City Creek Totals are in: $5 Billion Dollars

[_Kishkumen]

I just didn't have the faith necessary to hand my tithes over to them.

[_moksha]

The Church will recoup its building fund outlay with the balloon tithing payment due from all you apostates in the future Millenium.

[_moksha]

Although having been delayed a bit, the incredible structure was initially commissioned for $2.7 billion, making the 4,000,000-square foot supermall the most expensive in the world, far surpassing China’s $1.3 billion New South China Mall."

Bet that China Mall didn't demand the finest Italian Marble, solid Monkeywood paneling or encrusted settings from the famous Jupiter meteor. Bet their condos do no come with leather bound first editions of the complete works of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson and the biographies of Mormon Tycoon Earl Holding and Gov. Evan Mecham (R) of Arizona.

[_cafe crema]

Well, if they want to continue to build, they've got to cut out the middleman.

Who is the middleman?

In this case, it's the Church's businesses. Tithing is held in accounts, interest from the accounts isn't technically contributions and used for business ventures, the ventures provide further revenues, and the process is self-sustaining -- until. Until the business ventures go bust. Now, to fuel visions of world corporate control and to pay off their losses, they will need to seize funds directly from the mouths of the Saints.

Won't they have to pay taxes on the tithes used for churches businesses?

[_Panopticon]

Taipai 101 - $1.8 billion

Petronas Towers - $1.6 billion

Burj Dubai - $1.5 billion

________
$4.9 billion

I don't know about you, but I would have voted to build the three landmarks above before the eclectic mess that is the City Creek center. Tan brick art deco??????

[_Gadianton]

True, the Crossroads Mall (at what is the West of City Creek) was dying, thanks to Gateway Mall which is 3 blocks West of it. Now, City Creek will eventually turn Gateway into a ghost-town overrun with the homeless.

As a competing mall, perhaps. It's kind of like, If I'm fishing my stream and getting one fish a day happily and some mega-corp rolls in and starts fishing with dynamite upstream from me, I will probably need to fish somewhere else. Either that, or re-tool.

There is more to life than ritzy stores and garden-city views. Think of all the normal people -- non-members -- that will be drawn to stay in City Creek and shop, but will need something else to do with their time as well. Just outside of City Creek will be beachfront property for the thoughtful investor. The Church pays the money to draw folks in to bask in their neon signs, but people who like to explore a cityscape will want some variety. Great, a chain restaurant here and there may serve wine. Not going to cut it. Dive bars, dance clubs (including gay), cultural restaurants, adult book and video stores, and basically any kind of mature entertainment the Church will never offer just outside of City Creek will make savvy investors rich. The ROI of these places will blow the ROI of City Creek out of the water.

But wait, the Church will use their secular power to prevent zoning that will compete with City Creek, right? Well, consider this to be complementing City Creek, not competing. And consider that a Church wiped out from overspending will be thrilled that visitors want to go dancing across the street and smoke pot behind the building if these folks are spending money to stay in their hotels. They'll be just as thrilled about this as they were about folks watching porn at the Marriott. Dubai has the same issue. You think the Mormon Church is uptight when it comes to fun, those boys are ruthlessly legalistic. But they get it too. Even though everything is illegal, booze, prostitutes, and drugs are all available with minimal effort. Religion is one thing, but money, that's another, and no sheik and no GA is going to let their moral beliefs stand in the way of money. Especially when they're in the red.

[_Gadianton]

We wondered if the Brethren "asked" them to join with BYU because they'd shown their earning potential

That's a good question. Man, it's a tough one to call. What do we mean by earning potential? I think this is key. See, professor, if what you mean is they had some great money-making scheme going on, that's one thing. But did they have that? I'm not so sure. I mean, they put a lot of effort into telling members not to read all these other books by fellow Latter-day Saints, but did that increase their sales? What they were good at is getting well-to-do members to fund them as a charity, to build them a lavish edifice in this case where the apologists could pursue their hobbies in style.

I can't say what the brethren's motives were. But if it were me, and the organization I had my eye on was making outrageous profits due to satisfying the Saints' thirst for knowledge, I'd want them as part of my organization because I want their business momentum. But if they were so successful because they were good at getting donations from the same base of people I get my donations from, I'd want to bring them into my organization in order to prevent funds from going to them instead of me.

[_Gadianton]

Won't they have to pay taxes on the tithes used for churches businesses?

a brilliant question.

If there is no way to move the money from this to that account to avoid it, then the answer is yes.

And this shows an increased level of desperation. If one is forced to divert donations into bricks today at a heavy penalty rather than the much more profitable avenue in the long run of getting the free cream off those funds, then it shows an uncomfortable urgency.


i didn't think about this, I'm glad you thought of it.

[_harmony]

Won't they have to pay taxes on the tithes used for churches businesses?

a brilliant question.

If there is no way to move the money from this to that account to avoid it, then the answer is yes.

And this shows an increased level of desperation. If one is forced to divert donations into bricks today at a heavy penalty rather than the much more profitable avenue in the long run of getting the free cream off those funds, then it shows an uncomfortable urgency.


i didn't think about this, I'm glad you thought of it.

The answer to that question is "no". Because someone has to first prove that tithes were used for business. And knowing the virtually unlimited funds available to pay lawyers, that's not going to happen any time soon.

[_Mercury]

The church is doing what any good corporation does, they are trying to diversify their portfolio. If they recoup their investment in the city creek mall I hope they kick back some of that money to the church and lessen the burden for the members. At least pay for janitors for the church buildings.

I'm sorry but everytime I see your avatar I keep hearing Bizarro! Bizarro! Bizarro! Bizarro! in m head.

relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ROXLtorwY