The Effect of LDS Structures on Neighborhood Property Values

Final Draft of Term Paper:
The Effect of LDS Structures on Neighborhood Property Values
Proseminar Course – Fall 2011
Instructor: Dr. Steven Harris
By Jeremy Bates
 
The Problem
For many valid reasons, residents of predominantly residential neighborhoods object to proposed new construction in their neighborhood. Whether an affordable housing project, apartments, LDS religious structure, or museums, “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)” and the request to not “build anything, anywhere, at all (BANANA) are frequent sources of conflict. In an attempt to avoid future conflicts and opposition and in trying to help future residents of proposed temple sites, government leaders who evaluate LDS construction proposals, and the LDS Church, this research discusses the effect of LDS structures on residential neighborhood values.
This research paper demonstrates that prior researchers have found that properties near LDS structures have sold at a significantly higher rate than properties near other Christian structures. Other researchers have found that one structure, namely affordable housing projects, may positively impact neighborhood property values, further strengthening the argument that one structure/property can effect property values throughout a neighborhood. This research then demonstrates the assessed value of properties surrounding seven LDS temples located in the US, outside of Utah, and built within the last 20 years. This objective data was used due to the chronological nature of assessments, whereas market value can be determined only by a completed sale of the property. Housing prices in the United States increased dramatically in the 1990’s and have dropped significantly since at least 2007. This research controlled for variables such as falsely positive increases in property value by only including one temple in Utah (Bountiful), where the majority of the population is LDS. Temples built in areas experiencing increased economic development within the last 20-30 years (at least, Nigeria & Ghana) have also been excluded out of possibly unrepresentative property value data. LDS temples located outside of the US were also excluded, as property assessment data and converting the currency of property taxes to constants US dollars is beyond the scope of this research. Where possible, assessed property value data for a temple would include data from three years before, the year the temple opened, and three years after the temples was built. For example, if the subject temple was built in 2000, assessed property value data would include the years 1997, 2000, and 2003. Assessed property value data were obtained from County Assessor’s Offices, including: Middlesex South, MA , Davis County, UT ; Harris County, TX; San Diego, CA; Columbia County, WA; and Twin Falls County, ID; and the San Diego, CA.
Who are the LDS?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) should not be understood as a new religion, nor a rejection of existing Christendom but rather, an instauration or restoration of the church that existed not only from 0 – 200 AD but from the beginning of human history. The LDS Church is frequently cited as one of the fastest growing churches in the United States. Members of the LDS Church “believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” LDS members believe that in 1820, while praying to learn which existing church was true, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the LDS Church, saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a small grove of trees near his family farm. They told him to join none of the existing churches and that the original gospel of the Savior would be restored through him, in due time. Three years later, an angel named Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. and informed him of an ancient book of scripture which documented the Savior’s ministry to the people of ancient America. Moroni told Smith that the latter would translate the text by the gift and power of God, in due time. In 1830, the first edition of the Book of Mormon was published. Officially founded/restored in Fayette, New York by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830, the LDS Church grew as quickly as its opposition. In 1831, 1836, and the early 1840’s, the Independence, MO; Kirtland, OH; and Nauvoo, IL temples were announced and construction begun. Before the Nauvoo Temple could be completed, Joseph Smith was martyred, while imprisoned in a jail in Carthage, Illinois in 1844. Two years later and to escape further persecution, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s official successor, led the LDS people to what was then Mexico, now known as the state of Utah. Rapid colonization began and proselytizing missions continued. As of December 2011, there were over 14 million members of the LDS Church all around the world.
LDS Temples
In 1972, then-Elder Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of Seventy explained:

In Biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. These buildings thus were not synagogues, nor any other ordinary places of worship... Following the pattern of Biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe, and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites.

LDS temples are used for ordinances which are designed to help participants and their ancestors to return to the presence of God. After completing the ordinances individually, members are encouraged to perform the ordinances for their ancestors via proxy. These ordinances include: baptisms for the dead (in a font similar to the one existent at Solomon’s Temple), Endowment preparatory ordinances , the Endowment ordinance, and marriage for time and all eternity.
There are currently 135 LDS temples in operation, 16 under construction, and 15 announced. The first of these temples was built in Kirtland, Ohio between the years of 1833 and 1836, and currently has an area of 15,000 ft2. a nutshell, the LDS build Temples to help attendees, their families, and their ancestors prepare to return to the presence of Heavenly Father (exaltation) through sacred ordinances, including eternal or “celestial marriage,” performed under proper authority. For a more detailed explanation of the role of LDS Temples, see the address titled, “The Holy Temple,” by Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Moses’ tabernacle was what many consider to be the first “temple,” despite it being mobile. Solomon’s Temple had a baptismal font with 12 stone oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, holding it up. Modern LDS Temples have this same feature and use such fonts to perform proxy work as referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Some members of the LDS Church have to wait years, saving up enough money to make the trip to the nearest temple. As membership in the LDS Church continues to grow, and even if it stopped growing right now, all members do not live close to a temple. To meet the need of this growing membership to attend temples, leaders of the LDS Church would like to make temples more available to each member, ideally within four hours of each member. This research found no metric-based quota LDS members must meet in order to warrant a temple built in closer proximity to their location; it is all based on inspiration. Still, to my knowledge, there is no standard operating procedure for selecting the site of a future temple. The President of the LDS Church, currently Thomas S. Monson, follows the inspiration he receives and temples are built accordingly. . There is no quota of LDS or non-LDS members in areas where future temples may be located. For example, there is a temple currently under consideration in one area which will provide temple ordinances to an unusually small amount of LDS members, approximately 400. Other areas may have as many as 20,000 LDS members and a temple has not yet been built near them. This difference was explained in an interview with Brian Carrington, Director of Special Purpose Properties at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He explained that:
Since [LDS Church leaders] choose the best locations possible [for temples,] those locations would naturally increase as property values around them also increase. [An] increase in property values has never been a criteria for selecting the city in which a temple will be placed, nor is it a criteria for locating a temple within a certain neighborhood. The LDS Church does attempt to locate temples generally as follows, and presents them to the Temple Committee which then makes the final judgment. The criteria are as follows:
a. In nicer residential areas that will likely remain nice in the future,
b. Away from noisy, commercial, or industrial areas,
c. Easily accessed by the membership of the proposed temple district, and
d. An appropriate setting.

