Re: “Utah judge sides with City Hall in dispute centered on Park City Mountain lift upgrades”:
How did you miss the real issue that City Hall had issued an administrative permit and four citizens got both the Planning Commission and the judge to “side with them”? City Hall’s legal department and its ex-planning director clearly wanted the lifts to be installed without a CUP’s public process.
City Hall was actually forced to hire outside counsel and respect the fact that the citizen’s appeal was upheld by its planning commission. The judge sided with the appellants just as the city’s planning commission did. Citizens of Park City and throughout the country should know that they can make a difference, and I am not sure you made that clear in your article.
What were the odds four local Parkites could argue and win both inside City Hall and at the Planning Commission, and then win again with a Third District Court judge?
Indicating as your article’s title does, that City Hall agreed with the appellants or its planning commissioners is a reach. I would hope that you can get City Attorney Mark Harrington on the record and have him define the actual City Hall position now that the judge has made his ruling.
Harrington’s oversight on issuing the administrative permit on Vail’s lift application should also be defined. Does he now understand the error … or is he still convinced the administrative permit was proper … or is he going to duck? Understanding his response will help you rewrite your headline.
It would also be very interesting to now share City Hall’s official position on having Vail adhere to transparency on their daily occupancy numbers on our ski mountains.
Let the chips fall where they lay, and let’s set the record straight.
John Kenworthy
Park City