It’s Electric
I was reading an article on California legalizing electric skateboards. There are so many exciting changes happening in the way of assisted transit. E-bikes are becoming more popular (and affordable) every day and a change like this to a law in California, can only help advance the world of skateboard as a transit mechanism.
While I’m not a proponent of electric bikes and vehicles on unpaved trails, I think it has merit on our paved trails as a way to move people across our community. It’s not hard to envision a time when electric bikes, skateboards, and skates could take a little traffic off of our roadways. That success, though, will depend on how well our planners build this capability into both our subdivisions like Silver Creek and our destinations like Prospector and Kimball Junction. Because of electric assist, the distance is no longer the issue. The issue becomes ensuring that every aspect of a ride can be done efficiently and safely. If that piece is also taken care of, alternative transportation becomes a much easier sell.
in Schools
The Purely Selfish Reason Why I May Ultimately Vote for the School Bond
Many of you probably think I am anti-school bond because I rail against it so often. Yet, my family is in the perfect position to benefit from this bond. I have two children, the first of which will enter kindergarten in a couple of years. Both my wife and I work, so I need full day Kindergarten. If I had to “upgrade” to all day kindergarten from half day, I believe that costs an extra $4,000 per child. If I went private, it would cost upwards of $10K-$15K per child. So, the selfish way I look at it is this bond will cost me roughly $2,400 ($120 for 20 years) but save me at least $8,000 ($4,000 X 2 ) when all is said and done. That’s a net gain of $5,600.
My kids will also benefit from fewer kids in the elementary school. Once they hit the 5-6 school at Ecker, it should still be in great shape. They’ll likely play sports in high school and it will be nice to have an indoor facility for practice (the field house should still be standing). They’ll also likely be in some sort of arts program, which should have more space in the high school.
It’s almost a no brainer. I save money on kindergarten and get shiny new buildings for free. Thank you second home owners.
Yet, something about that line of reasoning leaves me feeling a little dirty. Do I think this is the best plan? No. There are probably 5 ideas I like better than this one, including my crazy idea to put the whole district on the Triangle Parcel along Highway 40. That would be the same parcel of land adjacent to where Summit County Community Development Director says the epicenter of where Parkites will be living in 20 years. But, that ship has sailed.
The one thing that gives me pause about voting with my wallet is the question of could we do better if we spent more time. I think back to the General Plan for the Snyderville Basin. It took years and years to hash out what we wanted our community to look like. There had to be at least 100 public meetings regarding the plan. Did anyone get everything they wanted? No. Was it a good process? Yes. Now that it’s “done” do I look back and think, “wow…they should have done that differently.” No.
The question is will I feel the same about the school process, given they only spent about 10 months and went with a different plan than the committee that spent the 10 months recommended. I already have a number of concerns, but will those concerns ultimately turn out to be nothing?
I know I’ll save $5,600 but what am I going to get in return — modern 21st century schools that will help propel my children to success (and engender happiness along the way) … half finished buildings because the money runs out (that also have traffic problems) … or something in between.
That’s the question.
in Schools
Are Base Assumptions Behind Park City School’s Grade Realignment Flawed?
At the heart of the Park City School District plan for rebuilding schools is the concept of grade realignment. Grade realignment means that Pre-K to 4th grade will be in elementary schools. There will be a new 5th/6th school, a 6th/7th school, and the high school. We’ll be moving schools around, adding on to them, and making multi million dollar changes ($65 million in changes to be exact). The reason given for grade realignment was that only 9% of Hispanic 11th graders were proficient in English. So, the idea was spawned that we should have all day Kindergarten for all children in order to improve results. With the addition of these extra Kindergartners, there wouldn’t be room in our elementary schools, so we had to move the 5th grade out and it caused a chain reaction across the district.
At face value, all day Kindergarten seems to make sense to solve proficiency issues. If we can only have 4 more hours a day with Kindergarten kids who don’t speak English as their first language, they will learn English more quickly. In fact studies show that by second grade, many English as a second language students have caught up and are on par with their classmates. It truly sounds like a great solution. So, what’s the problem?
Fade-out.
You see, studies show that there is great success for children in full day Kindergarten (vs half day) until first or second grade. Anecdotal evidence shows the same thing. Many Kindergarten teachers describe miraculous changes that happen after a few months. The problem is that the impact seems short lived. In fact, most studies seem to show that any benefit of full day Kindergarten over half day Kindergarten disappears by the end of second grade (often by first grade). Fade out indicates that those children who had all day Kindergarten, and those who had full day Kindergarten, will have statistically similar test scores by 3rd grade (i.e., there is no test score benefit related to all day K over half day K).