As more people join the LDS Church, more LDS temples and meetignhouses will be built. Municipal decision makers and local residents of such future temple sites need to know if such structures, in the past, have increased or decreased property values. If zoning boards approve structures which decrease their constituents’ property values, both the residents and the government leaders will be dissatisfied. LDS Church leaders, municipal leaders, and local residents, thus far, have worked together successfully in at least 131 of the 135 existing Temples (97%). The opposition from the three known examples arose out of a primary concern that LDS temples would decrease residential property values. Significant opposition to the construction of LDS temples existed in the Boston, MA (built in Belmont, MA); Paris, France; and Orlando, FL temple site acquisitions and permitting processes. This paper provides objective data from multiple county assessors’ offices which refutes the claim that LDS temples decrease neighborhood property value.
In 1990 the Orange County Commission (OCC) approved, on a 6-1 vote, the LDS Church’s request to build a 76,000 ft2 temple. The Courtleigh Park Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against the construction of the LDS Temple in Orlando, due to concerns over the OCC ignoring their concern of disruptively large amounts of traffic. (The LDS Church estimated the traffic to the Orlando temple would peak at 100 per day, on Friday and Saturdays only.) Environmental concerns over the possible disruption of the Butler Chain of Lakes were also cited in the lawsuit. Prior to the lawsuit, the LDS Church made at least one concession and decreased the total floor area from 79,000 ft2 to 70,000 ft2. The Orange Circuit Court judge decided in favor of the vote of the OCC and the LDS Church built a temple thereafter.
In August 1998, Belmont residents Charles Counselman, a professor of astronomy at MIT, Margaret Boyajian, and Jean Dickinson, were concerned about the scale of the proposed LDS temple, 94,100 square feet with six spires and proposed steeples up to 156 feet. Citing the Dover Amendment, which “permits churches and schools to avoid zoning restrictions,” the Belmont City Council approved these proposed dimensions,
without imposing many of the conditions requested by the neighbors. As a result, the three residents [successfully] brought suit in state court challenging, in particular, the steeple height. After that, the LDS initially appealed to the state appeals court, but then petitioned for direct review to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), Massachusetts' highest court. Review was granted [and on] May 16, 2001, the SJC reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of the temple and its 139-foot steeple. On the opinion in the temple's favor were Chief Justice Marshall[.] [The three residents] then filed a constitutional challenge to the Dover Amendment in federal court, which was not successful.

Their lawyer submitted his appeal of the federal court’s decision to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. After the judge decided the case in favor of the Belmont City Council’s vote, Counselman stated that the presence of the Boston Temple in his neighborhood was like having a Wal-Mart in his neighborhood.
By comparison, there are 3,002 Walmart Supercenters and 79 LDS Temples in the United States. The average size of a Wal-Mart store is 108,000 square feet and each Supercenter has an average of “185,000 square feet [,] employ[s] about 350 or more associates, and most are open 24 hours,” seven days per week. The Boston Temple is 69,600 square feet with approximately 30 unpaid volunteers working and is open from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Tuesday through Saturday, excluding holidays. Thus, the Boston Temple is open 36% of the time, has 8% of the volunteers/employees, and has 64% of the square footage present in the smallest Wal-Mart stores.
The conflict over the Boston Temple apparently was apparently worked on by at least Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy. In his eulogy of the late-Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Hatch stated:
There was another time when the Mormon Church was, ah, nearing completion of its temple in Boston. Belmont, I think. I was approached by several people working in the temple and, ah, was informed that the city would not allow a spire to be placed on the top of the temple with an Angel on top of it as is customary on Mormon temples. I immediately called Ted and asked for help. Not long after that conversation, he called me back and said quote 'all of western Massachusetts will see the angel Gabriel on the top of the Mormon temple.'

While the lawsuits were proceeding, construction started in 1997 and concluded in August 2000. An open-house for the public was then held and, seven years after losing an US Senate election challenge, then-LDS Bishop Mitt Romney personally escorted Senator Ted Kennedy through the structure.
The LDS Church in 2005 considered purchasing land in Saint Cloud, a suburb of Paris. The acquisition was not completed and a second property in Villepreux property was considered in 2006. The mayor of Villepreux said:
[O]f the three parties interested [in purchasing the site] -- an Arab emirate, a Russian or the Mormons -- he [the mayor] prefers the Mormons on two grounds, morality and the quality of the investment. Never has there been any concern about public order with church members, he says.

The Church did not end up acquiring the project but in June 2010 sought and eventually acquired the property located at 46 Boulevard Saint-Antoine, Le Chesnay, France. A temple is now under construction.
How Many Temples Will Be Built?
Ideally, the LDS Church leaders would like to have a temple within four hours of each member. From the 1830’s through 1915, LDS Temples were located in North America, with the main concentration being built in Utah. In 1919, the LDS Church completed construction of a temple in Laie, forty years before Hawaii became a state. Temples were completed in Bern, Switzerland, and in Hamilton, New Zealand in 1955 and in 1958, respectively. Map 1 demonstrates where the current existing, announced, and under construction temples are located around the world. A chronological list of when each Temple was built, an ascending list of square footage, and an ascending list of site acreage may be located in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
Variables which are constantly in flux, such as the quality of neighborhood schools, availability of public transportation, crime rates, unemployment rates, average area income, average degree of resident’s education, influence property value. Due to the volatile nature of housing prices, my research has found that the effect of LDS temples on neighborhood property values does not overpower nor counteract prevailing local and national housing and lending standards. (Further, if an LDS Temple is built next to a city dump or nuclear dump, it will not significantly increase the value of surrounding property values. Likewise, if an LDS Temple is built in Aspen, CO or Dubai, it will not significantly decrease the value of surrounding property values. The temple built next to a county club in Klein, TX, discussed below, provides a good example of this.) For example, prior to the housing bubble bursting in 2008, the assessed value of properties near LDS Temples consistently trends upward (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). This research does not suggest that such increases are due to the presence of LDS Temples. In fact, the LDS Church specifically does not select temple sites with the anticipation of appreciation nor the expectation of increasing neighborhood values. The sites are selected by inspiration to the leader of the Church, currently Thomas S. Monson.

