Mountain Accord… It Only Seems to Gets Worse
I have often thought of this quote from the movie The Godfather when thinking about Mountain Accord and the people involved. Mountain Accord is a “process” by which leaders from across the region are officially working together to “preserve the Wasatch” but in reality each “partner” has different motives. Some groups cooperate because they think there will be something in it for them. Some groups cooperate because they’ve had few successes and this is the next-best chance to try and find at least a little something. Some groups are worried that if they don’t cooperate they may may be handed their hat — or worse.
Whenever someone says, “we must keep a seat at the Mountain Accord table,” which they say often, I think of the mafia. “If you don’t keep a seat at the table, you never know when your __________ will be cut off.”
Yet, I’ve never felt so strong an opinion about the Mountain Accord as when I read an article from the Cottonwood Holladay Journal. Many of us in Park City have been concerned with Mountain Accord and its proposed tunnel through Big Cottonwood to PCMR. Yet, that’s where our outrage stopped. The tunnel was put on hold and WE FELT GOOD (mission accomplished). Yet, as history has taught us, the battle often continues to rage. The problem is that while we think it doesn’t affect us, the battle will eventually come back to our front door. Such is the likely case with Mountain Accord.
Let’s begin with a quote from the Cottonwood Holladay Journal (CWHJ):
“Twenty business owners and concerned citizens, telling members of the media (at least four major news outlets were in attendance) that officers in Cottonwood Heights Police Department were ordered to specifically target customers of the Canyon Inn. This was done in an effort to put them out of business, to make way for the new development project.”
What new development is the article referring to? That would be the alleged development of two hotels and TRANSIT CENTER centrally located to the proposed route of a train that would take visitors up Little Cottonwood Canyon, which is a proposed concept under the Mountain Accord. According to the article, who is allegedly one of the developers of this land? Wayne Niederhauser, both a member of the Utah State Senate and an Executive Member of Mountain Accord. He is not only an Executive Member of the Mountain Accord and a Senator, but he was responsible for asking the Utah State Legislature to fund the Mountain Accord in 2015.
So, it seems a member of the Utah Legislature has been instrumental in getting funding for a project that may eventually include a train up Little Cottonwood Canyon. Meanwhile, he is reportedly a developer for a project that allegedly appears (according a source from the CWHJ article) to be trying to use a local city police force to influence people to stop frequenting local businesses that are on the land wanted for development, thus trying to put said businesses under. If these businesses were to fold, it may enable a transit center and hotels to be built that would further the developer’s cause. This would then likely make this location central to transit for people coming from the airport (or wanting to stay near to light rail).
I should note that the CWJH article says that “Kelvyn Cullimore, Mayor of Cottonwood Heights, has denied any wrongdoing, and has called Jim Stojack [Canyon Inn owner] a ‘rabble rouser.’ Cullimore has said that his intentions have ‘always and only been to help small business owners and the community of Cottonwood Heights by keeping the roads safe.'”
OK, you’re in Park City. Why do you care about what happens at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon (besides potentially missing out on Porcupine’s delicious Wahso Fish Tacos)? The problem is that, if true, it shows the lengths at which influential people may go to get what they want.
Furthermore, by our governments saying “let’s keep a seat at the table” on Mountain Accord, it appears we are turning a blind eye to what may really be happening. We are saying that we need to stay involved so that someone may fund a transportation study for Summit County someday while businesses, according to CWHJ, are getting pushed out for some developer’s gain.
That isn’t right. That’s not who we should be. That’s not who we are.
If Mountain Accord really has Executive Committee Members profiting from their role at other business’ expense, we need to say enough is enough. We need to stand up for ourselves and contain the issue while we can. We need to do whatever we can to make sure Mountain Accord does not impact us negatively at some developer(s) expense.
To be fair, I’d only heard vague accusations about this issue until this CWHJ article was published. I have no proof of any wrong doing other than what was stated there. Yet, sometimes you have to take a step back and ask if we should be involved in the Mountain Accord process at all. At some point it just becomes a mess that isn’t worth the time and distraction.
The problem, when you are dealing with the “mafia”, is that you don’t know if you have something they want, until it’s too late. It’s not too hard to envision Park City being something somebody wants.
