(Salt Lake City) Council hails Rocky's plaza plan

Salt Lake City Council members seem ready to approve Mayor Rocky Anderson's land-swap proposal to resolve the Main Street Plaza controversy.

The plan would give the city two acres of LDS Church-owned land on the city's west side in exchange for the city's easement through the plaza. The swap would allow the church, which bought a block of Main Street from the city three years ago and turned it into a pedestrian plaza, to restrict speech and conduct there.

While the official vote won't come until next month, the council — once at odds with Anderson over the plaza — hailed the mayor's new proposal late Tuesday night following a three-hour public hearing concerning the plaza. For the record, council members say no decision has been made and note some legal details need to be worked out. That said, six members of the seven-member council praised Anderson's proposal.

"It shows real promise," Council Chairman Dave Buhler said. He said it's time for the council to stop taking public comment — council members have received more than 18,000 phone calls and thousands of e-mails — and make a decision.

"It would be a very beneficial thing," Councilman Van Turner added, noting that his west-side district would benefit from the new service center proposed as part of Anderson's plan.

Councilwoman Jill Love said she was "happy that he's come up with a proposal that could end this."

"Eventually we're going to get to the place where we realize we don't control access and that the private property owners control that."

Councilman Dale Lambert described Anderson's plan as "a very constructive proposal," and Councilman Carlton Christensen said it had "strong possibilities" and was likely the only way the city could avoid a lawsuit. Councilwoman Nancy Saxton seemed to favor another option — pursuing an appeal of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal's plaza decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still, Saxton said that Anderson's new deal was "intriguing."

And Anderson, following a press conference announcing the proposed solution, said, "I think the City Council will approve it."

The notion that Anderson's proposal was preordained for passage without any citizen comment irked some residents at Tuesday's hearing. Some said the public comment session was tokenism that occurred so the city could appear to be working through the public process.

"You got Rocky Anderson, the City Council and Jon Huntsman all holding hands together singing 'Kum-bay-ya.' Yeah, I think it's a done deal," Salt Lake resident Steve Pace said.

Indeed, Anderson announced his proposal to the media while six council members — except Saxton — stood behind him as he outlined the plan.

It's deja vu for some city critics who complained the original deal to sell a block of Main Street to the LDS Church in 1999 was predetermined by then-Mayor Deedee Corradini and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints long before any public input was taken.

It's yet another case, said former mayoral candidate John Renteria, of bureaucrats dictating what's good for the west side, instead of having good ideas work their way up though community councils to the City Council, like the process is supposed to work.

"This doesn't invite public comment," he said. "This is working from the top down."

Anderson's proposed property swap, announced Monday, calls for a 2-acre parcel owned by the LDS Church to be given to the city in exchange for the city's easement across the Main Street Plaza. The land on Salt Lake's west side would be developed by the Alliance for Unity, which will raise $5 million for a building where the University of Utah and Intermountain Health Care will offer free legal, business and medical advice as well as educational opportunities for children and adults.

Anderson had previously vowed he wouldn't bargain away public access on Main Street Plaza and ridiculed others for suggesting that such a bargain would unite the city. But, following intense negotiations mediated by the alliance, the mayor changed his mind, and community leaders are now rallying behind Anderson's proposal.

Adding to the notion that Anderson's plaza plan will be finalized was the mayor's decision Tuesday to back off the other plaza option — the time, place and manner restrictions that he had proposed two weeks ago.

The mayor's new stand came after receiving an American Civil Liberties Union letter on Tuesday that said the group would likely sue if the time, place and manner restrictions failed to allow demonstration groups along the entire length of the city's plaza easement and not just in two smallish bull pens on the northeast and southeast sides of the plaza.

Anderson said he would no longer support his own time, place and manner restrictions if they bring further litigation.

So, if time, place and manner restrictions are not a good idea, that leaves the council with few, if any, legitimate options outside adopting Anderson's land for peace plan.

That plan received support from the majority of people who commented at Tuesday's public hearing. A significant minority opposed the plan, saying the land swap was akin to bargaining away their free speech and free access rights.

Several evangelical Christians said the council was taking away their rights to preach to Latter-day Saints. Earlier Tuesday, police were called to the plaza after a group of evangelicals got into a verbal altercation with a wedding party.

At the hearing, transgendered people and cross-dressers said the LDS Church wouldn't allow them on Temple Square so they would no longer be able to cross Main Street Plaza. Some west-side residents said it shouldn't take the city giving away its easement to persuade rich east-side residents to contribute to a service project out west.

When the city sold the block of Main Street to the church in 1999, it retained a public-access easement across the proposed plaza. In response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the easement creates a free-speech forum, similar to what exists on public sidewalks.