The Effect of LDS Structures on Property Value
In 2003, Steven J. Danderson, Adjunct Professor of Finance at Saint Leo University and Adjunct Professor of Economics and International Management at the University of Phoenix, conducted research evaluating the effect of the Boston, Orlando, and Raleigh, NC LDS Temples. (At the time of his study, the Paris, France temple site acquisition had not begun.) His data suggest that, notwithstanding the presence of LDS Temples, the value of neighborhood properties were not negatively affected but actually increased, in Boston and Orlando. The Raleigh temple, which is significantly smaller than the Boston and Orlando temples, had no significant effect on neighborhood property values. Both his research and mine do not suggest a causal relationship exists between increasing neighborhood property values and LDS temples. Danderson goes on to explain his sample population and their distance from the three studied temples:
“An analysis of 207 sample home prices (and other data) were taken in the Boston, Orlando, and Raleigh metropolitan areas. All 207 were within two miles of the nearest temple and within the same town. 103 of the 207 sample home prices were within a radius of one mile. Comparing home values in different metropolitan areas was accomplished using the expedient of dummy variables that accounted for the differing costs of living in each area.”

Danderson’s study used a hedonic price model approach, including dummy variables, and evaluated properties within one mile of the subject temples. The regression models indicate that, "for each square foot of temple floor space, local residential properties increased in value by 43 cents (standard deviation of 21.5 cents)." Danderson's sample population of properties revealed almost across the board (95%) increases “in value of $29,455 – $77,445 (USD). (If the claim that the temple substantially decreased property values was true, one would expect 95% of the properties to show a decline of at least $51,000)." These increases are not claimed to have been caused solely by the proximity of LDS temples. The author’s use of linear regression models revealed that in the case of the Orlando Temple, the “coefficient’s t of 4.4178, with 100 degrees of freedom, indicates that there is a greater than 99.9% probability that the temple adds to the value of area homes." This led Danderson to deduce that "there is a 95% probability that larger temples add more value than smaller temples." The author includes traffic data (of persons attending the Temples) released by the LDS Church and excludes commercial property claiming, correctly, that businesses generally prefer increased traffic, as that has a likelihood of increasing their revenue.
Carroll, Clauretie, and Jensen in 1996 conducted a study examining the relationship of property values and the distance of the sample population of properties from the religious structure. This study refuted previous research by Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) and showed that:
“distance from the site of a future church has little or no impact on residential property values, whereas distance from an existing church is associated with lower property values. [Their] evidence indicates that neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance the value of neighborhood residential property (emphasis added).”

Carroll et al. also examined the relationship between property values and their respective distances from churches of any denomination. Their research investigates “nearly 5,000 residential property transactions in Henderson, Nevada, between January 1986 and December 1990.” This sample size (5,000) multiplies by a factor of ten the sample size (496) used by Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) and sharply contrasts with the latter’s research which incorrectly concluded:
“[A] a church can constitute a negative externality on residential property values [as] much as does a power line, hazardous waste dump, landfill, or nuclear waste repository.”

