it gave her nightmares.

I agree with what has been said in this thread... it probably is a sound investment given their intended goal behaviors, but they are also in the process increasing other behaviors they teach against. I suspect I'd get the same feeling walking into city creek as I do inside a theme park.

[_Willy Law]

My criticism has not been so much that they should invest that money elsewhere, my criticism is what is any church doing operating a business? Let alone a business that competes with it's own members? If I am a business owner in the Gateway project that pays tithing to the church I am basically funding my competition that is putting me out of business. I know of one attorney with offices in what is now the city center project that has stopped paying tithing because he is tired of funding his competition (Kirton & McConkie).

[_sock puppet]

Is the purpose of a religion's tax exemption so that it can invest in retail real estate, like a mall, or so that those that pay money into it are 'donors' and the religion uses those donated funds for charitable purposes?

Is charity delayed, charity denied to the current needy?

[_Infymus]

Mormonism claims to be the one and only true religion. All other religions are false. Therefore, the Mormon God, is the only God over the whole earth. The Mormon God, uses his money to build and operate an expensive shopping mall.

“F” the starving kids, the diseased, the poor - God needs a return on his investment.

ONE TWO THREE, LETS GO SHOPPING!