The church didn't like that decision because it paid $8.1 million for the land and the ability to control what happens there, including restricting protests, demonstrations, leaflet distribution and some dress and speech.

The court suggested that the city either give its easement to the church — dissolving the right to public access and free speech — or craft time, place and manner restrictions for the plaza.

I think the evangelicals who are coming to SLC to preach to us shot themselves in the foot yesterday, big time. They are so adamant about their rights, and being rude, obnoxious, and loud. The mayor's office received many complaints about their behavior, as did the ACLU, and the SL City Council. People showed up at the SL council meeting last night who saw the incident with the shouting at the newly married couple. Rocky was appalled, as were some of the plaintiffs who brought the suit against Salt Lake City and the LDS church. And as Rocky said last night "Well, I didn't realize this would happen", I thought he was pretty naive. That is why the LDS church wanted control over the Plaza, to keep this kind of behavior out.

Those men could have moved 20 feet and continued shouting out their message. They were asked nicely to move by the police, and refused to budge. The mother of the bride asked them to move, they refused to budge. You see, it was their "right" to stand in the exact spot they were in to maximize their shouting against newly married couples. I thought the mother of the bride was pretty cool, she said "What can we do? I just hope those men who were here today have daughters. I would want their daughters to have a more peaceful day than my own daughter has had." And I will be judgemental here and say that the mother of the bride had a very Christian attitude.

I realize that the evangelicals think that they are going to save souls, and that if they don't make every effort, then our blood will be upon their hands. But this country was founded for religious freedom. And along with that comes respecting others beliefs.

I cannot understand why the Church doesn't avail itself of some exisiting technology that would interfer in a passive manner with the disruption of the peaceful atmosphere near the SLC Temple.

One example of such is a "white noise" generator, which will block out the vile utterances of the baboons with a continuous "whoose."

Strategically placed, large fountains or waterfalls could accomplish the same and would add to the beauty of the environs of Temple Square.

Continuous videotape recording with simultaneous broadcasts to public venues in the hometowns of the hyenas also would be a nice touch, as would observing the license numbers of the vehicles used by the goons to arrive and depart the scene of their disgraceful behavior.

A few lawsuits and prosecutions in response to what likely would be upheld by the courts as constituting "hate speech," the intentional infliction of emotional distress (on a aforementioned brides and their families, for example) might provide a significant deterent against vile conduct.

A final yet elegant touch could be brought to bear on the situation, and that is the checking of the names of the offenders against lists of outstanding warrants, child support judgements,tax evasion, immigration violations, etc., etc. Again, a perfectly legal application of the truth as gleaned from open-source information.

Indeed, such could result in the disbursement of rewards from various law enforcement agencies for information resulting in the apprehension and conviction of fugitives who happen to enjoy harassing and persecuting others. And again, such could be donated to charitable causes. The keystone of the reality of the situation is this: even if the defendants prevail against the civil actions proposed in the foregoing, the cost of their defense in civil and criminal actions would bankrupt them in short order.

Punitive damages could be donated to the poor in public ceremonies during which the jury verdicts (public records) could be read. Videotapes of these proceedings could be sent to the churches, employers, local media outlets, family members, and fellow hyenas as a testament of the vileness of the bigots' behavior for all to see.

Another element of said reality exists in the form of "our" numbers versus "theirs" and "our" financial and social power versus "theirs." More than a few friends and members of the Church have substantial resources that could be applied to the present problem.

It is almost a certainty that such power, held collectively by members and friends of the Church, could be marshalled from around the nation and the world. Such could and should be solely a grassroots effort in which the Church would not be involved on an offical or unoffical basis.

Feedback??

I am a Salt Lake County resident and an evangelical. I am embarrassed by the the behavior of my fellow evangelicals who are doing this yelling routine. The Mormon church, I am guessing, seems a bit big and scary to these lamebrains, and the yelling must be theraputic to them. As far as the evangelical view of the Mormon church goes, all of the damning research and liturature by the Tanners, Fawn Brodie, Michael Quinn, and others has convinced us that the LDS faith is founded on bald-faced lies by Joseph Smith - and that Mr. Smith was one of the greatest scoundrels of the 19th century. Brodie's book was particularly amusing & enlightening. I think the LDS church organization is impressive and Temple Square is pretty cool to visit, but I am wondering how so many LDS deal with these historical problems.

I was trying to be careful in saying what I said about evangelicals. I know many, and they are sincere in their desire to convert others, especially the LDS people. Just a few rotten apples in the bunch. A bunch of them spoke at the council meeting last night, including the guy in the picture in this article. They sincerely believe that they must convert us, and/or make a huge attempt to convert us, or our blood and souls will be on their hands. To be honest, yelling at me at the Plaza, telling me and other women that we are whores and harlots, that the LDS church leaders and men are whoremongers isn't the way to do that.