Carroll et al. found that “[c]ompared to properties (actual or future) churches of ‘other’ denominations, properties near… LDS churches [not Temples] sell for 1.3% more.” The authors indicate that these changes are significant (i.e. greater than the uncertainties inherent in the data and methods) and are directly attributable to the religious structure in question?] Interestingly and complimentary, Carroll et al. found that “property values decrease at a decreasing rate with distance from the neighborhood church [LDS and other], up to a distance of 5.5 miles.” Carroll et al. evaluated five LDS properties and their respective neighborhoods, comprised of 749, 32, 13, 31, and 237 surrounding residential property values after the churches were built. The lack of pre-religious structure residential property value is a shortcoming in this study by Carroll et al., which is discussed further by Thompson, Butters, and Schmitz in 2011.
In 2006 and from a different microeconomic perspective, Sheppard, Oehler and Benjamin examined both the reliability of property value models which compared eleven cities in Massachusetts which evaluated targeted policies of cultural amenity creation and preservation. Sheppard et al. found “that [the] local availability of cultural amenities can have significant impacts on property values.” Further, research conducted by Pitzer, Rexhausen and Makela; Sheppard, Oehler, Benjamin and Kessler (2006); and Hasley (2005) strongly suggest that museums contribute cultural, educational, and local commerce as well as employment benefits to their respective neighborhoods. The limited hours LDS temples are in operation suggest similar gains to local residents and policy makers.
In addition, Danderson’s analysis of the Boston, Orlando, and Raleigh Temples demonstrated a 95% probability of an increase in property value of $29,455 – $77,445. Again, this increase may be due to a number of factors, including the inflation in housing prices but the takeaway point is that residential property values within two miles of three LDS Temples did not decrease.
In 2009, Deng evaluated the effect of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) on neighborhood property values.” In December 2009, Clarion examined the effect of a major retail facility on neighborhood property values by comparing other areas which had a major retail facility built within their boundaries recently. This is similar to Danderson’s research but is centered on commercial, traffic-seeking business, not religious structures. The relevance of these studies may be found by their difficult undertaking of isolating the effects on neighborhood property values based on the placement of one structure.
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. and Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Inc (LISC) in 2010 examined the effect of LIHTC on neighborhood property values using two approaches. In the Bronx, they interviewed impacted residents, political and community leaders, business owners and secondarily, they assessed value changes, post-LIHTC construction. LISC et al. also claim that each LIHTC project “can be thought to have an ‘impact ring’ that extends 1,000 feet from the project site itself.” By comparison, the impact rings of Danderson and Carrol et al. are up to two miles and up to five miles, respectively.
These studies (Deng, Clarion, and LISC) of neighborhood property values of LIHTC and major retail facility construction indicated that low and middle income neighborhoods have a greater positive impact on property values where the income is lower and less positive (though still positive) impacts on middle and high-income neighborhoods. In other words, the higher the income of the area, the smaller the positive effect on property values. These studies strengthen a premise of this research: neighborhood property values generally continue the existing trajectory they were on prior to the construction of LDS temples and are not reversed by the placement of such a structure. The data from these studies may be interpreted to suggest that middle and high income neighborhoods with future LDS temples will demonstrate a positive impact on property values (though this increase will not be proportionately equal to the positive effect some LIHTC developments have on low income neighborhood).
The Effect of Seven Temples on Neighborhood Property Values
Landscaping, building exterior, and upkeep of LDS temples are not included as variables since such are extensively maintained (Danderson, 2003). Unlike Danderson, the data in this research were obtained from County Assessor’s Offices, including: Middlesex South, MA , Davis County, UT ; Harris County, TX; San Diego, CA; Columbia County, WA; and Twin Falls County, ID; and the San Diego, CA.
Twin Falls, ID Temple
The 31,245 ft2 Twin Falls Temple is on a 9.1 acre parcel and demonstrates an exterior finish of quartz rock. This temple opened at the end of August in 2008. The subdivision where the Twin Falls temple is located was created in 2007 therefore assessment data from three years prior to the temple opening (2005) is not available. The following chart demonstrates the assessed values of properties surrounding the temple site, from the years 2008 and 2011. A salient point of this chart is the positive trend of each property, which is in the opposite direction of national housing values during the same period. This research did not discover other development in or near this particular subdivision which may account for the increase in property values, therefore, dividing the original master parcel into a subdivision and the construction of an LDS temple are the main contributing factors.

Chart of Assessed Property Values in the Ensign Point Subdivision from the Years 2008 (Series 1) and 2011 (Series 2).



Parcel 2008 2011
RP T169800-40110A $46,257 $102,813
RP T169800-40070A $46,682 $103,755
RP T169800-40030A $46,576 $103,520
RP T169800-40010A $46,642 $103,351
RP T169800-20010A $44,430 $71,198
RP T169800-20090A $44,244 $71,355
RP T169800-20170A $44,244 $71,355
RP T169800-20240A $45,878 $73,025
RP T169800-20050A $45,019 $72,268
RP T169800-20130A $45,019 $72,268
RP T169800-20210A $45,647 $72,744
RP T169800-30050A $43,180 $77,194
RP T169800-30010A $46,055 $82,055

Boston Temple
The Boston Temple opened in October 2000 and rests on an 8 acre parcel atop of Old Belmont Hill. AN Olympia white granite exterior covers the 69,600 ft2 edifice. Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the increase in residential property values in the neighborhood surrounding the Boston Temple, which was completed in 2000. The property located at 14 Ledgewood Place demonstrates a disproportionate increase in value. This is due in part to the fact that it is an LDS non-Temple meetinghouse which existed prior to the construction of the Temple. In fact, the property containing the meetinghouse included the land on which the Temple was built, prior to the permitting process. The following chart demonstrates a significant increase in property values, whether due to the construction of the LDS temple or due to national housing prices.
Table 1: The Difference between Assessed Property Values of properties surrounding the Boston LDS Temple, 1996 – 2000 compared to 2000 – 2003.


Table 2: Graph of Property Values bordering the Boston, MA LDS Temple:
Series 1: 1996, Series 2: 2000, and Series 3: 2003




Bountiful Temple
The 104,000 ft2 Bountiful Temple opened in January 1995 and displays a Bethel white granite exterior. Table 3 demonstrated the increase in residential property values in the neighborhood surrounding the Bountiful Temple. Prior to the construction of the Bountiful Temple the property with an address of 1646 E. Temple View was a vacant lot. By the time construction of the Temple was completed, the owner developed a large house on the previously vacant lot.
 
Table 3: Graph of Property Values bordering the Bountiful, UT Temple: Series 1: 1992 (Pre-Temple Construction), Series 2: 1995 (1st Year of Temple Operation), and Series 3: 1998 (post-Temple Construction Assessment)




