Emails in the past two weeks.
High up Church leader to me:
3. There is no covenant on the new homes requiring owners to support the project in the consent process. Prior to construction some accommodation was made with tenants of the old homes, that they could remain in the homes for a period during some of the construction phase but were asked to refrain from complaining about the noise, dust etc. as a condition to staying past the date the church preferred to have the house vacant. This suited these families who were able to stay on a little longer in that accommodation.
My response to Church leader:
Thank you very much for the reply.
I shall only reply to point 3.
There is no covenant on the new homes requiring owners to support the project in the consent process….
Here is the covenant:
The covenant requires new owners to NOT make or lodge, be a party to, or support … ANYsubmission, application, proceeding or appeal …. which in effect restricts, prevents any future development.
The covenant is designed to increase support by restricting a specific area of free speech.
The imposed silence is support by default.
They must surrender the civil right of opposing free speech which is critical to every RMA consent process… Thus there is no opportunity for free speech. Free means that you can oppose or support or anything in between.
I have attached the 2012 pre eviction agreement that you referenced related to noise and dust.
I respectfully ask that this covenant be removed, or that …………. explain why it is fair, equitable and how it meets the tenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically free agency and religious liberty.
Response from church leader to me:
In reality all that I can really say to your question is that this is the information that was given to me.
I confess I don’t fully understand your reasons for wanting all this information, but it is my view that the Church has gone to great lengths to try to respond to your questions, and so I feel that all future concerns or questions you may have need to form part of the proper RMA process through the HCC.
Thanks for the reply,
It is sad that even when is is very clear that misleading information has been shared with leaders about the restrictive covenants, that no one is compelled to do anything about it other than turn a blind eye.
3. There is no covenant on the new homes requiring owners to support the project in the consent process.
This is not true. There is a specific covenant that requires support in the consent process from home buyers. The covenants that I sent were filed with Hamilton City. I did not fabricate them as others have suggested.
Yet in 2009 the church prosecuted a 17 year old for stealing old rugby uniforms, to make an example of him.
This has been the pattern in Temple View since 2006.
It has recently come to light that Temple View ward statistics were “pumped up” to justify splitting the ward and justify the need for a new Stake Center. Currently activity in these two wards is below 60% with 50 to 80 attending on Sunday. Shameful.
CV’s were requested from high councilors when the Temple View Stake was reorganized. This is unprecedented in church history.
Soon all of these stories will be in the public domain to provide clarity and a correct historical context to all that continues to evolve in Temple View, and allow people to make informed decisions.
I continue on my journey for truth. Truth is its own reward. The truth shall set us free.