On Tuesday, Ortega's landlords told him that the couple would need to vacate the house on Udall Street by the end of June. The house is owned by the investment arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church is a powerful force in the neighborhood: It has quietly bought properties — 52 in total — around the towering temple on Main Street for more than a decade, with plans for sweeping redevelopment with the arrival of the light rail.

Now, those plans are coming to fruition — plans that will force people like Ortega out of the homes they rent from the church. At least eight homes in the neighborhood are slated for demolition, mostly on Udall Street. While the church has pledged to preserve the historical integrity of the temple itself, preservationists are worried about the possible decimation of its surrounding neighborhood, which is designated as historic.

The neighborhood received its historic designation in 2001 because it is a landmark of Mesa's early development in the 1900s and the bungalow-style architecture.

The temple will close May 20 for extensive renovations and redevelopment in the surrounding neighborhood. It will reopen in 2020.

Church leaders unveiled renderings for the renovated temple on Thursday, offering a rare glimpse inside a building not typically accessible to those outside the Mormon faith. The news conference at the visitor's center came just days after Ortega said he and others on Udall Street were told they would have to leave to make way for the church's planned redevelopment.

It's unclear how many people rent homes from the church's investment organization, Land Equity Investors LLC, and how many were told to leave. The church plans to build a new visitor's center on the corner of LeSueur and Main streets, Udall is the block directly west of LeSueur.

Carl Duke, with the church's development arm, applied through the city to demolish eight homes, mostly on Udall Street, in April. The home Ortega rents is not on the demolition list, so he thought he was safe when he first heard the church's plans.

But, at a meeting this week, Ortega said he was told by his property management company, Beehive Property Management, that construction necessitated everyone in church-owned property on Udall vacate. Of 18 parcels on Ortega's block of Udall Street, 16 are owned by either the LDS Church or its investment arm.


https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2018/05/11/renters-mormon-church-owned-homes-asked-move-mesa-temple/599551002/

Big bucks in the redevelopment business ... explains a lot.

---

Roc Arnett, with the Mormon church and a longtime East Valley leader, spoke at Thursday's news conference. The temple holds a special place in his heart, he said, because it's where he was married and marked the adoption of a child. "The families that are here have the same kind of reverence for the building," he told The Republic.

Arnett could not detail redevelopment plans for the area around the church, but hinted that the redevelopment would be "Ogden-esque," alluding to a similar project in Ogden, Utah.

In the city blocks near the Ogden temple, renovated several years ago, the church's development arm aimed to build at least 70 to 100 housing units, according to Standard Examiner. Plans for the ongoing development include a hotel and a senior center.

John Wesley, Mesa's planning director, said last week that the church's planned redevelopment would include housing.

(Same link)

This is working out a lot better than when Utah settlers told the natives to vacate.

Ideally, they should demolish the temple and create a park, like what was done to Kowloon walled city.

I always assumed that was a risk you took as a renter, especially when renting an older home. The historical preservation issue may have legs, LDS Inc not having the greatest track record in that regard. A simple non-renewal of leases doesn't strike me as news. It may be annoying and even expensive for the tenant, but it is likely well within the law.

It is often cheap and convenient for a renter to voluntarily leave a property, expensive and inconvenient for the owner. It's inconvenient and an unexpected expense to involuntarily leave. That's one of the basic gambles of renting versus owning.

I guess the Mormon church has little interest in having modest bungalows surrounding the temple. Too many prosperous Mormons will want a temple view from their upscale dwellings.

Why does a "church" have an investment arm?

I don't think the church has an investment arm. I think Mormon business and investment operations have a church arm.

>> "Why does a "church" have an investment arm?"

Because they keep the other arm tied to the bedpost.

The "Church" is out of hand and out of control. Like Catholicism during the Inquisition period.

The LDS church is the latter-day iteration of the ancient Church of Jesus Christ. But we hear nothing about the for-profit investment arms of the ancient church. I've always wondered how Jesus H. Christ made his big bucks.

"Follow the Money!"

Does this scare anyone else, or is it just me and my PTSD.

It is unnerving to see Mormons building their ugly, imposing architecture in the center of cities, such as SLC (My God! They ripped up the whole center of downtown!), Ogden, even Philadelphia. They own vast tracts of land in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Florida, Hawaii, Rome, London, most of the countries in South America, and who knows where else. Now it's Africa and India. TSCC and LDS, Inc., and it's various investment store-front false-name undercover companies--would like to take over the World! In fact, that's what Mormons preach in their meetings, and in their semi-annual televised "World Conferences."

Yes, that is the Mormon cult's main message. "Every Nation, kindred and tongue...." or something like that. Mormon World Domination. Their arrogance knows no bounds!

True Mormonism has not changed since its early days. Joseph Smith started the Council of Fifty, and had them crown him King of the World, because he wanted world domination and was going to do everything possible to try to get it. He was planning to overthrow the U.S. Government. If he had not been shot off, the state of Illinois would have had a huge problem on their hands. How many people would have been killed? There are reasons why nobody (except Mormons) did anything to try to protect his life. It was well known that a mob was going to kill him.

Why would a real church own houses ?

Why would a neighborhood in the desert get any kind of historic creds for house architecture. Land owners will do what they will with their property.

That got to keep spending that cash. They know the dummies will keep sending in tithing to fill up the piggy bank tax free.

Headline: "Mormon Church to Destroy Historic Neighborhood"

That might have legs.

We thank thee oh God for a profit!
That's the theme song of the top 15.