Address Pre-Temple Value Construction Value Post-Temple Value Difference
(1998-1992)
1992 1995 1998
475 S. Bountiful Boulevard 19,912.00 $391,548.00 $488,210.00 $468,298.00
507 S. Bountiful Boulevard 26,000.00 $248,445.00 $388,940.00 $362,940.00
541 S. Bountiful Boulevard 32,076.00 $255,680.00 $315,790.00 $283,714.00
571 S. Bountiful Boulevard 36,000.00 $413,200.00 $515,630.00 $479,630.00
685 S. Bountiful Boulevard 38,000.00 $348,856.00 $433,970.00 $395,970.00
1660 E. Temple View Dr. 40,000.00 $75,500.00 $86,830.00 $46,830.00
1646 E. Temple View Dr. 48,000.00 $75,500.00 $804,890.00 $756,890.00
1632 E. Temple View Dr. 48,000.00 $75,500.00 $86,830.00 $38,830.00
1626 E. Temple View Dr. 70,000.00 $183,160.00 $223,720.00 $153,720.00
04-120-0016 from 1993 to current 110,000.00 $176,000.00 $208,840.00 $98,840.00
1608 E. Temple View Dr. 115,555.00 $175,930.00 $214,550.00 $98,995.00
1613 E. Temple View Dr. 132,553.00 $207,260.00 $254,300.00 $121,747.00
1633 E. Temple View Dr. 137,400.00 $219,840.00 $261,940.00 $124,540.00
1651 E. Temple View Dr. 153,447.00 $199,480.00 $244,480.00 $91,033.00
1673 E. Temple View Dr. 155,000.00 $248,000.00 $296,050.00 $141,050.00
498 S. Temple View 187,308.00 $299,690.00 $358,680.00 $171,372.00
436 S. Temple View Dr. 192,726.00 $308,360.00 $325,000.00 $132,274.00
404 S. Temple View Dr. 204,888.00 $327,820.00 $392,730.00 $187,842.00
472 S. Temple View Dr. 223,080.00 $356,930.00 $427,990.00 $204,910.00
344 S. Temple View Dr. 243,600.00 $316,680.00 $393,150.00 $149,550.00
314 S. Temple View Dr. 300,495.00 $390,640.00 $405,000.00 $104,505.00
270 S. Temple View Dr. 0 $75,000.00 $86,250.00 $11,250.00
Bountiful City owned. no value - tax exempt

Houston Temple
The 33,970 ft2 Houston Temple exhibits a Luna pearl granite exterior and rests on an 11 acre property bordered on the immediate southwest and southeast is the Raveneaux Country Club. The temple property is located at the intersection of Cypresswood Drive and Champion Forest Drive, in Klein, Texas. To the immediate northwest are vacant lots/fields. Data provided by the Harris County Assessor's Office indicated static assessment of $0 from 2002 – 2011 on over 20 county and other government-owned properties located on the north (Champion Forest Drive) and east (Cypresswood Drive) of the temple grounds. If LDS Temples negatively impacted residential property values, one would expect the Raveneaux Country Club to oppose such construction. This research found no evidence of opposition against the Houston temple’s construction by the Raveneaux Country Club or local residents.

(The orange circle marks the location of the Houston, TX temple. This map was provided by www.bing.com.)

Columbia River, WA Temple
The 16,880 feet2 Columbia River Temple rests on a 2.88 acre site and its exterior is comprised of white Bethel granite from Italy and Vermont. It opened in late November 2001 but Columbia County assessed property values were only available from 2007 through 2011. Similar to Danderson’s examination of the Raleigh, North Carolina temple, this research examined the Columbia River, Washington temple and found no statistically significant effect on neighborhood property values. The Columbia County Assessor’s Office reflects national housing price decreases after the housing bubble burst in 2007-2008.
Table 4: Assessed Residential Property Values of Homes Bordering the Columbia River, Washington Temple, 2007-2011





(This data was obtained from the Columbia County, WA Assessor’s Office (http://www.columbiaco.com/index.aspx?NID=15). The data in bold are government property and have not been included in the graph above.)


Address 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
1922 Sky Meadow Ave 320,340 320,340 320,340 320,340 194,180
1930 sky meadow Ave 334,680 334,680 334,680 334,680 318,650
1942 sky meadow 42,440 42,440 42,440 42,440
376 Temple Meadow Ln 301,360 301,360 301,360 301,360 223,930
368 Temple Meadow Ln 275,290 275,290 275,290 129,850 37,500
360 Temple Meadow Ln 205,380 205,380 205,380 205,380 182,300
352 Temple Meadow Ln 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 37,500
337 Temple Meadow Ln 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 37,500
345 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
353 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
361 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
369 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
375 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
383 Temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
391 Temple Meadow Ln 195,910 195,910 195,910 195,910 193,970
397 temple Meadow Ln 22,000 22,000 22,000 42,000 37,500
Road 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650
1872 Kapalua Ave 202,690 202,690 202,690 196,410 196,410
1858 Kapalua ave 220,130 220,130 220,130 230,280 230,280
1844 Kapalua Ave 203,480 203,480 203,480 203,840 203,840
329 Kona Ct 172,590 172,590 172,590 179,460 169,330
1875 Kapalua Ave 181,150 181,150 181,150 181,920 170,270
1889 Kapalua Ave 201,780 201,780 201,780 195,140 195,140


San Diego, CA Temple
The 72,000 ft2 San Diego temple exhibits marble chips in plaster on the exterior and sits atop a 7.2 acre site was completed in 1993, (Series 2) in the charts below. A majority (26 out of 48) of the properties demonstrated a consistent increase in value, from 1990-1996. Many of the properties are located in a condominium project built after both 1990 (Series 1) and 1993 (Series 2). Chart 3 demonstrates the tax value of La Jolla Village Square, a 415,000 ft2 shopping mall, which is located directly west of the temple, on the opposite side of Interstate 5. Picture 1 at the end of this report is a plot map which demonstrates the location of the properties by parcel number.
Chart 1: Assessed Taxation Amounts Levied on Properties bordering the San Diego Temple, ranging from $0 - $14,000.


 
Chart 2: Assessed Taxation Amounts Levied on Properties bordering the San Diego Temple, ranging from $0 - $1,000.


Chart 3: Assessed Taxation Amounts Levied on Properties bordering the San Diego Temple, ranging from $0 - $500,000.



San Diego, CA Temple
Construction of the 72,000 ft2 San Diego Temple was completed in April 1993. The 7.2 acre site demonstrates an exterior of marble chips in plaster and was announced on April 7, 1984 by then-President of the LDS Church, Ezra Taft Benson. Susan Yepiz, Property Assessment Specialist at the San Diego County Assessor’s Office, provided the following data on the assessed value of properties surrounding the temple site 3 years before and 3 years after the opening of the Temple.



