Park Record Editorial on Mountain Accord Is Misguided
In Saturday’s Park Record, the editorial staff say that “abandoning the Mountain Accord would be an unpardonable mistake.” So what they are saying is that our leaders could never be forgiven if they sit out the Mountain Accord. Those are strong words, so let’s see what their justification is:
- Our watersheds, moose, eagles, and playgrounds are endangered
- People have said that the process has been hijacked by Salt Lake City interests and are detrimental to Park City and therefore it is more important than ever to stay in the Mountain Accord
- If we walk away, we forgo having any say in the Salt Lake side’s resort and transportation expansion
To help Roger Armstrong, et al. escape from Park Record’s Prison, we’d like to look at the Park Record’s reasoning a bit more.
Watersheds, Moose, and Eagles:
They almost had us here. We love moose. The site of a baby moose with her mom is adorable. We also love eagles — they are our national bird after all (and Russia’s and 32 other countries for informational purposes). Oh, and watersheds, yes water is important.
Yet, we can’t help but feel like we are being played a bit here.
Moose and eagle populations will flourish because of Mountain Accord? Uh, we hadn’t heard that before. We’d love to go and research that but frankly we don’t know where we’d start. So, we’ll leave that as a maybe.
That leaves us with watersheds on this point. We do think water is our most important resource. We understand that some land will be donated from the ski resorts to the public as part of Mountian Accord. We suppose this could contribute to more, pristine water. Yet we also see that the resorts will be given more water for snow making. So, how much more net-usable water will come from the Wasatch under this plan? Will more water be available to the citizens of Park City and Salt Lake or will the resorts take more, thus leaving a net negative return? We haven’t seen specifics on that.
Finally, not to be selfish… but whether Park City is part of the Mountain Accord or not, won’t this land, and thus water, be preserved either way?
Project Controlled By SLC, Thus We Need to Stay in the Accord to Fight:
County council member Roger Armstrong had an interesting take on a similar issue. Another council member said we should stay in the Accord in order to find out what may benefit Summit County. Mr Armstrong said they had a year to show us the benefits and we hadn’t seen them.
We find it hard to believe that our miniscule investment will influence the powers behind the Mountain Accord. We also believe we would have seen the benefits by now. We still believe that the only real benefit to us could come from some crazy, desperate bargain (i.e. a train around the Snyderville Basin is paid for by someone else or school equalization ended). If that’s the plan, let’s just walk away and await the offer.
The other reason this reasons rings hollow is that either Chris Robinson or Andy Beerman (sorry we can’t remember which) said at the Mountain Accord meeting that the Mountain Accord could not violate the decision of the locality. We took that to mean that they couldn’t force something on us. So, if we are to believe that, we really do control our land — and destiny, even if we choose to not continue with the Mountain Accord.
Forgo any say in SLC’s resort and transportation plans:
Do you think we really have any say in those? Also, as far as we can tell their transportation plans are to make Sandy a hub for transportation. As for resorts, it looks like a few Wasatch-front resorts will have more skiable terrain. We don’t see our influence in that or why it matters all that much to us.
**********
So we don’t buy the Park Record’s arguments. The more and more we hear, a line from an old John Denver song keeps getting stuck in our heads:
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
… And staring at the Park Record editorial, all we see is this:
in Letters
Beneficiaries of tourism should step up and clearly define their financial commitments and solutions to our current challenges
Below is an email from a concerned citizen:
I would like to thank Mountain Accord for hosting an open house in Park City outlining their blueprint for Central Wasatch; though short on detail, especially the financial costs and who will pay for it. Lot to digest, let alone understand, in a short period.
I can easily support more trail connections and land conservancy!
