Last month the Summit County Council voted 4-1 to amend the Dakota Pacific development agreement. While I was not yet sworn in, I support and stand by the council’s decision.
They know the complexities of the issue more than most and gave a very thorough explanation prior to voting.
Since then, a referendum to overturn their decision has been filed and a petition is now circulating to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot this November.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue. An anonymous website spreading misinformation, while claiming to protect Summit County, certainly isn’t helping.
I encourage voters to educate themselves on the community benefits/impacts, seek out reliable/known sources of information, question anonymous claims, reach out to your county councilors, and know before you sign.
I’ve heard some supporting the referendum say the developer should “build what they bought.” While a tech park may have been viable in 2008, when the original development agreement was made, a tech park today would bring thousands of commuters to Kimball Junction at peak traffic times.
I say the developer should “build better than they bought” and address the 2025 needs of Summit County. The amended agreement the council passed last month does just that.
The recent community support for our local ski patrol was tremendous, but wages alone aren’t enough. Supporting working people in Summit County also requires a wide range of affordable housing options.
Where better for much-needed housing than next to a transit center, a library, trails, urgent care, a theater, restaurants, gyms, stores, shops and more? If not Kimball Junction, where? Mixed-use here is not only inline with the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan, it also addresses critical community needs and prevents further sprawl, which protects open space and the rural parts of our county.
In my successful campaign for Summit County Council last year, I had the unique opportunity to talk to a broad spectrum of residents from across the county. The concerns I heard most often included affordability, sustainability, traffic, a sense of community, and the ability to age in place from one generation to the next.
The county’s recent visioning exercise, in addition to significant public input throughout the developer’s application process, identified much the same and informed the council’s decision.
While many are frustrated with Dakota Pacific and legislative overreach, not everyone is opposed to working together and finding real solutions to our community’s greatest challenges. In fact, many understand the critical need for housing and have expressed a interest in negotiating with the developer to minimize the impacts and maximize the community benefits.
Lastly, the referendum will not make Dakota Pacific go away or teach our legislators a lesson. In reality, they own the land, the state needs to build housing, and something will end up there.
The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want a seat at the table or do we want to risk our land use authority and leave it up to the state? Whether the legislative fix is incorporation, zone overlay, or another surprise bill this session, I’d rather secure the traffic solutions, phased construction, civic spaces, new library, improved transit center, capture lot, public plaza, senior care facility, transit funding, and various needed housing options (a significant portion being affordable) that the elected council negotiated and approved last month.
Informed decisions make for better outcomes. I encourage all to know before you sign. If you’ve already signed and change your mind, it’s not too late. You can remove your signature at https://www.summitcountyutah.gov/2562/Signature-Removal-Information
Megan McKenna is a member of the Summit County Council. She can be reached at [email protected]