Too Tall? Mormon Temple At Center Of Phoenix Resident’s Ballot Petition Drive
01/02/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Is 126 foot Mormon Church too tall? That is the question being asked by the citizens of one Phoenix neighborhood, and they have signatures to force this into a vote. The city ordinances of Phoenix state that a building cannot be more than 30 feet tall, but this church would be well beyond that. According to city officials, the volunteers need 9,800 valid signatures from registered voters. According to Phoenix’s planning director, Debra Stark, the Federal Religious Freedom Act allows churches to build anywhere irregardless of city zoning laws. Unfortunately, that law does not seem to exist.
Citizens of this north Phoenix neighborhood jumped into action upon hearing of the decision by the Phoenix city council to grant the church a zoning exemption and began gathering signatures to force the council to either rethink their decision, or failing that, force this into a popular vote which the Mormon church would likely lose. The 400 volunteer strong Phoenix Property Rights Coalition sprung into action getting signatures from citizens and explaining what was at stake. The Phoenix Temple would be built on a vacant lot next to the current church which houses the Mormon congregation in that neighborhood.
There are a variety of reasons people are upset with the idea behind the Temple going up. Height is the primary one, but people are also opposed to this due to the traffic it will likely bring in. Several hikers talked to by volunteer Aaron Gibbs stated “there were a few vociferous people who are for the temple and told us we’re not going to go to heaven because we are doing this.” However, many of those who were asked signed the petition, and Gibbs believed he was collecting around 200 signatures per day.
The Temple, which is set to go up at 5104 W. Pinnacle Street, has been the center of controversy for some time. According to the Mormon Church’s zoning lawyer, they are considering changing the design to drop it down below the thirty foot limit, but coalition chairman Scott Anderson has stated that they have heard this several times before. “It’s nothing new. It’s a statement that they keep repeating.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=bdb3965e-f3a5-4895-8e0c-4787b8809163)
Loading ...
Does anyone else see any irony in the fact that Mormon rights are being put up for a popular vote… by the will of the people here?
It’s hardly a “right” to build an ostentatious building that will then become the tallest building in the city.
Yeah, it is like putting up a pornographic billboard next to someone’s residence.
As a practicing Mormon, I was a bit confused by the intro to this article. Am I correct in assuming that when you say “church” (in the first paragraph) you mean a Mormon temple? I’m guessing so, but I’m not entirely certain.
In a more general vein, while I do appreciate neighborhood concerns about height, I think it’s fair to mention that LDS temples usually increase local property values (frequently due to the beautiful landscaping). I really hope that the Church officials and the local community can reach some amicable agreement about the building height.
Concerns about increased traffic are really less of a problem. LDS Temples do draw crowds while they are hosting an open house (which occurs for a few weeks before the temple is dedicated), and––of course––during the dedication. After that, however, traffic increases are minimal. Mormon temples aren’t massive meeting-spaces like a big churches or cathedrals. That is, after the dedication, the temple doesn’t host large congregational meetings––in fact, it’ll be closed on Sundays (and probably Monday afternoons/evenings). There will be traffic increases I’m sure, but they’ll be more like a steady trickle rather than periodic massive incursions on holidays. It’ll actually have less impact than an average church, to say nothing of “mega churches” in the Evangelical tradition.
By the way, CanuckJacq, 130 feet will scarcely make it the tallest building in the city (unless you’re referring to some city other than Phoenix).
126 ft refers only to the height of the spire, which is not restricted for a religious building, as I understand it. Other than the spire, the planned temple will be 40 ft high, so it’s still over the 30 ft limit, but not as ridiculously “well beyond that” as this story seems to indicate.
My problem here is the good citizens and burghers of this fine community do not have the constitutional authority to tell the Mormons they can not erect a Temple on their private property–just like these citizens, which included the Mormons who want to build this temple, and their elected representatives did not have the constitutional authority to tell individuals in Arizona whom they may, or may not, enter into a private contract of civil marriage with….
The difference here is the staff and editors of Lez Get Real… understand this and are willing to speak up for the Mormons and bring attention to this issue… even though, as you may have noticed, our primary readership don’t really have that much love for Mormons…. when Mormon rights are about to be violated by a mob rule vote.