There is now an effort to figure out why that is. There are some who say that the methodologies used in these studies looking at the long-term effects of all day Kindergarten are flawed. That may be true. Yet, what seems to be true for sure is that there are few if any well designed studies that show that a full day of Kindergarten versus a half day of Kindergarten adds any lasting effect. Take this Ed Central article on a recent study on all day Kindergarten. The article is very much in support of all day Kindergarten and describes a new study by Chloe R. Gibbs that uses new data to show benefits of all day Kindergarten. Yet, what does it conclude?
I would encourage you to read the article. It is very balanced. It appears to conclude that Full-Day-K seems to have benefits for a while. However, it says that a lot of research concludes those benefits are short-term, but that more research is needed to really know why. It also talks about how some research shows test scores aren’t improved long-term through Full-Day-K but some adult outcomes, like long-term earnings, are improved. Lest you think I cherry-picked an article on the subject, do a search on Google for “all day Kindergarten fade out.” The results of studies are all over the map. There is a lot of defense of all day Kindergarten. However, if you read through the literature, I would challenge you to come away with a rock-solid feeling that our 11th grade Hispanic students are going to improve their English proficiency test scores through this effort.
So what do I take away from it? There needs to be more research on Full-Day-K to determine whether outcomes last.
What’s the problem with this? It seems we began this school rebuilding adventure with the notion that we had to realign grades to help our English as a Second language kids. However, research doesn’t show it will have any impact over the half day Kindergarten (which we already have) past the second grade. Research may eventually show that it works or research may show it doesn’t. Yet, we’ve made a BIG plan based on an idea that just sounds good. If we didn’t realign the grades, we may still have to rebuild Treasure Mountain on Kearns ($25 million). We may still want an Athletic Field House ($12 million) but we wouldn’t have to upheave the entire school district to achieve the goal.
For a school district that prides itself on making decision based on research, this is more than a little worrisome.
This Is A Carmageddon
You may remember the famous Park City Carmageddon last winter. While, I’m sure it was awful for those stuck in it… Here is a REAL carmageddon.
At 50 seconds in, you’ll see that this Chinese road has the same problem as Highway 248. Maybe we have this to look forward to in the future.
in Dogs
If You Have a Dog That Is Even Slightly Aggressive, Please Keep Them on Leash
A few nights ago my 16 year old dog was attacked on a dog walk by an off leash dog. The dog rushed at my leashed companion, and when we tried to walk away, it jumped her.The dog bared its teeth, grabbed her by the shoulder, and yanked her down. Luckily the flashlight I carry doubles as a stun gun. I pulled the trigger into the air and the sound and air-spark was enough to make the dog let go and run away. Of course the owner came running up, saying “sorry, sorry, sorry.” Now my 16 year old girl is left with a huge limp and an apology.
This is the second time my dog has been attacked, the other time being in Salt Lake. That time I was left with $400 in vet bills and my dog was left with tubes coming out of her back to let fluid drain and a cone around her head. Of course, the owner of the dog that attacked us scurried off, never to be seen again.
As I’ve written before, I don’t think the answer is more laws and more enforcement. Frankly, if a dog owner has an aggressive dog and is walking them off leash, the small chance that animal control is going to ticket them likely doesn’t even weigh on their mind. They’ve already crossed the Rubicon. They are being selfish and putting their own best interest in front of the rest of the community.
It’s also not fair to punish those dogs and owners who have their dogs under control (leashed or not). I’ve been in Utah 10 years, and probably walked my dog 7,000 times here. I’ve had two incidents. That’s 0.02% of the time.
Yet, I’ve had enough. Even 2 times, when an off leash dog hurts my dog, is too many. Perhaps I should have realized it sooner.
So what am I going to do? Carry and use pepper spray. If I have my dog on leash and an off leash dog approaches aggressively on a trail, sidewalk, or road I will pepper spray the dog. You may think that is cruel. What I have come to understand is that not protecting my best friend is what is cruel. It’s not fair for owners, who know they have aggressive dogs, to allow them to inflict damage on our companions and then simply walk away from it.