This I do understand, as mentioned by a panel member; “the process has been primary driven by state and local government” to the tune of approx. $5 million and now another $5 million is requested from Legislature. In other words, this economic development model is being paid for by the Utah tax payers? Unless I am missing something, I am assuming this huge amount of money is being spent just on this very vague planning we saw last night? And what about the vague estimated financial cost of 6 billion to develop out this blueprint? Really, who is going to pay for this? If you have ever watched “Shark Tank”; Mr. Wonderful would say “give me financial specifics of how it is spent, why it is spent, and where it is spent; or get out!”
The buzz words used to promote this “For State Economic Development”. Whose economic development? For the record both Utah and Summit County have had some economic boom years lately, and I have yet to see State tax rate go down, in fact there is talk of increasing taxes on items such as gas, and have experienced only increasing property tax bills. Additionally the adverse effect I do see, however, is that housing costs have risen in Park City beyond the reach of a majority of our younger population, including our own children.
So who are the true beneficiaries of this blueprint? By reviewing this blueprint, I am making an educated guess that it is primarily the resorts and hospitality industry. So what I would like to see from these major beneficiaries is the financial commitments, including to this expensive planning process; and practical real time solutions, for traffic management!
Lastly, with shuttle services being expensive, and with car rentals reasonably inexpensive with added flexibility of travel, and the resorts providing substantial on-site free parking to its guests and employees; you cannot expect the traffic situation to fundamentally change anytime soon! If, as it appears from this blueprint, Park City may become the destination hub for the outlying resorts, the traffic issues we have experienced this year will only get worse and more often. What is truly needed is the major beneficiaries to step up and clearly define their financial commitments and provide immediate short and long term solutions. For instance a real time solution; is providing off-site parking and shuttle service for employees as was successfully done during the Olympics. Summit County cannot solve the traffic problem on its own! Summit County is such a wonderful community of residents, with responsible businesses, resorts, and government…we must and can do it together in the interest of all.
Let’s choose wisely so we, permanent residents, don’t get pushed out or priced ourselves out of our wonderful community.
– Park City 25 year resident
The Myth of Public Input
Often times you’ll be in a city, county, or school district meeting and you’ll hear our leaders say “how important” it is to get public input. We most recently heard this in a School Board Master Planning Committee meeting. The Park City School District is likely proposing realigning grades, building a new Treasure Mountain School, and issuing a bond to pay for it. The committee is planning on having at least 3 meetings to explain their plans and to get public input. On the surface that seems great. Yet, often in reality, it seems more like going through the motions.
Take, for example, the Mother of All Public Meetings, the recent Mountain Accord Meeting at Park City High School. Over 350 citizens spent their evening attending the meeting. The public comments were completely largely negative, and ranged from comments on cost to environment to practicality to who benefits from the Accord. You’d be hard pressed to come out of that meeting and think anything other than the Park City public does not want the Mount Accord. The next day the Summit County Council discussed whether to continue funding the Mountain Accord. If the council listened to the public, the discussion would have been short and Summit County would not be still discussing whether to spend $150,000 over the next three years on the Mountain Accord.
To be fair, council member Roger Armstrong has been an outspoken critic of the Mountain Accord and did question whether the “Accord Money” could be used better, council member Dave Ure stated he didn’t think the Accord did much for us, and council member Claudia McMullin hates the idea of connecting the Cottonwoods to Park City. Yet, it was said multiple times, “I don’t mind spending the $150,000 to keep the seat at the table.” Yet if the public input really mattered, our County Council would stand up unanimously and say “The people have spoken. We are done.” If that’s not going to happen here, when will it happen?
There are likely a number of reasons for this:
- First, these committees or groups with big ideas meet and plan for so long that they have a strong idea of their direction. It’s a locomotive that’s built up tremendous speed and a little snow on the tracks isn’t going to stop it.
- Second, there are professional people running groups like Mountain Accord. These are people that know how to get what they want hire the people to make sure it happens. That’s why the Mountain Accord is budgeted to spend $3 million on “public outreach.” They aren’t stupid.