Paula Brooks…. Publisher… Lezgetreal.com
I wonder about the history of those actively opposing this in terms of what other things they have or haven’t opposed or supported. I know in Boston the Church bent over backwards to the extent of thoroughly washing off each and every truck that left the construction sight. Many many of the people in that neighborhood who opposed the Temple initially went on to support it and, as the spires construction in that case was delayed, ended up actually publicly stating that they wanted to see the temple with the full spire on it.
There are very very few people who initially oppose temples that end up opposed to them once they are built and running.
It’s not as though this is some oppressed community. I looked at the neighborhood via google earth and it seems someone has some rather tall palm trees (I doubt those ostentatious plants are native to phoenix) And while those trees taken cumulatively block the view about as much as the spire would (The spire being the only thing of any real height, the main core of the building being a not terribly ostentatious 40 ft high, a mere 10 feet above the standard ordinance restrictions). Yet how many of these neighbors camp out with a massive sign talking about how inconsiderate their neighbors with the tall palm trees are? But trees are Holy now aren’t they. I mean they’re what we really worship now days, well that and personal swimming pools. It’s comforting to know that most of those discontented neighbors can go and cool off in their own personal swimming pools after a long day protesting an ‘ostentatious’ temple who’s main building height is a mere ten feet above their own homes and who’s spire finds several rivals in the neighborhood collection of non-native palm trees.
I’d suppose a neighborhood where virtually everyone has their own personal swimming pool would know ostentatious when it’s present.
There’s nothing wrong with having your own swimming pool. I mean sure they kill more kids a year in the US than do firearms. But responsible people know how to use them.
So have fun fighting that ‘horrible’ traffic that will be brought about by all those rowdy Mormons, you know we really know how to trash a neighborhood. I wonder if the traffic issue brought out the protesters when they built that golf course nearby.
I am sure Mormon Temples can be very good neighbors… as are most married lgbt couples.. but in this case …. as a gay woman who has felt the insidious sting of “that which is not said” bigotry… I suspect the neighbors problem with this temple being built has very little to do with their views being blocked or the traffic it will bring to the area.
So what happens if the Temple’s spire is raised ten feet and the building is lowered ten feet? This seems to be a waste of time on the part of the neighborhood. I also heard they hired a company to get the signatures. After all, the protests of the temple I have seen have never generated even 100 people, much less 400 people willing to go out on the streets and trails of Phoenix gathering signatures during the holidays. Someone needs to fact check that.
Nope, you were told wrong. They did not hire some firm to gather signatures. They did it themselves.
“My problem here is the good citizens and burghers of this fine community do not have the constitutional authority to tell the Mormons they can not erect a Temple on their private property–just like these citizens, which included the Mormons who want to build this temple, and their elected representatives did not have the constitutional authority to tell individuals in Arizona whom they may, or may not, enter into a private contract of civil marriage with…”
Agreed. Count me as one Mormon who was/is not a fan of Prop 8, etc. I hope within my lifetime the LDS Church will make some changes on that issue.
Oh please, this is idiotic, the church did not ‘tell individuals in Arizona whom they may, or may not, enter into a private contract of civil marriage with’ that belongs to the state of Cali who voted on their own state constitution as is their right, all the previos comments proves is how this is less about ‘height’ and more about ‘revenge’. Any idiot can tell these articles ignore the facts to shock readers into their line of thinking, the building is 10 feet over the limit, the steple doesn’t count as is the same for any church, and the height was approved through the proper channel AND negotiated down in attempts to compromise, as have traffic and lighting issues. Notice how this article never mentions THAT! And those protests clearly are anti-mormon, else why put ‘Stop the malice palice’ on your main building? Oh that’s right, to attract the anit-mormon crowd who will support you as long as it’s something against the church. This is just another example of the moral decay of America.