If you have time this weekend, I would encourage you to read the full article from the Cottonwood Holladay Journal and form your own opinion.
in Dogs
Me and My Mutt are Finally Legal in Summit County
If you are a dog owner like I am, you may occasionally run afoul of the law. I know, your dog, just like mine, is “perfect.” Your dog would never harm anyone. Your dog generally follows your commands. Everyone loves your dog.
So, much like me, you let your canine companion run off leash. On occasion, things happen. Your dog wanders in front of a cyclist on a trail and causes them to slow down; not cool because you are breaking the law. Your dog approaches someone who obviously doesn’t like dogs; again not cool because who wants to scare someone and make them feel uncomfortable. Your dog approaches a small child and licks them; still not cool because we are breaking the law (and terrifying the average park city parent). Yet, if you are like me, you may justify the encounter and say “it won’t happen again” or “no harm… no foul” or “crap, I got lucky that time.”
Yet, we know it still isn’t right (and is against the law for many good reasons).
Recently, I decided to side with the good guys and follow the law but it hasn’t impacted my dog walks whatsoever. One of the ingenious things about Summit County is that they seem to understand that many of us treat our dogs on par with children. We want to bring them everywhere and have a special relationship with them. Heck, one member of the community bought a coffee shop and named it after her dog. Yet, that doesn’t negate responsibility. How do county rules marry responsibility with freedom?
The electronic dog collar.
County dog ordinances state, “A dog shall be considered under restraint of the owner and therefore not “at large” when: The dog is under the control of its owner through the use of an electronic dog collar, provided that the owner maintains voice and sight control as outlined in subsection B of this section and carries a physical leash or lead with them at all times”
In my case this works perfectly for my 16 year old mutt that is nearly deaf. In her prime, I could whistle and she would come running, no matter what was happening. Yet, I was struggling because that whistle isn’t heard like it used to be. Now the electronic dog collar, with a simple buzz (I’ve never used anything more than vibration) gets her attention and she comes running again.
It’s required a little work (I suppose many would call it training but I would call it working together) to make sure she associates the buzz with the old-school whistle. A few days in and now I am both doing the right thing and following the law. Best of all, she comes every time I call.
The great thing is that these devices aren’t expensive. I was expecting to pay a few hundred dollars but it cost less than $45 and works great. There are many different models from different companies, but this is the one I got. Of course, to follow rules I also carry a small leash.
The downside that many people will cite is the cruelty of a shock associated with electronic collars. I completely agree with that. Most electronic collars have some sort of “shock” function associated with the collar. I made sure that I tested the shock-option on myself, first, to see how it felt. Even the lowest level felt like sticking my finger in some sort of socket. So, I’ll be sticking with the pure vibration mode unless something really unexpected happens. I would recommend finding a collar that either provides an option for an audible beep or vibration. That way 99.99999% of the time, you are just getting your best friend’s attention and not jamming their neck into an electrical outlet.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that electronic collars aren’t for every dog. They are not for aggressive dogs. The literature that came with my collar specified that in detail and I completely agree. A dog that shows any aggression should always be physically leashed when in the potential company of others. It’s also not a turnkey solution. Even my “perfect” dog needed some time to associate a vibration on her neck with the old whistle. I’m sure there are trainers who can help in almost any situation, but my old gal “got it” pretty quickly.
So, you may want to consider the electronic leash (along with carrying another leash). In the right circumstance, with the right dog, I think you’ll find it not only enables you to comply with the law but makes for a better experience with your best friend.
in Media
You May Want to Consider iPhone Ad Blocking (and Its Impact on Local Media)
On Wednesday, Apple released version 9 of its IOS software. Most of the updates are under the hood with one notable exception, the ability to block ads on your iPhone (iPhone 5S and later). Why would you want to do this? In general it speeds up browsing, you often use less data from your mobile plan, and it can make many websites easier to use.
In order to block ads you have to download an ad blocking application and then activate it in your iPhone Settings. I tried this process, and found that it made browsing the web much better on my iPhone. That also means many ads on local media like the Park Record and KPCW will probably be blocked.
The good news for KPCW is that they don’t really have traditional ads, so it appears there shouldn’t be much impact on their website/revenue. However, Park Record’s website (both their mobile version and desktop version on mobile) had all ads stripped. From a user experience, I found it much more appealing. I didn’t have to wait for that incessant ad about a home auction that continually popped up before and it freed up space at the bottom of the screen. From a Park Record perspective, this will lead to a drop in ad views. I have no idea how big this market is for them, but it’s likely many people only access Park Record through their iPhone.
