Handle the hot potato
The one element of empathy I have for the current Summit County Council is you are stuck with the can kicked down the road for decades. A can labeled “affordable housing.” But, bottom line — this hot potato is yours now, but certainly not yours to donate to Dakota Pacific, outside developers and investors who cavalierly desire to amass multi-millions via an obviously manipulated process guaranteed to further superclog Park City’s gateway.
Yes, please bring on affordable housing as urged by nearly every speaker at the Dec. 1 public hearing, but within a responsibly designed zoning area, not at Kimball Junction, possibly the most severely bottlenecked traffic zone in Utah where accidents are exponentially mounting (including a death this week).
It is disgraceful that this seemingly unenlightened Summit County Council (minus the honorable Roger Armstrong, who has spoken up against this boondoggle from the beginning) is forcing WE, their actual constituency, to rise up in unison in response to two years in the dark with unheard community voice now forced by Summit County Council’s perplexing neglect, to hire a lawyer to represent our consequential groundswell of overwhelming community outrage.
I do want to thank Chairman Glenn Wright, who did a terrific job respectfully managing all input on Dec. 1 and was kind enough to not tell constituents this time (as happened publicly on camera Nov. 17) to “shut up!”
Surely the researched presentations and presence at the public hearing has expanded your minds with no need to further promulgate organized willful en masse protest. But, if you choose to represent and indulge faraway corporate interests, we will invite you, the Summit County Council, to court and if need be ballot referendum. Your legacy, not Kimball Junction, be damned … by no one else but yourselves.
Paul Gardner Zimmermann
Bear Hollow
*****
Council should represent our wishes
I wanted to wait a few days to digest what happened in the Dec. 1 Summit County Council meeting regarding the Dakota Pacific Real Estate proposal and interaction between the council and the majority of the public present. In favor of the council, I would say right off that they were very good at cutting people off by shutting the PA after the three-minute allocation. They were so diligent in this — heaven forbid someone’s well-researched opinion, full of evidence and clear logic, would be heard in its entirety.
The representatives of the builder, even-tempered, polite and well-dressed and rehearsed, gave us a lengthy point of view that I started looking around asking if they were talking about the traffic in Kimball Junction or someplace else. Telling part of the truth is worse then a lie, omitting or ignoring the truth even worse. Has anyone seen the Jordanelle lately — Moses could have parted it without a staff, or just walk across. We have a severe shortage of water in this mountainous desert, and try as you may you cannot convert more revenue into water. Punishing some one monetarily for overuse does not produce more water, just more money. You can’t have a condo sandwich either. I love seeing wildlife roam, but the human animal?
Person after person stood there decrying the idea of a “yes” vote. Some very eloquent, knowledgeable of the subject. The only profit that comes out of a “yes” vote will be for Dakota Pacific, whose builders will promptly leave after finishing the project, or else they will be snared in the traffic jams they wish to create. Many people told the council they were voted in by us and to please represent our wishes — that is their duty.
When you posses power there is no need to flex. If you do flex you are the wrong person for the job.
Jack Karmel
Jeremy Ranch
*****
Community isn’t falling for it
I will describe the chess strategy used by Dakota Pacific to gain an advantage against the Park City community. The game strategy started when a former managing director for Dakota Pacific (2012-2015), Daniel Hemmert, ran for office and became a Utah state senator (2016-2021). His current position is executive director of the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development.
The advantage I am referring to is the introduction and approval of the S.B. 217 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act (HTRZA). This bill that now is being used as the main tactical gambit used by Dakota Pacific to renegotiate a new redevelopment agreement that will add 1,100 new homes, a hotel and more commercial space to the Kimball Junction area. The proposed project will increase air pollution, noise pollution, water shortage, traffic problems, strain our schools, parks, roads, fire departments and police departments. In my opinion, the HTRZA bill is a clear example of the percolation of private funds and proliferation of private interests against the well-being of our community.
Dakota Pacific being a previous employer of Mr. Hemmert’s, as well as a donor to his political campaigns, signals a conflict of interests for a bill that is now being used to favor the developer. The bill was written while Mr. Hemmert was in office, and now he is the person responsible for its execution. Here is an excerpt from the bill: “requires a municipality or public transit county to submit a housing and transit reinvestment zone proposal to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development; requires the Governor’s Office of Economic Development to initiate an analysis of the feasibility, efficiency, and other aspects of the proposed housing and transit reinvestment zone.” At the writing of this letter, the number of people that have signed a petition against the Dakota Pacific proposal has reached 4,050 people. As in chess, we as a community won’t fall for this “Legal trap.”
Ruby Diaz
Pinebrook
*****
What’s the true cost?
I have kept my peace so far on the issue of “affordable housing” that Dakota Pacific Real Estate is trying to impose on our Park City community. I have not heard a real cost assessment of the proposed housing. It might be true that one can build a number of dwelling units at affordable costs, but the acquisition costs of such units are just the beginning of actual costs.
Presumably the owners of such units will need the following non-optional elements:
1. People owning such units will require water. So far I have not heard of any realistic planning by Dakota Pacific about drilling for water. No information on possible drilling locations, how much would be available versus requirement by the total housing uni
ts or who would own the water.
2. The cost of water usage by owners of the “affordable housing units” will have to be borne by those owners, in terms of capital investment (capital facilities to extract and deliver the water) and daily use of those facilities.
3. As the owners of such “affordable housing units” use water, they will be generating sewage. Such sewage will need a sewage pumping and treatment plant, and some form of disposal of such treated sewage.
4. I am not familiar with state/county requirements for community area fire stations. However I am assuming that such requirements exist, and that means additional costs for physical structures and equipment (fire trucks, etc.).
5. I am sure the owners of such “affordable” housing will have children, which will generate requirements for schools. Guess who will have to pay for that!
6. I am sure that more additional “capitalization” costs can be found with serious study and analysis. Such costs will have to be borne by appropriate pricing of the “affordable” housing units, or by extended period of taxation by the county and its residents.
7. It is my opinion that such additional costing has probably been ignored or avoided by the developer, in that addressing the above reality will substantially increase the cost of the “affordable” housing and make it less affordable.
Petras Avizonis
Pinebrook