Comments about ‘Phoenix neighbors voice opposition to LDS temple’

An eyesore??? Even if you are not a member of the LDS church, all of the temples are constructed to fit in with the place they are built, and all of them are beautiful.

Same as with a Cathedral -- they are beautiful.

The architecture of most religious building are amazing. They are built as a structure to God, and in so dedicating them to God, they are made to be "the best"!!

The Salt Lake Temple is one of the most frequented tourist attractions in the U.S. I don't think most people go see an "eyesore" for their pleasure!!

Come on Phoenix, don't be so closed minded!!

"it would be an eyesore and would disrupt their mountain views"

That's an interesting argument - beautiful architecture (regardless if it's an LDS temple) is an eyesore.

Wal-mart is an eyesore. My old neighbors un-landscaped yard was an eyesore. But I've never heard a temple being called an eyesore.

Where hasn't the local population been opposed to an LDS temple being built only to completely backtrack as soon as they realize a tremendous increase in their property values. The Washington D.C. temple was so opposed that local government sought help from the feds fearing that Mormons would invade....and they did...and still do....but when property values tripled they sure had a change in attitude. There was no mass migration of gentiles leaving the area. And people get along pretty well... until the College Football season comes around anyways.(LOL)

There goes the neighborhood.

An eyesore.. ha ha wow. The little hills behind their houses are nothing to look at.

If there is one thing the LDS church does great, is the design and landscaping of its Temples.

Dear Phoenix:
Blessings, even rich blessings are in store if you allow this wonderful house of the Lord.

That's the first time I have EVER heard of a Temple being referred to as an "eyesore."

The "mountains" they have there are teeny, they are hills.

That being said, I almost bought a home near the new Temple in South Jordan just to benefit from the increased land values and I wasn't even LDS.

I don't think this is a case of "persecution" against the Church. Get over your complex. Some people oppose the building of a temple at that location. Listen to their concerns. Communicate your vision for the area.

I don't blame them for being opposed. I too would oppose one in my backyard. I don't think the temples are eyesores. I think that they can be beautiful. Unfortunatly, unlike a Cathedral not everyone is able to go inside and enjoy the beauty and the design (beyond the open house).

The building serve a certain segment of the population. Don't blame the rest of the population for not wanting it there.

The eye sore are those barren treeless mountains that would be behind the temple.

the LDS Church should listen to the concerns and note the legitimate issues, traffic, aesthetics, etc. If the typical modern Temple formula needs to be changed to fit into the landscape, then that should be a legitimate concern. Otherwise, they should be allowed to built it. Height can be altered, and color can too. Not all temples are all white granite buildings. What works in Utah, but not necessarily everywhere else. Otherwise it should be a moot issue whether or not it can be built.

Lesson on aesthetics? Are you kidding me?

I live in Phoenix...the "natural landscape" is pretty bad. Just wait until you see what this Temple will do to property values and how pretty it will be.

Then let them wrought in their "beautiful mountain scenery." I know, that doesn't sound very Christlike. But it reaches a point where you just have to let them wrought in their out self dug pit.

If they were actually concerned "With the beauty of the surrounding desert, the neighbors should not have" built their neighborhood there. Sounds like a serious case of NIMBYism.

Hey, this place is so beautiful, let's build a subdivision of cookie cutter homes and then let's keep everyone else out. That's certainly "respecting the local environment and esthetics."

Some people have the brains of a rock.
Mormons are the best neighbors in the universe.
The goofs should call some of the folks that complained on other temples and see what they all think now.

Putting in a Temple adds to the real estate value? Give me a break! I am a Real estate agent and believe me, clients do NOT want to buy a property by or near, a Temple or any church. It has nothing to do with religion or bigotry, it has more to do with traffic, noise, lights, etc. And NO, property values do not increase, they tend to decrease, near Temples.

If a 4 story building is going to cover up their mountain view...obviously they were sick on "mountains are bigger than houses" day at school. Move to a place with real mountains if that's what you are worried about.

LDS have a long and documented history of idiotic opposition to temples. So don't blame us for questioning their motives. No temple has ever been an eyesore, and blocking views? of what? it's not like this temple (any temple) surrounds the entire neighborhood and blocks all their views, it's one building. The only thing any of them might see is the steeple. Let's see, two to three feet wide...hmmm.

"Religious Freedom Act permits churches to be built in any type of zoning and does not restrict steeple height."

Even a ward or stake house embedded in a quiet neighborhood is a huge disruption to the view and tranquility. Not all neighbors appreciate here in Utah, and there are a few members who admit they feel pretty badly about the disruptions.

I don't live in Phoenix but I have seen pictures. So sagebrush and dry hills are a better view? It is good to get input from the community but from what I have heard the property values do go up and it seems like everything around it improves.