My experience is that if you do like to browse Park Record from your iPhone, you’ll want to pick an ad-blocker wisely. I tried two of the top ranked content blockers, Crystal and Peace. Crystal is a free option, but the Park Record mobile website breaks when you try to view a specific article. Peace costs a few dollars but works perfectly with www.parkrecord.com.
The other thing to mention is the ethics of using an ad blocker. Park Record employs reporters that obviously get paid to do what they do. Any impact to revenue can impact their ability to do their job and provide reporting about Park City. So, you may want to consider spending the $50 a year to subscribe, in order to continue supporting them.
So far, I really like blocking ads. I probably won’t go back to browsing the web without it. Those people who have recent iPhones may want to give an ad blocker a try.
in Park City
in Election
So You Are Running for Park City City Council or Perhaps You Are Floating a Bond… Here is Some Signage Advice.
Each election cycle, signs for candidates and initiatives pop up across Park City and the Basin. It’s like an infestation of thistle that invades the public right of way. Of course, many of these signs are placed illegally. According to Summit County rules, political signs can’t be in the public right of way (at least it was during the last election per the Summit County Campaign website). But we’ll leave that in the domain of unenforced rules like general sign laws in Summit County.
With that in mind. If you are going to break the law in pursuit of political success, you might as well do it right.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read on constructing the right political sign.
How Signs Help Motorists and Cyclists Get Along
If you care about the interaction of cyclists and motorists, of which we have many of both around Park City, this New York Magazine article may be interesting to you. It seems that a study (albeit online) seems to indicate that the choice of wording on signs, greatly influences interactions between different groups on the roads. For instance, many locales will have signs saying “Share the Road” trying to indicate that bikes and cars should coexist on our roadways. They don’t seem to achieve good results. However, instead saying, “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” yields superior results.
Studies like this point to interesting ideas how to make our interactions better everywhere form ski slopes, to trails, to roads.
If you are interested, here is the article.
in Housing
Homebuilder Confidence at 2005 Levels While Mortgage Applications Are Down… Be Careful Out there
Upton Sinclair famously said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
With that, I present three charts related to housing. The first shows that homebuilder confidence (National Association of Home Builders or NAHB) is at all time highs. What this means to people in Park City is that companies like Ivory Homes (Park City Heights) and Woodside Homes (East creek Ranch in Silver Creek) are likely full speed ahead on building homes. Yet, someone has to buy them.
If you look at mortgage applications, nationwide, they are trending down. If you look at the current week (2nd week of September) they are nearing lows seen twice in the last 15 years. So, who is going to buy those new homes?
The “danger” to Park City is that too much product will be built and force home values down. That is, of course, great for the family that wants to move in. It’s not so good for existing home owners whose home sales may be competing with a newer home that is less expensive. It’s also not so great in the long-run for local governments who depend on property tax revenue growth for funding programs and projects.
in Dogs
Park City’s Dog Dive is Intriguing
I was researching the impact to the Park Record of Apple’s latest iPhone update. For the first time, the iPhone will be able to block ads, which is causing many website publishers to freak out. More on that later.
However, I came across an ad for a business that will be opening near Pinebrook that caught my attention. Rarely do I click on an online ad, but this one had me intrigued.
Now, I have no idea whether the research indicates whether this is beneficial for a dog, but for the right dog I could see it as time well spent with your pup. It seems to be a really interesting idea, and one that is right up Park City’s alley. I hope it works out for the people who started it.
in Development
Something Doesn’t Add Up With the Whole Foods Traffic Study
On Wednesday, the Summit County Council is further examining whether a development that will house Whole Foods on Landmark Drive, across from Ruby Tuesday, should be allowed. If you are interested in the topic, I would encourage you to read the traffic study that was performed by Hales Engineering. Traffic appears to be the major holdup (along with affordable housing) to enabling a new Whole Foods at this location. Ultimately the study concludes that the new Whole Foods-based development is superior to what was allowed on the land previously. They conclude that it is safer, has better traffic operations, and it improves “alternative mode accessibility.” Therefore, it is better than what is currently allowed at the site.
