Salt Lake City's Main Street Plaza

Important Note

This page was created in the fall of 2002, making it considerably out of date. Since then, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case, the city has traded the easement to the LDS Church for a piece of land on Salt Lake's west side, and the ACLU has again filed a lawsuit to stop everything. For the most current information, check the Salt Lake local news sources such as KSL-TV, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Deseret News.

Background

In April of 1999, Salt Lake City sold a portion of its Main street to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This piece of land, being a total of one-eighth of a mile in length, separated the two city blocks that constitute the headquarters of the church. Carrying out a plan published in 1963, the city deeded the street to the church for the sum of $8.1 dollars. Notwithstanding the transferance of ownership, the city reserved the right for public pedestrian access by means of an easement, which meant that the church must allow the public to cross the land at all times. In accordance with its beliefs, the church immediately imposed behavior restrictions on its new property such as forbidding swearing, sunbathing, drinking achohol, smoking, protesting, and other similar activities.

The church did not simply leave the land as it was. Instead, it tore up the road and constructed both an underground parking structure and an elaborate garden and pedestrian walkway. In addition, it tore down portions of the wall that surrounds one of its blocks, Temple Square, to allow pedestrians easier access to the church's most prized building: the Salt Lake Temple. This new development is commonly referred to as the Main Street Plaza, or Church Plaza.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, employed by the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake, took exception to the behavior restrictions imposed by the church. It filed a lawsuit against both the city and the church, claiming that free speech rights could not be abridged on the plaza. Despite an earlier Utah District Court ruling to the contrary, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found for the plantiffs and ruled the restrictions to be unconstitutional. The court found that the presence of the easement across the property provided for a public forum where the church could not place speech restrictions.

In response to the ruling, the church announced that it would appeal to the Supreme Court. Salt Lake City, under the direction of Mayor Rocky Anderson, decided to refrain from joining in the appeal. Mayor Anderson has also turned down multiple requests from various entities to give up the easement across the property, saying that such an action would be a betrayal of the public trust. This is where the issue currently stands.

My Take

First, let me preface my remarks by stating my possible bias: I am a member of the church in question and am employed by a company that is owned by the church. That having been said, I also want to say that I do not particularly care about the fate of the plaza. It is just a piece of land, not some ticket into heaven or anything else to merit such attention. The controversy over this one little block of road is idiotic and is widening the already existant gap between Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah. The fact that this is slowly tearing new holes into the fabric of Utah is ridiculous and is what makes me angry about the entire situation.

I believe that the church is entirely within its rights to expect to be able to ban certain behaviors on its paid-for property. If any person were to pay top dollar for piece of property, they would demand the same right. Unfortunately, this is not to be. There are several possible solutions to this problem, but I believe the best is for the church to wall up Temple Square again and either sell the land to someone else or give it back to the city. Why do I think this is the best solution? Read on.

Mayor Anderson Will Not Release the Easement

The Mayor believes that it is his civil duty to preserve the easement across the property for the public. I differ in opinion; that portion of Main Street was not a common area for protests or other demonstrations, and was becoming less and less valuable each day that passed due to the devaluation of downtown properties. Prior to the church's purchase, that segment of Main Street was hardly noticed by anyone as being significant in any way.

Could the Mayor even give up the easement, if he so desired? He has made many statements about a portion of the easement warranty deed which states that the rest of the contract is valid even if a part of it is deemed unconstitutional (Section 6.2). He claims that this section means that the contract is absolute and binding and he has no patience for those that wish to see it changed.

Obviously, Mayor Anderson cares very little about the very next section of the document which states that the contract may be amended at any time upon consent by both the city and the church. Section 6.3 even explicitly states that the easement reserved herein can be amended, modified or terminated... Anderson is making it appear as though the contract is unchangeable and thus must be dogmatically obeyed, when in reality it is anything but that.

Despite this ability to give the easement to the church, Mayor Anderson somehow refuses to even think about it. The City Council has considered taking action of its own by giving the easement to the church by itself, but Anderson has accused the Mormon-majority Council of being biased due to their membership in the church. Of course, he believes himself to be without bias, even though he is a member of the ACLU of Utah. How sad that he would cast stones at those that may or may not suffer from his own vice.

It would seem as though the easement is destined to remain in the hands of the city. Mayor Anderson could possibly be voted out of office in 2003 (a fact that causes him to bristle in anger), but this is not a dependable solution to the problem. More importantly, it would not solve the true problem of the division in the community. Thus, another solution must be found than to obtain the easement from the city.

The Supreme Court

There exists the possibility that the Supreme Court will both hear the case and find in favor of the church. This would both give validity to the church's claim on behavior restrictions and perhaps be the least divisive outcome that is favorable to the church. Being the pessimist that I am, though, I doubt that both of those conditions would hold true. Such an appeal would also take months to work through, and the damage to the community would grow worse and worse in the meantime. So much for that option.

Status Quo

The church could also just live with things how they currently stand. That means that they "own" the property, but cannot make any restrictions on behavior. This is the option that most non-Mormons like, since it maintains both the unquestionably beautiful plaza and free speech rights. It is understandably not an option for the church to do this, however, as they have spent considerable money to purchase the land, develop an expensive garden, and maintain it only to not have true ownership.

Perhaps some people do not realize why the church is so opposed to unrestricted behavior on the plaza. Those that question the need for behavior restrictions need only to walk around Temple Square during the church's semi-annual General Conference. Protestors love to picket at this time, trying to intimidate those who wish to attend the conference. Most of the protestors are generally benign, but some are aggressive and offensive. It is completely outside of reason for the church to spend millions of dollars for land, only to find those protestors lining its walkways.

Give Them What They Want

Since the city does not seem to appreciate the church's efforts in developing the Main Street Plaza, I would advocate that the church simply vacate the property. One of Mayor Anderson's stated goals is to revitalize the downtown area, especially Main Street, and the plaza is a wonderful first step in doing so. It is unfortunate that the Mayor does not recognize this fact and instead wishes that the deal had never been signed. Therefore, the church should rebuild the wall around Temple Square, turn off the fountains, stop maintaining the gardens, and either sell its interest in the property to another group or simply give it back to the city. The city could then turn it back into the pavement that some people seem to love.

It is sad that things would come to this, but the city is now unwilling to work with the church. I find it ironic that the church is treated in such a fashion, given their past generosity to the city. Perhaps someday, when cooler heads prevail, the block at the end of Main will be something that the entire city is proud of. Until then, let's just leave it as an ugly road.