In a best case world, owners with aggressive dogs will realize their is a potential downside to their poor decision making and will leash their dogs. Problem solved. In a less best-case world, their dog will be sprayed with pepper spray. There will be no long term impact to their dog. However my dog will be fine and they’ll likely need to spend time dealing with the situation. This is the exact opposite of what happens now; the owner’s dog who is attacked has to deal with it and the aggressor walks away.
Before the hate mail arrives please let me explain what I am not doing. I am not randomly planning on spraying off leash dogs that are under control, dogs behind a fence (electronic or otherwise), or a 2 year old lab “puppy” that is so excited that it may accidentally run into me, my dog or my kids. Like a concealed weapon, you always have to assess the situation and the surroundings. You only act when you or someone else (even your dog) is in danger.
I’m also not advocating being a jerk on the trails. I’m a huge proponent of Charlie Sturgis and Mountain Trails “10 seconds of kindness” campaign. I’m also not advocating pepper spraying dog breeds purely on the basis of bad reputation (pit bulls, rottweilers, akitas, etc.). I firmly believe most people and dogs do the right thing.
Yet, now I realize I need to protect my dog from danger and I’m willing to use a non-lethal method to ensure that she is OK. Some people may say something like, “if you even think of pepper spraying my dog I’ll sue you.” The problem is that if my dog is on leash and if your dog is off leash, acting aggressively, and approaches me in a manner that I feel is threatening and I pepper spray your dog, you are not going to win that legal battle.
The other thing to note, that I think often goes unsaid, is that the size of the dog doesn’t matter. My dog was attacked by a bichon (a very small dog) in Salt Lake and it ripped my dogs neck to pieces. In the latest incident it was a medium-sized mixed breed dog that drug her to the ground.
My hope is that owners of aggressive dogs will do the right thing and make sure their dogs are always on leash outside of their property. If not, I am no longer going to allow their lack of responsibility to negatively impact those who I love.
in Schools
Project For Deeper Understanding “Debate” on the Park City School Bond is Already Flawed
I usually love the Project for Deeper understanding events. Their Ski Link event a couple of years ago was outstanding. However, I have grave concerns over the setup for their discussion of the Park City School Bond. They are inviting 6 guests to speak and “debate” the issue: two citizens “for” the bond, two Park City School Board members, and two citizens against the bond. The issue is this “fair” debate consists of twice as many people for the bond as against it.
On the “Yes” side you have former school board member Moe Hickey (who is heading up the “Yes” campaign for the bond), Katherine Hoggan (Park City Ed Foundation Board member), Tania Knauer (School Board member who voted for the bond), and Phil Kaplan (School Board member who voted for the bond). On the “No” side you have Joe Cronley and a player to be named later.
That would be 4 people for the bond and 2 against. If this was a fair discussion and everyone got equal time there would be twice as many arguments for the bond as against it.
I’m not sure if this was an intentional move to provide an advantage to the pro bond group (unlikely given Project For Deeper Understandings past) or a simple oversight.
Either way, one school board member should be dropped from the panel and another anti-bond citizen should be added. It’s the only way to make this discussion fair and provide the public what they deserve… a fair and balanced discussion.
Wasatch Front Mayor Launches Campaign Against Sales Tax Increase for Transportation
Down in the valley this November, many residents will be voting on Proposition 1, a sales tax increase to benefit transportation. However, South Jordan Mayor, Dave Alvord has launched a campaign against the tax increase. His main arguments are:
- Half the revenue associated with the tax will go to UTA (Utah Transit Authority… the bus and rail people).
- UTA Bus and rail are being subsidized at 85%-95% levels — meaning that fares don’t even begin to cover costs.
- Mass transit works best in areas of the United States with dense populations. But here in Utah, drivers have voted with their keys and have largely chosen the car over the bus.
- Proposition 1 does not allow for cities to offset their current transportation spending. What that means is that every city will have a de facto “pedal to the metal” transportation budget. This one-size-fits-all approach will force cities that already have sufficient funding for transportation to find new projects for this money — projects that might not be needed.
- A sales tax increase would hurt the middle and lower classes disproportionately.
- We should focus transportation spending where there is the highest demand: roads.
A similar vote is likely coming to Summit County next year.
What’s interesting about Mayor Alvord’s ideas are almost diametrically opposed to what we here from our leaders, here. He seems to basically be saying that Utahns want cars, any proposal that gives a significant amount of money to UTA won’t be spent effectively, and the taxes hurt the middle and lower classes. It’s a set of arguments we should keep in mind as we head into next year.
