Here we are, nearly five years into the Dakota Pacific ordeal and it’s still not over. The current debate taking place in our local press and on social media seems to focus on whether or not the agreement negotiated with Dakota Pacific by the Summit County Council is really the best deal possible.
The county residents that still oppose the development and are supporting the referendum are labeled as being ill informed or perhaps just stupid.
The conjecture is running wild. Some have even coined the term “Dakota Pacific Derangement Syndrome” to describe what they consider to be illogical opposition to the wonderful project being offered.
Others warn us of the possible loss of the many benefits negotiated by the Summit County Council if the referendum gets on the ballot and is approved by the voters. Such amenities as the public plaza, amphitheater, community space, pedestrian bridge, and underground parking are being presented like they’re a shiny new bike on Christmas Day.
In reality, none of these “amenities” will be used by anybody other than those living in the new residential units. The exception, of course, is the pedestrian bridge that will be used by no one.
Another common claim is the primary concern of Summit County residents being the traffic on S.R. 224. While this is certainly a concern, most residents reject the theory that the only way to get UDOT to fix the traffic situation is to make it even worse by building hundreds of residential units at precisely the wrong location. For some reason the County Council thought it was a good idea to approve a deal before UDOT committed to anything.
Bill Ciraco of the Park City Council in his Feb. 1 guest editorial in The Park Record cited some kind of Park City-specific xenophobia as Dakota Pacific representatives “have committed the cardinal sin of being from the ‘valley.’” This isn’t 1972. According to the U.S. Census, in 2023 nearly 60% of Park City residents were born in a state other than Utah (not including residents born in a foreign country) and therefore aren’t as entrenched in location bias as Mr. Ciraco claims.
What is missing from the current debate is a recognition of the root cause of all the public discontent and outrage. Put quite simply, the public is outraged that the council continued to negotiate with Dakota Pacific. They showed themselves to be untrustworthy, duplicitous, and scornful of the County Council and the residents from the very beginning.
Virtually nobody except the County Council trusted Dakota Pacific and still don’t. Even when they repeatedly used their influence with the Legislature to circumvent the Summit County land-use decision process, the council didn’t back away. Dakota Pacific remained intractable throughout negotiations, repeatedly citing their need to provide return to their investors. Their recent application to incorporate a new town on their Kimball Junction property apparently didn’t cause the council to reconsider this one-sided partnership.
It should be remembered the original Dakota Pacific proposal, while too large for the location, didn’t require one dime from the county. Now, just to reduce the eventual number of residential units from 1,100 to 890, the county bought the Skullcandy building from a Dakota Pacific subsidiary for $17.5 million and proposes to spend $39 million more toward other costs. The county also agreed to swap the land where the Richins Building, library and Department of Motor Vehicles are located. These facilities will be bulldozed and replacements built elsewhere, eventually.
Now, in the latest attempt to thwart the will of the people, Dakota Pacific has established the Wasatch Back Future website dedicated solely to defeating the referendum effort. Initially, they did not disclose they were behind it but were forced to once investigative reporting by Town Lift exposed them.
Former and current council members are extensively quoted on the site, even though it is clear the material was culled from publicly available documents without permission. Only Roger Armstrong, who cast the sole dissenting vote, insisted his comments be removed. Other current Council members are actively and publicly assisting with Dakota Pacific’s efforts and are clearly interfering with the public’s right to address their legitimate grievances.
So, let’s be clear. The public continues to be outraged for three primary reasons. One, Dakota Pacific could never be trusted. Two, the Summit County Council continued to treat them as legitimate partners and ultimately signed a bad deal. Finally, the County Council made a conscious decision to disregard the consistent overwhelming opposition to the project.
We were ignored and disrespected for nearly five years and certain council members are still provoking us. The referendum is the first and only time we’ve been allowed to influence the situation and we’d be cowards and fools not to take advantage of it.
Vincent A. (Van) Novack
Park City