The United States’ representative democracy is built on the principle that elected officials make decisions reflecting the will of the people. While nationally there is polarization, locally, the community’s stance on Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s (DPRE) proposed high-density development on the Tech Park tract has been consistently unified. Since late 2021, residents have voiced overwhelming opposition, highlighting concerns that unite, rather than divide, the community.
While Utah’s status as a “land use state” requires Summit County to consider DPRE’s proposals, the ongoing discourse underscores several issues: what constitutes community benefit, and how to protect local land use authority from external influences.
In March 2023, Summit County took legal action against DPRE and the state, challenging what it saw as legislative overreach. Although the county dropped the state from the suit to maintain a cooperative relationship, it secured a significant victory in the state’s Third District Court. The ruling affirmed that the Tech Center Development Agreement remains valid, countering DPRE’s legislative maneuvers.
Even with litigation paused, the county retains substantial leverage to reject any proposal not aligned with the community’s interests. DPRE’s latest plan remains largely unchanged, featuring 750 units — 500 market-rate and 250 affordable.
Although additional affordable housing is beneficial, it does not balance the increased demand for infrastructure, schools, and public services driven by the market-rate units, perpetuating a cycle of unmet affordable housing needs.
Many of the touted “community benefits,” such as a parking structure, appear negligible and seem to come at taxpayers’ expense.
Furthermore, residents have consistently emphasized that traffic infrastructure improvements should precede any new development, yet the project’s timeline is not contingent on UDOT’s actual work.
Finally, DPRE’s claim of reducing density from 1.8 million to 1.1 million square feet is less a genuine concession and more a recalibration, as the initial proposal exceeded DPRE’s development entitlements by over 40%.
Council members, many of whom campaigned against this project, have a mandate to reflect the community’s concerns. Both candidates for the contested Seat C, Ari Ioannides and Megan McKenna, expressed opposition to various iterations of DPRE’s plans.
A “no” vote would align with this overwhelming public sentiment. Some argue that denying the proposal could push DPRE back to the state Legislature. However, representing the will of the people and protecting local decision-making authority is paramount. Allowing developers to bypass local governance would set a concerning precedent, undermining Summit County’s zoning integrity.
While it is understandable that DPRE seeks returns for its investors, responsible development should benefit the community as a whole. It’s not about opposition to progress, but about ensuring that progress aligns with the area’s needs and values before changing land use zoning.
Since 2008, this land tract has been designated non-residential, and any change should have overwhelming benefits. We continue to believe that the tract presents an opportunity for John Miller and his DPRE team to work with local community members to create a profitable but legacy development that complements Park City, especially in the lead-up to the 2034 Olympics.
In conclusion, we are continually inspired by the community’s passion, insight and dedication. We encourage residents to review the details of DPRE’s proposal ahead of Thursday’s public hearing and assess whether the benefits truly outweigh the costs. If not, we hope the council will exhibit the same courage and resolve shown by residents and just vote “no.”
Bonnie Parks, Eric Moxham, Van Novack, Jeff Revoy, Mitch Solomon and Fred Vallejo are members of Friends for Responsible Development for Greater Park City (FRD-PC.org)
.