We all want to ensure that KPCW doesn’t have to start doing traffic reports “on the 9’s” but a editorial like Mayor Alvord also argues that we may not want to blindly agree to a sales tax increase in the hope that it will do some good.
in Film Studio
‘Blood and Oil’ on Life Support After Week 2
I was driving back from Heber yesterday and came upon the back side of Park City Film Studios. Never before have I seen such a fine collection of trailers in one spot — and I assume they are mostly there due to ABC’s ‘Blood and Oil’ production taking place at the film studios. If you want the opportunity to see it for yourself, you better hurry. It looks like ‘Blood and Oil’ may not be long for this world.
TV By the Numbers reports, “Two weeks in, ABC’s scripted shows collectively are doing better than any of their network brethren… Even the critically pilloried “Dr. Ken” scored pretty well in its premiere. Which isn’t to say there aren’t some trouble spots. Newbie “Blood & Oil” dipped in its second week, downgrading it to a likely cancellation.”
So it appears the movie studio will likely be looking for a new production to take up residence sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, that’s likely harder to find than it sounds. I hope the studio made some good money and negotiated a good cancellation clause. Otherwise, as often is said in a show that’s not about to be cancelled…
Winter is Coming.
in Olympics
Today I Learned… Colorado Turned Down the Olympics Over Traffic
I was writing a story on a toll traffic lane in Colorado and came upon this quote from the Denver Post:
Contrast that with Utah and Mountain Accord. We seem to want to build more infrastructure so we can bring in more people and hopefully bring in even more with a future Olympics.
Perhaps Utah does need an Olympics to jump start our economy. Perhaps, we as a people, want to spends billions to update and expand our infrastructure. Perhaps we’re willing to trade some quality of life for a train. Perhaps the inflow to our economy from the visitors associated with an Olympics outweighs negatives.
Everybody has their own opinion on that. I just found the difference between 1970’s Denver and 2016 Salt Lake interesting. Perhaps Denver residents may view it differently today. I wonder how our residents would vote on an Olympic bid?
Colorado May Implement Pricey Toll Lane Aimed at Ski Traffic
A reader sent in an article about Colorado’s new variable-priced toll lane that extends 13 miles on Interstate 70 between the mountains and Denver. While toll lanes are nothing new there are a number of interesting aspects to this one:
- It only runs 72 days a year (weekends and Monday holidays)
- The toll is priced based on the traffic situation. When traffic is bad, it will cost as much as $30. When traffic is lighter is may cost as little as $3.
- This is likely the most expensive toll per mile in the U.S.
- The toll-lane is only operated down the mountain into Denver, which is where traffic backlogs often occur.
The Park Rag reader noted: “Consider I-80/US 40/SR 248 ‘Express Route’ to/from Kearns Campus ? parking; shuttles to/from PCMR or CANYONS sites or ?DV????? (avoiding SR 224 stop & go). SR248 would be designated/enforced ‘3 lane’ during high-occupancy periods.”
The reader has a point. Imagine a variably priced toll that costs up to $30 to drive in on 248 or 224 during weekends and holiday periods. This could cut two ways. Either the toll could be used to incentivize people to take the bus (or carpool) or it could be used to gain revenue to offset other programs targeted at reducing congestion. Or Both.
The idea of busing from the Kearns School Campus may work on weekends but the parking lot would be too full during school days (and Sundance). That said, there is the Park and Ride out past Park City Heights that the city always talks about using but never seems to pull the trigger on.
The idea of pricey tolls is interesting. There are details to be worked out like how to minimally impact those who live and work in town (and depend on those corridors) and the inevitable push back from the resorts. If somebody is going to make $30 off of cars, I’m sure Vail wants it to be them.
Yet, it’s another idea to put in our quiver of potential solutions –one that we get a free ticket to watch (in Colorado) and see how it works out.
Each time I read about these ideas, it just reminds me that busing alone (or rail alone) isn’t a solution by itself. I know Summit County and Park City are still working on trying to find solutions. I know that they are hoping Mountain Accord will chip in $400,000 for a transportation study. I just hope that it doesn’t come back with more of the same-old-same-old. If rehashed solutions would have solved the problem, it would be fixed by now.
We need some out of the box ideas. Perhaps toll roads aren’t it, but perhaps they are part of the solution if done effectively.
Thanks to the reader who sent in the article and comments
Parkrag
We believe in citizen journalism. We believe there are stories to tell that can help to shape our community for the better. We believe tomorrow's Park City can be better than today's.