Daioni,
The people of the neighborhood want this building to keep to the building codes and want to put it to a vote. I hardly ignored information with regards to that while writing this. Instead, you’re just upset that the Mormon Church is being told that they have to obey the law, and that the council should not have granted the exemption. It is all in there if you read the article. Instead, it seems like you were more worried and concerned about screaming about the fact that the citizens of this neighborhood are unhappy with this temple going up. As for the negotiations, that was not included in the information I was given. Of course, that still does not change the fact that the Mormon Church is finding out that a lot of people are vocally opposed to them now, and that the push back against their faith is growing.
Daioni…. I understand is was California Mormons, under the direction of elders in Salt Lake City who pushed Prop 8…. and I agree this action in Arizona is probably being driven by anti-Mormon sentiments and bigotries….
The Irony of this… is Prop 8 vote was sort of driven by the same motivations as this vote… only in that case it was directed against LGBTs… by Mormons….
Aint Karma a bitch?
Please, the church did obey the law, thus the approval, it went through the right channels to request the addition in height, thus are obeying the law. You omitted facts, you did not mention the fact that steple height is not restricted, instead implying that the church is much more over the limit then the reality of the situation. Where I come from that’s still called deception. Please qoute from your article where it says “the church is 10 feet over the limit”. Oh right, it’s not there. I see this oh so often, realying on ignorance to make a point. People like you are so ignorant and hypocritical.
And Brooks, learn your facts, it was a coalition of churches that lead the charge on prop 8, mormons are just being scapegoated by the hypocritical bigots who couldn’t tell what tolerance is if it bit them in the ass.
Hey I think the Mormons should be allowed to build the damned temple… it is their property bought and paid for…. and I am sure if it was one of the hypocritical bigot churches going up the 10 feet would not be a bit of a problem…
I do not omit facts I do not have to report upon, Daioni. The problem is, the information I do have says nothing about unrestricted steeple height. Please give a link to that information and I will correct this.
And the Mormons were part of the group supporting Prop 8, we all know that. The Roman Catholic Church was another. It does not matter if they were one of many or leading the charge. They were part of the charge. Whining about who was in the lead doesn’t change who was involved.
Sei, go to any link or story from any newpaper or website covering this event and you can find that piece on information ANYWHERE, it would be very unlikely for you to miss it if you were truely interested in spreading the truth. I don’t see anyone protesting any church as much as they have the mormons, this isn’t about height, it’s about bigotry. You can tell by the volunteers collecting signatures at Christ Church of the Valley which has an aggressive anti-Mormon ministry. So much for the neighborhoods sham claim that this wasn’t about religion.
Daioni,
It wasn’t in the articles I read about this when preparing this article. Of course, if you cannot stand the bigotry, then you should probably not perpetuate a lot of bigotry yourself. Personally, I do not have any problem with Mormons. I’ve met some very nice Mormons over the years. I do not care if they want to build this church either. The biases you are claiming to see are because you want to cry bigotry. You want to sound like the victim. Unfortunately for you, you are not the victim on this blog.
HA, that’s rich, I never claimed to be a victim, once again your trying to imply things with no idea what is going on, or just outright lieing. How many articles did you read? Let me guess, SLT? I googled the issue and right away, BAM, 5 articles that specifically refernce the fact that there is not limit on steple height on religious buildings, you must really be trying to dodge the facts if you missed all that. I would have no problem if there was a lagitamate complaint, but so far all I have seen are people like you twisting facts and deceptions to play the victims yourselves while accusing others of the same, how hypocritical. If you tell me unbiased, unaltered facts, I accpt them, but once you get into this bull crud propaganda you guys pull claiming it’s not about religion, when quite cleary the actions show otherwise. You want neutrality? Then write an unbiased article, until then expect people who don’t buy into ignorent attempts at deception to cut you any slack.
Daioni,
The articles I read did not include that information. I’m sorry, but you can whine all you want about that fact. You don’t have to cut me any slack, and I don’t care if you do. You want to sound like the victim here, but you aren’t. You want to whine about how you can find so many articles including that information, but it does not change the fact that my sources did not include that information. You read an implication into this which shows your biases more than it does mine. The fact that you are still complaining about this all this time later just tells me you are desperate to win.
I made you an offer, you did not follow through.
Daioni, thank you for hitting this point. Don’t bother posting again, you are hereby spam.