Church influence helping mold downtown

Wilson: The Nordstrom battle is history. And now it will appear to some that the vote by the Salt Lake City Council, with a majority of active LDS members, was steered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church played trump cards by opposing the moving of Nordstrom to The Gateway and by an ambitious plan to redevelop Crossroads Plaza and adjacent properties. So, the perception by many in our town will be that the Mormon Church once again gets what it wants, when it wants and under conditions it wants.

Only perceptions, of course. But two important deals have been made this year by LDS Church influence. First was the city decision to sell the right of way reserved by the city on what was formerly Main Street between South and North Temple streets. And now we have the Nordstrom deal.

Which raises an important question: Is Salt Lake City a temporal community in the spirit of American democracy or does the city continue to be steered on the big issues by the traditional power center of the city, the LDS Church?

This is an important question because there has never been a time when our city was so split on issues that divide the LDS Church and others in our community. These differences have important political and cultural results.

How do we solve this enduring and sometimes destructive split? It seems silly to suggest that the Mormon Church stay out of issues like the plaza right of way and Nordstrom moving. After all, there is nothing in the separation of church and state doctrine that prohibits a church from participating in politics. Nor is there anything fundamentally wrong with citizens opposing the church just because it is an organized religion. But this understanding solves nothing.

The LDS Church has avoided many political questions over its history by establishing the principle that the church would only get involved if the issue had a "moral" consideration. The church has jumped freely into issues like liquor by the drink, pari-mutuel horse betting and liberalization of liquor laws. Few have faulted them for that. In this regard, the church does what other major religions do around morality and politics.

But the plaza and Nordstrom affairs have dragged the church into issues beyond the "moral" definition because it concerns property the church owns. One important reason the church opposed Nordstrom moving must have been the church's commitment to Meier & Frank, the buyer of ZCMI. It would make sense for Meier & Frank to prefer Nordstrom leave town rather than be a competitor several blocks west at The Gateway. Did the church have a fiduciary responsibility to Meier & Frank?