Yet, there are a few questions with this analysis:
- There is no consideration of the joint impact of the new school at Ecker Hill that will become operational at the same time as this development. It’s true that it probably makes estimating traffic harder, but it doesn’t change the fact that traffic patterns on Landmark drive will be significantly altered once the school is in place. Since, the county does not HAVE to agree to this change, we need to make sure that all information is accounted for before we make altering decisions.
- If you read through the analysis and get to the end, you may, like me, think the traffic study will say that the new Whole Foods option is a worse option than currently exists. But it does not. The new proposal is better for traffic, according to the study. It makes me wonder who paid for the study. Perhaps, though, something has been lost in just reading the powerpoint.
- The traffic study cites that additions, as part of the new agreement, will make the road safer. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t see many accidents there now. Likewise, I’m sure that if they reverted to the original developer’s agreement, there will still be changes. These safety additions (like a
speed bumpraised cross walk) could likely be added to the existing agreement in exchange for a few concessions (if necessary). So, I don’t view this new agreement as the only way to ensure that Landmark Drive is safe. - The study cites being part of the Kimball Junction bus circulator, having van pool parking, hiking, and adding bike share as benefits. As for the bus circulator, most people don’t use a bus for grocery shopping. As for a van pool, I suppose you may have 16 people driving into and out of Kimball Junction to share a ride to Salt Lake. As for bike share, what percentage of people in Park City who want to ride a bike, don’t have one? If they don’t, are they going to “rent” a bike and ride it from Whole Foods into Park City to go to work? I just don’t get it. Do these things even register at a scale that even slightly contribute to solving transportation problems? Or do they just sound good? Does this really even relate to whether a Whole Foods should be on Landmark drive?
- County Council member Roger Armstrong said something interesting regarding the new hotel on Highway 224 (across from Soaring Wings) a few years back. While the case was made that a hotel typically has less traffic than a restaurant (which was what the land was approved for… before the hotel), Mr Armstrong questioned whether the hotel would have less traffic, in reality, than what was approved there. I took it as him comparing what was there then, an open field with the potential for a restaurant sometime, with a hotel that would be built for sure. If you look on 224, you’ll see a hotel that will likely open in the spring. There will be traffic associated with it. There is also the huge structure that makes the location look much less residential in nature. Would they have built a restaurant by now? Next year? Probably not. If not, there is no new traffic. It’s the same thing here. If the developer could have stuck to the original agreement, they likely would have. So, we should really be comparing the traffic of a Whole Foods with the traffic of an empty parking lot (at least for now) and whether the concept works.
As I’ve stated before, I’m all for a new Whole Foods. I was graciously invited to their envisioning session on the new store, even though I had criticized some parts of the idea. I found the Whole Foods people to be very thoughtful and caring about the community. I currently don’t frequent Whole Foods much as it makes me a little “aggro.” It’s too small, aisles are cramped, generally other customers look like the are about ready to run me over, and the nicest people you’ll find in the store work there. That said, I love the product and their concept.
I don’t know if this is or isn’t the right spot for a new Whole Foods, but I hope the analysis is done using information that matters and not what just sounds good.
Will Park City Vote For Bernie Sanders in the Next Presidential Election?
Some would say Park City is and oasis in the middle of a republican-rich Utah. Others would say it’s a swamp-infested place of Democrats in an otherwise wholesome Utah. What you can’t deny is that Park City usually leans left (the Democratic party) when voting.
This morning I was listening to Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic nomination, who has overtaken Hillary Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire polls for president. He was again talking about his campaign against billionaires and millionaires. He was talking about shared sacrifice and said that “Yes, we will demand that millionaires and billionaires and the largest corporations in America contribute to deficit reduction as a matter of shared sacrifice.”
After I heard that, I began thinking about Park City. Yes, the area generally leans left but most of our mouths are fed by those with money…. the millionaire (and occasional billionaire). If you are in real-estate, who are buying the homes? If you are in vacation rentals, who are renting your homes? If you are Vail, who is paying $120 a lift ticket (or buying your property)? If you have a shop on Main Street, who is buying that fur hat? If you are a tax payer, who is subsidizing schools, roads, and government through second homes?
Yep, the millionaires and billionaires.
Should Bernie Sanders continue his rise, it should be an interesting election next year. Likewise, there are other people to support like Hillary Clinton. Yet, it should be interesting to see if there was a big push for this:
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.