Design, not concept, of Tech Center is flawed
I am supportive of the idea of repurposing entitlements from an approved but “flawed” development plan to an improved plan, one that causes less community harm and possibly even delivers some modicum of benefit. My wonderment regarding the repurposing of the Dakota Pacific Tech Park is whether the often-cited flaw is one of concept or design.
Just 13 years ago, after an enormous amount of process, thoughtful debate and negotiation, the concept of a Tech Park and the ensuing development agreement was hailed as a win-win for both the community and the developer. It created a campus to locate 1.3 million square feet of office space in a mixed-use site and eliminated all the entitled 800 residential units. The objective was to attract high-paying jobs and diversify the county’s economy by not building another residential neighborhood. What has changed in the last 13 years to render this concept invalid?
The explanation for the current approved agreement being flawed is the extensive above-ground parking that will surround each building. This sounds like a design, rather than a concept flaw.
In order to keep the concept intact and improve the design the county could explore a public-private partnership and pony up for either a structured parking facility and/or pay to put the parking underground below the buildings as well as employ the recently discussed Public Improvement District, which is commonly used in Utah as a means to pay for similar improvements.
Repurposing the Tech Park as proposed adds 1,100 residential units to a project that was negotiated to not just reduce, but eliminate, residential units. I agree with Roger Armstrong’s assessment that to do so, and attempt to continue to build our way out of the affordable housing crisis, is looking increasingly insane.
(Editor’s note: Henney is a member of the Park City Council.)
Tim Henney
Park City
*****
Jan. 6 rioters were insurrectionists
In Karen Ballash’s recent rant, she calls the people jailed for the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 everything but insurrectionists. They are her fellow citizens, poor people being jailed for no apparent reason, and held for far too long in jails and prisons. These people were chanting to kill Pence. They attacked police officers, smashed into the very bowels of American democracy and interrupted the workings of the government. Your editorial sounds like you wish we would congratulate them. My only regret with the current jailings is that Trump isn’t among them. The leader of these domestic terrorists is out fanning the flames with more lies instead of sharing a cell with the rioters. He has evidently convinced you that a little terrorism is OK if it is in the furtherance of his agenda.
Mike Eberlein
Park Meadows
*****
A narrow-minded perspective
The writer of the letter in the Aug. 21-24 edition titled “Take personal responsibility” claims that every American has the right to make decisions regarding their health care. I applauded him for that. However, I found it odd that although he does admit to the individual’s right about getting vaccinations, he believes their rights to medical care should be stripped if they do not get a certain vaccination and their insurance payments should go up or even be taken away. These thoughts are not good for America. It is thoughts like this that drive wedges between people. If unvaccinated people should be required to pay more like smokers and alcoholics, then the individuals with hepatitis, AIDS and even obesity should be considered … this is what this writer is thinking. Shame on him for his narrow mindedness! Let’s remember and be thoughtful that there are individuals that have a medical condition that does not allow them to take each and every vaccine. I firmly believe this writer did not think his thoughts through prior to submitting his letter.
Jan Barnes
Snyderville Basin
*****
Vote for wisdom, judgment and maturity
Nearly 40 years ago, my wife Priscilla and I purchased a condominium and made Park City our second home. Like all property owners, we’ve been paying taxes every year to support state and local government. Unlike most who are reading this letter, we cannot vote in the upcoming election for mayor because our Park City home is not considered a “primary” residence.
Nevertheless, we love this city. We are deeply concerned about the way it is governed, and we’d like our opinions to be considered. I’m writing now to share our choice for mayor, and to explain why we made that choice.
Simply put: We would vote for wisdom, judgment and maturity. We would vote for the candidate who can not only manage day-to-day details of governance, but who has the wisdom, maturity and judgment to appreciate the long-term consequences of the daily decision. We would vote for the person most likely to inspire communication and collaboration. We believe that person is Nann Worel.
We base that decision on Nann’s decades-long career of service to Park City. Under her leadership, the People’s Health Clinic grew dramatically to meet the health needs of Park City’s uninsured residents. With Nann’s active involvement and leadership, the Park City Planning Commission did an amazing job of preserving the quality of place and life here, despite astonishing growth. And with Nann as a member, the City Council of Park City became a model of competence and collaboration at a time of extraordinary challenge and change. Now, as Park City faces even greater challenges, we believe Nann Worel has the wisdom, maturity and judgment so dearly required for continued success.
We love this city and will proudly keep paying our taxes, but we can’t vote in the upcoming election. We ask you to consider our opinion when you cast your vote.
Arthur Ulene
Deer Valley
*****
The worst kind of wildfire
In response to Amy Roberts’ column in the Aug. 18-20 edition: It seems re-defining the English language is a popular thing to do now days. It appears “stupornfish” is the new work of the day. Now I have a few words of my own.
With respect to your peculiar remarks concerning the Parleys Canyon Fire evacuation, I was taken back, but not surprised, considering t
he social climate we must navigate these days. To invoke an insidious and divisive anecdotal comparison of people who approach a situation with a different measure of risk than you and then suggest they must be shunned from society is, in itself, the worst kind of wildfire.
How can any sensible individual correlate election fraud, vaccine hesitancy, biased media, gun rights, and health care with someone who decides to take responsibly for their own well-being and actions, which is painfully in short supply in this county lately. If that silly logic was anything close to being rational, then people with lifestyle choices that contribute to compromised health must be a burden on society as well. IV drug users, diabetics, the obese, smokers and riding a bike without a helmet, just to name a few, all should, according to your indictment, be turned away at the hospital or worse.
I did not evacuate, and I have no plans to get the CCP Gain of Function virus vaccine any time soon. Neither my actions nor anyone else’s, have put others in jeopardy. Your optics are a distortion of what happened and didn’t happen. Cancel culture is a destructive weapon on society. Its purpose is to intimidate and control. We all create our own destiny, good and bad, while seeking objective truth. And yes, My Pillow will give you “the best night sleep in the whole wide world.”
Mike Quinones
Summit Park