Is the Mountain Accord Legally Binding?
Yesterday’s Summit County Council meeting on the Mountain Accord presented a number of interesting angles on the Accord. I’m going to try to cover a few of those today. Perhaps the most interesting, and overarching, was the discussion over whether the Mountain Accord process is legally binding. “Legally binding” can take many forms but a simple example would be if Summit County and/or Park City sign onto the next part of the Mountain Accord, and the Mountain Accord Executive Committee ultimately decides they want a tunnel (through the consensus process), are we legally obligated to allow the tunnel.
The problem seems to be that no one really knows if it is legally binding. Deputy County Attorney Dave Thomas seems to believe parts of it likely are binding. He stated that given the structure of Mountain Accord, that Executive Decision Memos issued by Mountain Accord are likely binding. Yet, Laney Jones, Program Manager for the Mountain Accord said there was no intent by the Mountain Accord to have any of it (besides a funding agreement) be legally binding.
So, is it binding?
No one really knows.
The danger is that what Laney Jones thinks doesn’t really matter. As she has said multiple times, she implements what the Executive Committee wants. So, if the Executive Board ultimately wants a tunnel, and there are a few players (like Sandy City) that are willing to push the issue, they could sue Park City or Summit County to comply. That doesn’t mean they would win. Deputy Attorney Dave Thomas said he would counter that argument by saying Summit County did not agree to the original charter.
Yet, that would mean we are embroiled in another lawsuit. However, this time it wouldn’t be over a movie studio or a parcel of land. It would be a battle, in some ways, for our way of life and our ability to choose our own destiny.
It seems like a very thin tightrope we are walking.
in Development
You May Want To Put June 17 on Your Calendar
If you have concerns over development in the Snyderville Basin, you may want to attend a County Council meeting at the Kimball Junction Library on June 17th at 6PM. They are holding a public hearing to get citizens’ input on what we want the Basin to look like, how we feel about open space, whether we want affordable housing, how transportation should be viewed, etc.
For instance, during a meeting of the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission almost 175 Jeremy Ranch residents showed up to say they didn’t want a developer to have expanded entitlements on a hill across from the Jeremy Store. The Planning Commission and Community Development Department heard the concerns and worked to alleviate those by adding some language to the General Plan to address that.
However, recently the County Council received their first official glimpse at the General Plan and they have concerns over the language that would limit increased entitlements like that Jeremy Ranch parcel. Unless the community speaks up, that language may be removed.
Likewise, there are people within the community who are concerned with limiting development. They see large developments like Canyons and Silver Creek and say “they get to build these huge developments” why can’t I? If that’s how you feel, you’ll want to make your concern heard as well.
Either way, big changes could be coming to the Snyderville Basin. The meeting on the 17th is your chance to help shape those changes.
Today’s County Council’s Mountain Accord Discussion
Today the County Council discussed the Mountain Accord and specifically how they want to participate in the program. It was a very interesting discussions that brought up a number of topics I hadnt heard before.
The discussion is below: (more…)
Park City May Begin Monitoring Your Cell Phone Signals Soon. Do You have Questions About Your Privacy You’d like to Ask the Monitoring Company?
During last week’s City Council meeting, we learned Park City Municipal had engaged a company called Blyncsy in a pilot to monitor cell phone signals from drivers. According to the city, these cell phone signals will be used to “better understand how our population, employee base, and visitors flow throughout town.” My concern is how our citizens’ privacy is protected.
How this type of technology typically operates is that it uses a byproduct of how your cell phone works in order to record where you go. If you have a smartphone, it usually includes WIFI and bluetooth. Your phone uses these technologies to do things like get on the internet and play music over your car speakers. Each phone, for both bluetooth and WIFI, has unique identifiers that are specific to your phone. For instance your phone’s WIFI identifier, called a mac address, looks something like this 00:0a:95:9d:68:16. Your phone’s bluetooth would have a similar looking but different address. Again, these addresses are unique in the world to your phone.
Because of the way phones work, these identifiers are broadcast fairly frequently from the phone to the outside world. Cell phone monitors then can record those addresses at various sensors along the road and track where the phone goes and where it’s currently at.
Therein lies the issue. Unless specific and proper steps are taken to anonymize the information at the right point in the process, your location information may be trackable. Furthermore, unless privacy policies are in place that define how citizens’ information can be used, your information may be used in ways you do not approve of (perhaps even sold). Finally, unless there are contracts in place that prohibit changes to how the monitoring company uses our data, allows for auditing of the monitoring company’s processes and data centers, and ensures that Park City receives annual updates on audits performed, we don’t even have minimal assurances over our citizens’ privacy.
Park City’s document on the plan says that information collected will be anonymous. Yet, that’s one of those statements that is often used but the devil is in the details. With that in mind, I have contacted Blyncsy and am planning to have a call with them on Thursday to understand their privacy policies and how our information is protected. From what I’ve heard this will be one of Blyncsy’s first installs of its kind. It will be interesting to see if they have all their ducks in a row.