Parcel # Assessment 1990 Assessment 1993 Assessment 1996
347-131-35-00 $5,364,078.00 $40,492,801.00 $42,369,734.00
347-131-36-00 no assessment for 1990, 1993, or 1996
347131-37-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-38-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-39-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-28-00 $7,798,104.00 $27,913,877.00 $18,178,400.00
347-131-29-00 $548,862.00 $613,667.00 $600,000.00
347-131-30-00 $559,839.00 $1,166,324.00 $1,100,000.00
347-131-31-00 $5,103,672.00 $26,859,525.00 $19,850,000.00
347-131-41-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-42-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-43-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-44-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-40-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-17-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-41-00 no assessment for these years
347-131-39-00 no assessment for these years


Rexburg, ID Temple
Similar to the Twin Falls temple, the outer walls of the 57,504 ft2 Rexburg, ID temple reveal a white quartz rock veneer and lies on a 10 acre property. Comparable to the Provo, UT temple, the Rexburg, Idaho temple is located in the southwestern corner of a Brigham Young University campus. BYU is an LDS-owned and operated private university, where most of the students are LDS. The land to the north and west of it are part of these grounds and would reflect tax-exempt, static property value assessments longitudinally. Therefore, an evaluation of the Rexburg temple’s effect on neighborhood property values, in this author’s opinion, would be subject to a possible false positive.
Conclusion
Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) concluded:
[A] church [and by implication LDS Temples] can constitute a negative externality on residential property values [as] much as does a power line, hazardous waste dump, landfill, or nuclear waste repository.

Research projects conducted by Carrol et al. (1996), Danderson (2003), and this author do not validate this claim. In fact, both Carrol et al. and Danderson found that religious structures, including LDS meetinghouses and LDS temples have a positive effect on neighborhood property values. Cnaan in 2011 measured the economic value of 12 religious congregations by compiling a list of 49 relevant variables. Job training, fellowship, funerals, baptisms, and marriages are among the variable and the results of the study indicate approximately a $50 million benefit to the local economy (Philadelphia). Further, the data from Carrol et al.’s study suggests that:
“distance from the site of a future church [including LDS meetinghouses] has little or no impact on residential property values, whereas distance from an existing church is associated with lower property values. [Their] evidence indicates that neighborhood churches [LDS and otherwise] are amenities that enhance the value of neighborhood residential property (emphasis added).”

In 2003, Danderson evaluated the effect of Boston, Raleigh, and Orlando LDS Temples on neighborhood values. Instead of assessed property value data, he analyzed sales of residential properties within 2 miles of each LDS Temple and found that:
"[F]or each square foot of [LDS] Temple floor space, local residential properties increased in value by 43 cents (standard deviation of 21.5 cents)….The sample population of properties revealed almost across the board (95%) increases in value of $29,455 – $77,445 (USD). (If the claim that the temple substantially decreased property values was true, one would expect 95% of the properties to show a decline of at least $51,000)."

Assessed property value data collected from County Assessor’s Offices in counties where the Bountiful, Boston, and Houston temples are located indicated that existing LDS Temples did not negatively impact the residential property values of their respective neighborhoods. The data of this study suggest that, in general, neighborhood property values followed national housing trends, as determined via the Shiller Index in the following chart.

(In this chart, provided by www.VisualizingEconomics.com, “Real Median Home Values,” factors in the effects of inflation. “Shiller’s Housing Price Index” does not include the effects of inflation.)

The Bountiful, Boston (assessed property values), Houston, Orlando, Raleigh, and Boston (market value sales) indicate that in a statistically significant sample of existing LDS Temples (4.44%), such structures did not negatively affect neighborhood property values. Further, in 97% of the cases where LDS Temples are constructed, municipal leaders, residents, and the LDS Church have successfully worked together and reached mutually symbiotic goals.
In closing, Danderson found that three temples and this research found that seven different LDS temples did not decrease neighborhood residential property values. Further, the Twin Falls, ID and Gilbert, AZ Temples are also suggesting an increase in neighborhood property values. Combined, these reports indicate that in at least 8.15% of all existing LDS temples, property values have not decreased. Carroll et al. found that residential properties near LDS meetinghouses sell at a statistically significant higher price than residential properties near meetinghouses of other Christian religions. Many researchers have found that cultural structures, including churches and museums, benefit local communities. The claim that LDS temples, meetinghouses, and other Christian churches decrease neighborhood property values remains unsubstantiated.
Future research would do well to examine the following relationships:
1. Before and after an LDS temple is built, what were the concrete benefits to the community and the lives of the members and non-members? Possible benefits include but aren’t limited to: increased genealogical research and database access, increased community service performed by LDS members, and open-house sessions at the Temple which will help local residents understand what the interior of the temple looks like and what ordinance happens in each room.
2. The possibility of biannual or triannual open-houses might also help relieve fears or concerns of local residents near Temple sites. Municipal leaders of likely future temple sites (as suggested in Appendices 1 and 2) might be able to visit such recurring open-houses, learn more about the LDS and what specifically is being proposed, and be more prepared to assuage constituent concerns.
3. How has the attendance at mini-Temples, which were introduced by President Gordon B. Hinckley in October 1997, open part-time, fared in comparison to larger full-time Temples, often requiring regional travel? Danderson found that a smaller temple (Raleigh, NC) had a lesser effect on property values, where as larger temples (Orlando, FL and Boston, MA) had a more significant and positive effect on property values. If local residents of future temple sites were aware of this, would opposition to larger temple construction decrease?