As far as Joseph Smith goes, there is no sitting on the fence. Either you believe he is a prophet of God and saw God the father, his son Jesus Christ in a vision, or you do not. I believe that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, that he did restore the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I don't have time to debate Fawn Brodie (whose claims have been disproven, and who embellished the truth), the Tanners, or Michael Quinn (who is bent on proving that most of the early church leaders were gay) right now. But as my missionary nephew said in a letter a few weeks ago, it does boil down to Joseph Smith. Either you believe or you don't believe. And I do.

I'd be happy to debate the points of the critics of the LDS church in email, but I'm off to a Christmas concert and shopping this evening. Later...

All good suggestions, except that the LDS church just wants peace. They want the plaza to return to the peaceful state it was in for the last three years, before the 10 District Court ruled the rules unconstitutional. These demostrators are ones that come year after year, and yell at us. I do know there are cameras recording the behavior on Temple Square, there are videos on lds.org of the more egregious behavior by these guys. I was appalled when I saw their behavior on tape last night. I had heard of it, and of the horrible stuff that was being said to brides and grooms, but to see it with my own eyes. Really unbelievable. And they are unmoveable.

Rocky Anderson has put forth a compromise that the easement will be withdrawn, in exchange the LDS church will donate a 2.17 acre lot in west SLC to improve an existing community center. This means that the LDS church will be able to dictate behavior on the whole of the Plaza and the preachers and demonstrators will be relegated back to the sidewalks just around Temple Square, the plaza, etc. I honestly think this has an excellent chance of passing. The LDS church will guarantee public access, they've already agreed not to spoil the view or fence the area in. In return, they will have full control over the Plaza. They have to pay off SLC yet again with the land, but it is a win-win situation.

I know that the Church only wants peace, as it must. But I for one am sick and tired of this kind of bigotted nonsense.

The ignorant and depraved rantings of historical revisionists notwithstanding, we LDS just don't do such things as shouting obscenities at new brides and their families in places considered sacred by others.

The Church is in a position wherein it would be most appropriate to just get on with its sacred mission. Church members can, do, and must do their part to prepare the world for the coming of the Savior, but we as individuals or groups of persons entitled to the protection of law and order due every citizen will have to face this nonsense at the grass-roots level in our communities sooner or later.

I don't advocate a violent response to hateful hooligans, but I am ready, willing, and able to defend my family, my friends, and myself against any and all who would dare to escalate their opposition from words to physical intimidation or just plain hateful attacks on our persons and our property.

The successful application to the rule of law to such hateful behavior would stand in sharp contrast to the false claims of powerlessness by government leaders in response to the entreaties of the early Saints.

Such does not fly in the face of the Savior's admonition to "turn the other cheek." He never expected or counseled His followers to sit back and be used as punching bags or worse. Indeed, in Luke 22:36, He counseled his disciples to sell their cloaks and purchase a sword if they ddid not have one.

I pray that the Church and its members can carry on with the great work at hand in relative peace for as long as possible. But I believe that the time has come to resist the disruption of our work and the practice of our faith in general in accordance with the law of the land.

And when said law can no longer ensure our physical safety, stronger measures will be necessary as a matter of self-defense and our very survival....

And I think the LDS church has reached the point where they are going to take this issue as far as it goes. They are not going to back down. One of the spokesman from the LDS church on Tuesday night said that the LDS church has given and given and given on this issue, and will give the land in exchange. He made it quite clear that the LDS church will also go to the US Supreme Court if necessary to preserve their property rights. The church is not going to back down on this issue, it will not compromise over the matter of having protestors heckling people and/or handing out leaflets.

I found it interesting that Rocky Anderson said several laws had been broken Tuesday by those people, then why didn't they get arrested? And charged? I don't know those answers, but am trying to find out.

Every year the LDS Temple in Mesa, Arizona puts up one of the most dazzling Christmas displays you've ever seen. The entire grounds is covered with Christmas lights. A nearly-lifesized Nativity with narration is on display too. You can go in to the Visitor's Center and receive a free video tape called "The Nativity". The spirit there is wonderful and I try to bring my kids once a year to enjoy it.

And, every year, dead center on the front sidewalk is a group of "evangelicals" yelling and carrying on with their signs. I would think that there are many more "Christian acts" that they could be performing this time of the year - specifically there are fatherless children and widows who could use some attention, hungry who need fed, etc. If I was a member of any church associated with those bigots I'd be looking for a new place to worship.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.