Even with all of their answers, you may not like your phone being tracked. After I talk with the company, I’ll explain what you can do to avoid being tracked (you’re not going to like it). I’ll also give an example of how someone like the Mayor Jack Thomas’ phone could be tracked specifically back to him and his location monitored.
I hope Blyncsy has taken all the right steps to ensure our privacy. If so, we may have nothing to worry about (other than just the concept of being tracked).
If you have questions you’d like me to ask, please email me at or post them here. I’ll make sure I ask them when I talk to the company’s CEO on Thursday.
in Schools
The Little School House That Couldn’t
As part of the new development that is going on at Silver Creek (the 1200 units being put in by Home Depot), the developer was required to build a school. At face value, that sounds like a good deal and probably made sense in someone’s mind when the agreement was being made. I can hear the statement, “wouldn’t it be great to have a school for the children who live in this development?”
Yet, we are now in 2015 and the reality has come home to roost. The development agreement originally gave 2.5 acres for a school and 2.5 acres for recreation. The County Council, recognizing that 2.5 acres was too small for a school, was able to work with the developer to use the entire 5 acres for the school (the land has to be used as a school). Yesterday in a meeting, school board member Moe Hickey ran the numbers and calculated that this would be big enough to hold about 350 elementary school students. Yet there could be as many as twice that many students (maybe more) in the development due to a number of factors. Also keep in mind this school is in the South Summit School District. So, how is that going to work if half the elementary school students go to the new Silver Summit school and the rest go to… Kamas or Heber?
Now they are contemplating whether the new school could me a charter school. It’s frankly a mess.
It’s also a cautionary tale. I’m sure that the school sounded good years ago and the concept was probably hard to argue with. Yet, now we are left with what seems a wasted development. Five acres of open space, or off leash dog park, or sports fields, or almost anything is probably preferable to what will likely happen.
I hope today we are smarter with our planning, agreements, and foresight so that in 2025 we aren’t wondering how we all collectively could have been so short sighted.
What Mountain Accord has to do With California Pistachios
One of the Mountain Accord tenants I am surprised no one is talking about relates to water. As part of the Mountain Accord, the ski resorts in the Cottonwood Canyons get more water for snowmaking. I’ve not seen documented how much extra water they are getting.
I was recently reading about the California drought and how agriculture accounts for 80% of the state’s water usage but is rarely talked about. That is starting to change where articles like this one in the Daily Beast are titled, “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.” My favorite quote from that article is:
“‘I’ve been smiling all the way to the bank,’ said pistachio farmer John Dean at a conference hosted this month by Paramount Farms, the mega-operation owned by Stewart Resnick, a Beverly Hills billionaire known for his sprawling agricultural holdings, controversial water dealings, and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to high-powered California politicians.”
While it has been a wet spring, our winter in Utah was abysmal. I can envision a time when normal Utahns are required to ration water (like California today) but we’ve guaranteed extra water so that ski resorts can profit. We may look back and say”how did that happen? Only 5% of Utahns ski. There are scientists that say by the end of the century Park City will have zero snowpack.” Yet, we are willing to give up our most valuable resource…water… and for what? So that resorts can fight mother nature and survive as long as possible?
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that many times people have said that the Mountain Accord is all about the watershed. Yet, it appears we are willing to give some of that up (how much?) for the resorts. What if there isn’t much watershed in the future? Who gets what remains?
I think the question of water isn’t getting the attention it deserves. If we don’t start paying attention, in 10 years we may have wished we did.
Are Mountain Accord Phase 2 Ambiguities Big Trouble Waiting to Happen?
The anonymous citizen who provided us with the Draft Mountain Accord document included a number of his/her concerns with the new agreement. I would summarize that person’s concerns in a few of statements:
- The tunnel between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Park City is still on the table.
- If “studies” done as part of the next phase of the Mountain Accord recommend a connection between Brighton and Park City, it will put intense pressure on the citizens of Summit County and Park City for a connection.
- The environmental monitoring, adaptive management, restoration, and trails sections have barely 1 line each in the document. The citizen says it “probably reflects the reality of how minimal they have been all along, given the vast majority of the lands [Mountain Accord] seeks to cover are already federal wilderness and USFS roadless areas.”
One of the overall concerns is that the same plan that has always been in place, still appears to be in place. It appears that they will now “study” the tunnel between Brighton and Park City. If they really want that tunnel, what do you think the outcome of that study will be?
What has been changed is the messaging. It has been formalized in this document that the plan is allegedly first and foremost about the environment, with transportation used as a tool to achieve that. Yet, as one community member told me a few weeks ago, if they really wanted to limit the impact of humans and improve the “environment” in the Wasatch they would limit the number of people going up Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon. Instead, they are trying to make it easier to get as many people into the mountains as possible. Does that sound like an environmental plan?
Instead it looks like this plan has been built to be ambiguous and provide plausible responses to questions that the community has been asking. If you question the connection between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Park City, now the powers that be will say, “are you again studying it?” What are you going to say to that? Are you not a reasonable person?
Perhaps the answer is that you are against THEM studying it.
Will the New Mountain Accord Agreement Force our Representatives to Support the New Agreement?