 
Map 1: LDS Temples around the World





(Red: Existing. Yellow: Announced. Blue: Under Construction. For a companion list of the locations of each temple, see: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/maps/downloads/TemplesWorldMap.pdf)




 

Picture 1: Plot Map of Neighborhood around San Diego Temple (The address of the Temple is 7474 Charmant Dr. which is circled number-35 upper left hand corner parcel # 347-131-35-00)








Table 1: Sample Population Square Footage, Acreage, Opening Date, Style, & Exterior


Temple Square Footage Acres Opened Style Exterior

Boston Massachusetts Temple 69,600 8 10/1/2000 Traditional White granite
Bountiful Utah Temple 104,000 9 1/8/1995 Modern Bethel white granite
Orlando Florida Temple 70,000 13 10/9/1994 Classic modern White precast concrete with marble chips
Raleigh North Carolina Temple 10,700 12 12/18/1999 Classic modern White Vermont marble
Rexburg Idaho Temple 57,504 10 2/10/2008 Classic modern Concrete panels w/ white quartz rock finish
San Diego California Temple 72,000 7 4/25/1993 Modern Marble chips in brilliant white plaster
Columbia River WA Temple 16,880 2.88 11/18/2001 Bethel white granite from Vermont and Italy
Alberta Temple 10,700 1 12/11/1999 Classic modern Light gray Canadian granite
Houston TX Temple 33,970 11 8/26/2000 Traditional Cast stone, granite





 

Appendix 1 – List of Areas with Corresponding LDS members without a Temple

“The names of temples which administer these countries/territories currently are also provided.


1. Nicaragua
• 71,888 members
• 9 stakes, 6 districts
• 102 congregations
• Guatemala City Guatemala Temple
2. Democratic Republic of the Congo
• 27,058 members
• 9 stakes, 3 districts
• 103 congregations
• Johannesburg South Africa Temple
3. Russia
• 21,023 members
• 1 stake, 12 districts
• 115 congregations
• Kyiv Ukraine Temple (1 stake, 11 districts); Helsinki Finland Temple (1 district); Seoul Korea Temple (mission branches in the Russia Vladivostok Mission)
4. Puerto Rico
• 20,785 members
• 5 stakes
• 41 congregations
• Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple
5. Zimbabwe
• 18,549 members
• 4 stakes, 1 district
• 49 congregations
• Johannesburg South Africa Temple
6. Papua New Guinea
• 18,336 members
• 2 stakes, 9 districts
• 72 congregations
• Sydney Australia Temple
7. Haiti
• 16,902 members
• 2 stakes, 2 districts
• 33 congregations
• Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple
8. Thailand
• 16,331 members
• 1 stake, 5 districts
• 36 congregations
• Hong Kong China Temple
9. Cote d'Ivoire
• 15,638 members
• 4 stakes, 1 district
• 39 congregations
• Accra Ghana Temple
10. American Samoa
• 15,159 members
• 4 stakes
• 37 congregations
• Apia Samoa Temple”

Appendix 2 – List of States in the US which do not have an LDS temple announced, operating, nor under construction.

“As of December 2010, six percent of LDS people in the US lived in states without an LDS temple.


1. Virginia
• 89,297 members
• 19 stakes
• 196 congregations
• Washington DC Temple
2. Wyoming
• 63,069 members
• 16 stakes
• 155 congregations
• Billings Montana Temple (5 stakes), Ogden Utah Temple (5 stakes), Denver Colorado Temple (2 stakes), Idaho Falls Idaho Temple (2 stakes), Vernal Utah Temple (2 stakes)
3. Kansas
• 34,190 members
• 7 stakes
• 75 congregations
• Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple (2 stakes), St. Louis Missouri Temple (2 stakes), Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple (2 stakes), Denver Colorado Temple (1 stake)
4. New Jersey
• 31,673 members
• 5 stakes, 1 district
• 59 congregations
• Manhattan New York Temple (4 stakes, 1 district), Washington DC Temple (1 stake)
5. Arkansas
• 27,559 members
• 5 stakes
• 63 congregations
• Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple (3 stakes), Memphis Tennessee Temple (2 stakes)

6. Wisconsin
• 24,496 members
• 6 stakes
• 69 congregations
• Chicago Illinois Temple (5 stakes), St. Paul Minnesota Temple (1 stake)
7. Iowa
• 24,614 members
• 7 stakes
• 69 congregations
• Nauvoo Illinois Temple (3 stakes), Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple (4 stakes)
8. Mississippi
• 21,217 members
• 4 stakes
• 43 congregations
• Baton Rouge Louisiana Temple (3 stakes), Memphis Tennessee Temple (1 stake)
9. West Virginia
• 16,710 members
• 4 stakes
• 37 congregations
• Washington DC Temple (2 stakes), Columbus Ohio Temple (1 stake), Louisville Kentucky Temple (1 stake)
10. Maine
• 10,684 members
• 2 stakes
• 27 congregations
• Boston Massachusetts Temple (2 stakes)
11. South Dakota
• 9,812 members
• 2 stakes, 1 district
• 33 congregations
• Bismarck North Dakota Temple (1 stake, 1 district), Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple (1 stake)
12. New Hampshire
• 8,231 members
• 3 stakes
• 21 congregations
• Boston Massachusetts Temple



13. Delaware
• 5,184 members
• 1 stake
• 12 congregations
• Washington DC Temple
14. Vermont
• 4,384 members
• 1 stake
• 12 congregations
• Boston Massachusetts Temple
15. Rhode Island
• 3,833 members
• 1 stake
• 7 congregations
• Boston Massachusetts Temple
16. District of Columbia
• 2,382 members
• 0 stakes, 0 districts (the Washington DC Stake is headquartered in Kensington, Maryland)
• 3 congregations
• Washington DC Temple (located in Kensington, Maryland)


Most of these states do not have their own LDS temple due to close proximity to a temple in a neighboring state. For example, all states without a temple with over 20,000 Latter-day Saints are serviced by temples in neighboring states which are near the state border, such as the Washington DC Temple for Virginia and the Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple for Iowa.”
 
Bibliography

1. Steven J. Danderson is an Adjunct Professor of Finance at Saint Leo university and an Adjunct Professor of Economics and International Management at the University of Phoenix. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/temple.pdf

2. Growth of the Church, http://newsroom.lds.org/topic/church-growth

3. First of 13 Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

4. See Joseph Smith History, chapter 1:1-26: http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

5. Official 2010 statistics about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: http://lds.org/church/statistics?lang=eng

6. This quorum is an instauration of the Quorum of Seventy Elders Moses and Jesus established. See Numbers 11:16-17; Numbers 11:24-30; Exodus 24:1-13; Luke 10:1, 17 for more information.

