Quote:
Originally Posted by glynnjamin
I know this isn't really the place to discuss it since it is a NoPho issue but what does everyone think of the new temple in NoPho and the debate surrounding it? I am of the opinion that a)the city can't really do much about restricting the height because of Federal law and b)the neighbors should have started their bitching 10 years ago when the church started buying up property in the area and having it rezoned. This is some definite NIMBY bullshit trying to get this issue on a ballot and waste taxpayer dollars.
|
I agree on everything you said.
However, I think it is a bit silly that the church feels the need to build a huge spire and light it. They have every right to build the spire that tall (spire's don't count against the height of a church building) but it's just silly excess. I think they should work with the neighbors and keep the spire unlit after maybe 9pm... if they feel they
need a spire at all. the rezoning and extra usable height of the building itself is also a bit of bullshit, but it's nothing that hasn't happened before. That property and the immediate area is residential. Always has, always should be. The rezoning to Planned Urban Development (I think that's what they are rezoning to - can't think right now off the top of my head) just sounds like B.S. There's nothing "urban" about the place.
Some of the neighbors are being typical dumbass NIMBYs. Especially when it comes to the traffic problem out there. Someone said that basically there's going to be a traffic jam from the temple all the way down Pinnacle Peak, over the mountain, up 59th Avenue to the Loop 101. It's pretty silly what they come up with in their minds and then fight about. They don't realize how the temple operates, which is in small groups spread throughout the day. It will be a bit of traffic constant throughout the day, not a crush of thousands of cars at once like an arena or stadium. Also, this temple isn't going to have any seasonal events like the Mesa temple (for x-mas or easter or anything).
I'm probably the authority on this subject as I grew up two blocks from the temple, my parents still live there, and I know nearly everyone in the neighborhood, including some of the NIMBYs. AND, let's just say I'm very familiar with the person (*points to self*) that performed the traffic impact study for the City, as hired by the Church representatives. I'm on the inside on both sides of the argument.
One big problem I see that isn't the church nor the neighborhood's fault is that the intersection of 51st Avenue & Pinnacle Peak Road (temple and meeting house is on that corner) needs a traffic signal in it's existing condition. With the extra traffic due to the temple, a signal is warranted there even more. The church would likely be willing to install this signal before opening the temple, however it is basically the City's policy to get a percentage of money from the developer for the traffic signal, then the City will build the signal themselves when they deem it warranted and they have the money for it. I think, as is typical elsewhere, they shouldn't be allowed to open the temple without making the necessary improvements to the roadway to mitigate the forecasted traffic problems (ie, the church should isntall the signal before opening the temple). The City could have and should have forced them to install the signal, probably at closer to 100% cost to the church, instead, the City basically deferred that installation and only is taking 25% of the cost to build the signal (even though 51st/Pinnacle Peak is a 3-way intersection and the other corner is large lot residential). Plus, the City doesn't know when they'll have all the money for it, the temple could be open for a couple years before a traffic signal is installed, and that's not really fair to the neighbors (plus they're going to be really pissed).