Early Friday morning I received a copy of an outline of the newest Mountain Accord agreement.This document is likely the predecessor to the next Mountain Accord Blueprint and was what was being discussed at a Mountain Accord retreat yesterday.
As previously mentioned, there are a number interesting aspects to the outline. One of the most interesting however is in Section 3. It says:
“To accomplish the above, we [the organizations signing it] agree to support the Accord publicly and within our constituencies.”
To me this says that organizations’ that sign this will have agreed to not criticize any part of the Accord publicly. Since policy decisions must legally be discussed in public, that would mean that there could not be criticism (constructive or otherwise) of the Mountain Accord. Should Roger Armstrong continue to not support a connection between Park City and Big Cottonwood Canyon, he would be legally bound per his position in the Summit County Council to only support the Accord.
I brought this up with a member of the Summit County Council and that person’s comment was that he/she felt that most Council Members would not sign onto any agreement that would limit the Summit County Council’s ability to make sure our area’s best interests was served.
My concern is that, looking at the language of the outline, it does seem designed to be an agreement. I as a citizen of Summit County don’t want to wonder whether every council person’s comment supporting the Accord agreement is because they agree with it or because they HAVE TO AGREE with it.
I frankly can’t believe language like that is being considered at all (or even legal). It’s one thing to work for a company and have to sign a non-disclosure document. It’s a far different thing for an agreement to regulate our elected officials free speech on a topic of great controversy.
That in of itself tells you a lot about the Mountain Accord process.
Screw the Bus… Bikes Full Steam Ahead
I was walking this morning with my 3 year old, 1 year old, and 15 year old dog on a paved trail near near Gorgoza. Suddenly, a pack of 10 child-bikers came racing down the path. I moved my crew off to the side because, well my 15 year old dog wasn’t exactly legal per Summit County Leash Laws, and it’s frankly the right thing to do. We then continued walking and then came 4 kids on bikes. We again moved out of the way. Then came 3 kids and their mom. I thought “what the heck is going on?” Something was different today.
Per KPCW, I learned that today was “Bike to Work… Bike to School Day.” My experience now makes a lot more sense.
Yet what makes more sense is the way I viewed those bikers, before I knew what was going on. I saw a group of kids riding with what appeared to be a teacher from school. I saw mothers riding with their children. I saw older kids riding with their younger siblings to ensure they were safe. Again, I had no clue of what was going on but I thought, “Wow, isn’t that great. These people are embracing the outdoors.” It seems so much like what I think of when I think of Park City. A few minutes later I remember looking over and seeing the Salt Lake City to Park City Connect Bus on I-80. Did that illicit any mental response? No.
I often hear that we want to make sure our communities are walkable, rideable, and accessible (via buses). Yet, having witnessed this during this morning, walkable is not an option. Kids aren’t going to walk 3 miles to school. As for buses, the likelihood that I or my children will hop on one is 1 in a 1000 unless it is bright yellow and headed toward school. That leaves ridable — via bikes or similar transportation alternative.
Unfortunately, I hadn’t thought about it until today, but riding makes sense. We have large distances to cover. Bikes are can be cheap. Why aren’t we focusing on that as a first option? If we would treat the bike as a first class citizen, we would make our plans around it. We would make design decisions around. It’s not like it is an abnormal mode of transport. In fact, in most of the world it is the primary means of transportation.
What it also does is add to our brand. We are not a city of people sitting on busses staring on our iPads. We are an area that embraces the outdoors and the experience it offers us. Why do we want to emulate Atlanta when we can be ourselves? Why don’t we invent and then become the mountain town that solved its transportation problems through bikes (winter and summer).
Today showed me a perspective I hadn’t considered before. While buses, roads, and interstates may make sense for those invested in them (suppliers, construction companies, and government entities that are focused on roads), what is right for us? Perhaps bikes aren’t exactly it. Maybe a combo bike/e-bike is right. Maybe there is skate skiing to destinations in the winter. Maybe it’s something else. However, the more I look at traditional services like buses and rail, the more I think people are pushing a solution that is not the right fit for us. They attended a conference in Seattle and now want to do it here.
Perhaps you are looking forward to riding a bus into town. I’m not. I am, however, looking forward to next winter when I can install my fat tires, put on my hat, enjoy the sounds that only falling snow provides, and cruising toward my local grocer. That’s who I want to be.
I used to do that in the fourth grade. Today’s experience reminded me of what I wish I was. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of use want to be that way. If only our roads, trails, and government supported that.
Mountain Accord Phase 2
Last night, thanks to an anonymous citizen, I received a copy of the Mountain Accord’s latest plan for the Wasatch. This is the plan that Mountain Accord executives are discussing today at a retreat. As you may be aware, Mountain Accord is a group comprised of 30 different players from across the Wasatch with the intent of … well … it depends on who you ask. Some would say the intent is to save Salt Lake’s watershed and provide other environmental benefits. Others would say it is to increase economic development in Sandy.
After briefly perusing the document, there is so much to talk about. I will do my best to provide a few opinions throughout the weekend. However, in case you want to take a look and form your own opinions (which I would highly recommend of course), here is:
Draft Mountain Accord Document Version 1.1
h/t to the anonymous citizen who provided this information
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.