7. Why Mormons Build Temples, General Conference of the LDS Church, Mark E. Peterson , p. 2. January 1972 http://lds.org/ensign/1972/01/why-mormons-build-temples?lang=eng

8. King James Version of the Bible, 1 Kings chapter 7; 2 Chronicles chapter 4

9. King James Version of the Bible, Exodus 29:4; 40:12-15

10. “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being able to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 416).

11. In the LDS faith, marriages, when officiated over by one with the proper authority within LDS Temples, may last for eternity. The property authority, Aaronic and Melchezidek Priesthoods, were restored to Joseph Smith, jr. by John the Baptist in 1826 and Peter, James, and John, in May 1829, respectively.

12. In a nutshell, the LDS build Temples to help attendees, their families, and their ancestors prepare to return to the presence of Heavenly Father (exaltation) through sacred ordinances, including eternal or “celestial marriage,” performed under proper authority. For a more detailed explanation of the role of LDS Temples, see the address titled, “The Holy Temple,” by Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Moses’ tabernacle was what many consider to be the first “temple,” despite it being mobile. Solomon’s Temple had a baptismal font with 12 stone oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, holding it up. Modern LDS Temples have this same feature and use such fonts to perform proxy work as referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Nephi, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, built a temple similar to Solomon’s, in Ancient America, except without the lavish gold designs which the latter had. An exhaustive review of the similarities in religious rites of ancient religions and cultures is Dr. Hugh Nibley’s Temple and Cosmos, which I highly recommend.

13. Carole Mikita, "LDS French Hoping for Temple Announcement," KSL.com 30 Mar. 2006, 16 Jan. 2009 http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=184058

14. “Sen. Ted Kennedy's Legacy of Disdain for the Separation of Church and State,” Marcia A. Hamilton. September 3, 2009. FindLaw.com: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090903.html

15. Ibid.

16. “Suburban Bostonians try to halt completion of Mormon temple,” Associated Press January 3, 2000
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8831

17. Wal-Mart Stores: About Us: www.walmartstores.com/aboutus/7606.aspx

18. Comments at Kennedy memorial service open Temple wounds. Sept. 1, 2009 - Belmont, MA - Belmont Citizen-Herald http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/news/x1886197468/Senatorial-influence#ixzz1g3S6LB5n

19. Sherri M. Owens, “Reversal Could Land Orange in Court A County-Approved Chapel Site Is At The Center Of A Dispute With Windsor Hill Residents,” Orlando sentinel, 5 January 1995, D1.

20. Danderson, 2003. Pg. 1 http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Temple.pdf

21. Danderson, 2003. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/temple.pdf

22. Investopedia defines hedonic modeling as: “The most common example of the hedonic pricing method is in the housing market: the price of a property is determined by the characteristics of the house (size, appearance, features, condition) as well as the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood (accessibility to schools and shopping, level of water and air pollution, value of other homes, etc.) The hedonic pricing model is used to estimate the extent to which each factor affects the price.” www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hedonicpricing.asp#ixzz1flHFBzMH

23. The regression equation may be found on page 4 and 5 at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/temple.pdf)

24. The regression equation may be found on page 4 and 5 at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/temple.pdf

25. Do, A. Quang, Wilbur, Robert W. and Short, James L., 1994. An Empirical Examination of the Externalities of Neighborhood Churches on Housing Values, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9, 127-36

26. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. 319-30. May 1996: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=9134

27. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k316825w43325m2q/fulltext.pdf

28. Thompson, E., Butters, R. B. and Schmitz, B. T. (2011). The Property Value Premium of a Place of Worship. Contemporary Economic Policy. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2011.00255.x

29. Stephan Sheppard, Department of Economics, Williams College; Kay Oehler, and Blair Benjamin, both of the Center for Creative Community Development. “Buying Into Bohemia: the Impact of Cultural Amenities on Property Values.“ Williams Colleges. 2006. http://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/Documents/BuyingIntoBohemia.pdf

30. http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2009/01/08/20090108ldsTempleeffects0103.html

31. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2010/wp1006.pdf

32. Ibid. & Deng also provides a reference of an extensive review of how agglomeration coefficients can be used to identify the grouping, see Hill et al. (1998) and Mikelbank (2004).

33. http://www.shopoysterbay.com/scc/170.html

34. State of Massachusetts, Middlesex South County Assessed Property Values: http://www.masslandrecords.com/MiddlesexSouth/

35. State of Utah, Davis County Assessed Property Values: http://www.co.davis.ut.us/assessor/default.cfm

36. State of Texas, Harris County Assessor’s Office: http://www.hcad.org/records/selectrecord.asp

37. Do, A. Quang, Wilbur, Robert W. and Short, James L., 1994. An Empirical Examination of the Externalities of Neighborhood Churches on Housing Values, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9, 127-36

38. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. 319-30. May 1996: http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrefec/v12y1996i3p319-30.html#author

39. Danderson, 2003. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Temple.pdf

40. Brian Carrington of the LDS Church sited the Paris Temple and another undisclosed site where the LDS Church wanted to build a temple but decided against that, after significant opposition arose.

41. Mini- or smaller Temples have been constructed in Monticello, UT; Anchorage, Alaska; New Mexico; Columbus, Ohio; Kona, Hawaii; Ciudad Juarez, Mexico; Caracas, Venezuela; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Fukuoka, Japan; and Suva, Fiji

42. http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-32-20,00.html

43. Cnaan, R. A., Forrest, T., Carlsmith, J., & Karsh, K. (in press). If you don’t count it, it doesn’t count: A pilot study of valuing urban congregations. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion.