There had already been meeting after meeting, hearing after hearing, about the Sweeney family’s blueprints for the Treasure development by the time City Hall and the family hosted two open houses last summer.

The testimony during Park City Planning Commission hearings had been overwhelmingly against Treasure, and Parkites in the last few years had been especially critical as it seemed a vote by the panel could be approaching.

The open houses were scheduled as negotiations continued between a City Hall team and the Sweeneys about the prospects of a conservation agreement for all or some of the Treasure land, situated on the slopes of Park City Mountain Resort and on a hillside overlooking Old Town.

During the open houses, Park City officials gathered 95 written comments about Treasure. They were later released, word-for-word, as part of an overall report about the open houses. The comments, mostly left anonymously, provide an intriguing glimpse into the thinking of Parkites as City Hall and the Sweeneys approached what was a critical period in the conservation talks. A deal still has not been reached, but the negotiations are continuing.

Granted the protection of anonymity, many of the people who left comments during the open houses were pointed in their criticisms of Treasure.

“I respectfully disagree with every one of those comments,” Mike Sweeney, one of the family’s representatives in the negotiations, said in an interview.

Sweeney said some opponents remain unaware of the project history, which dates to an overall 1980s approval for development at the Treasure site and nearby land. He said the family could have pursued a larger project at that point and he argued much of the Sweeney land was preserved as open space. He also said the Sweeneys were a key player in the process that resulted in the opening of Park City Mountain Resort’s Town Lift skiing terrain years ago.

“Those people are entitled to say whatever they say. It’s America,” Sweeney said about the critics who left the comments.

He said Parkites opposed other projects close to the Treasure site, including the Town Bridge and the Town Lift. Both have been open for years without organized opposition.

The Treasure critics have brought up issues like traffic, the size of the proposed buildings, construction difficulties and growth in the neighborhood in the years since the 1980s approval.

In the months since the comments were submitted, there have been discussions about shifting some or all of the development rights attached to the Treasure land to another location, with the Bonanza Park district being the key target location if the rights are moved from the Treasure site.

A sampling of partial and complete comments made by the critics, with spelling errors corrected, includes:

  • “This project will change the face of Old Town – our one unique attribute that sets us apart from other ski towns – tourists repeatedly say that Main street and its charm is the reason they return – this project will kill that charm.”
  • “The magnitude of the project will surely shut out those who live close to the proposed building and development by the constant traffic, noise debris hauling vehicles to the point of losing what we came to Park City for, OPEN SPACE.”
  • “It does not fit into a residential neighborhood and it seems that the Sweeney family and our government does not care. Why would the Sweeney’s want to endanger others so they can make money? It’s sickening to think about it. I used to trust that our government was taking care of our best interest, but while our family was busy making a living, others were busy making sure that they were getting rich at the expense of others. I am deeply saddened and depressed by this issue. It has caused me to have anxiety and I literally lose sleep at the thought of how our life will be horribly impacted by Treasure.”
  • “Gutting the soul of a town for financial gain is wrong. I understand the rights they have to develop but the scale of sheer volume are totally unacceptable!”
  • “This mass and scale is inconsistent with Old Town. I believe visitors come to PC to enjoy a quaint small town. This development looks like Las Vegas. The traffic and congestion that will be generated by this project will be a huge negative impact on Park City.”
  • “I am buying a house in Park Meadows and would not even consider Old Town because of concern about living conditions during the building of this project and living with it after it is built. Bite the bullet and get rid of this proposal! It should never have been agreed to and can be bought out now for much less than 3 years ago.”
  • “The Treasure Hill Project gets more outrageous as time goes on. This type of development is outdated and outmoded. More and more tourists and families are looking to find vacation spots that honor the outdoors, the environment, the historic beauty, the architectural harmony. This project has no appeal to people with these values.”

    A few people left comments in support of Treasure as well. Some of those include:

  • “Approve project with no changes.”
  • “The work that has gone into the planning is overwhelming — the City Fathers approved it. If built — I think it would give Park City national recognition rather than people coming to the city and skiing The Canyons. We need this project.”