- Finally, many concepts receiving public input are started because someone wants something. They don’t materialize out of thin air. Someone with clout wants to connect Park City to the Cottonwoods, or maybe they wanted to make Sandy an economic center, perhaps it is all a plan to save the water supply, or perhaps their intentions are even more suspect (who knows). What we do know is that the whole plan is orchestrated to ensure a specific outcome.
This brings us back to the School board’s Master Planning committee and their plans for public meetings on building a new Treasure Mountain School (and probably more). The School District Master Planning Committee has been working on the Treasure Mountain rebuild since at least last April. They are hiring a planner to put the plan together. They have hired Park City’s Panic Button Media for public relations because “they have great contacts in the local media.” They’ve said they can only have the communications company on board until the school board formally votes for the bond issuance, because they can’t spend public dollars on marketing the bond. Therefore, an outside group will need to be found to push the bond.
For all intents and purposes they already know they want to rebuild Treasure Mountain and will have to issue a bond. The planning company is running the 3 public meetings to educate the public on grade realignment and the new school. The PR firm will push the benefits out via KPCW and the Park Record. It’s a done deal.
We realize that’s how it’s done and we understand why people do it that way. As they say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” So, we’ll leave the ethical questions for another day…
That said, let’s say you and 10 friends show up to the public meetings and vehemently oppose the idea of rebuilding Treasure Mountain. Is there anything you could say that would stop the process? A committee of 10 people have been meeting for months and want to rebuild the school. They’ve spent $100,000 on a planner. They’ve engaged a PR firm. They’ve held meetings with the faculty and staff of Treasure Mountain to get their input. They’re talking to financial services firms to figure out the bond offering.
What are you going to say at the public meeting to convince them to stop? “This costs too much.” “Shouldn’t we spend this money on teachers instead?” “The increased taxes put too much burden on the middle class.” Good luck with that. There is too much water under the bridge with almost every decision for your input to really matter.
Perhaps you have strong feelings about the color of the bleachers at the gym or whether the library should be larger. If so, maybe your input will be valuable. Have two kids at Trailside and wish the money was spent on dual immersion instead of a new school? Well, you’re likely out of luck.
Public opinion is helpful only as long as there is someone to both listen to it and act upon it.
Is Summit County’s Chris Robinson Playing Chess While the Rest of Us Are Playing Checkers with Mountain Accord?
During Wednesday’s Summit County Council meeting, council members Chris Robinson and Claudia McMullin were having a heated debate over whether there should be a connection between the Cottonwood Canyons and Park City as part of Mountain Accord. McMullin argued there was “no way in hell” that it should be allowed while Robinson asked something to the effect of “isn’t there SOME circumstance by which it MAY be possible we would allow a connection?” We believe McMullin clarified her stance with her original statement.
However, we began thinking about Mr Robinson’s choice of words and what he may really mean. We heard earlier in the meeting that having rail up Little Cottonwood Canyon, may require a connection to Park City to make it economically viable. So, for conjecture’s sake, let’s say that’s true. Let’s also say, for conjecture’s sake, that there are some powerful forces behind Mountain Accord. If the Little Cottonwood Rail has to happen, and Park City is needed to make it happen, and the backers would do almost anything to make it happen, what would we need to LET it happen?
What if somehow property tax equalization could be ended drastically reduced and our tax dollars stayed in the Park City School District? Or what if a rail loop was built from PCMR to Kimball Junction to Quinn’s and back to PCMR for us? Or what if UDOT provided and operated 30 buses for use within the Snyderville Basin (with no charge to us)?
Would you trade a tunnel for any of those? Desperate people offer crazy things. Perhaps Chris Robinson knows something we don’t. Perhaps he knows just how desperate someone is.
So, is Chris Robinson playing chess while we’re playing checkers? Maybe. It appears that he thinks there is enough potential there to keep us playing the game. The problem we see is that the likelihood of Summit County actually winning the game is pretty low.
First, Park City has (or could annex) the land needed for a tunnel to the Cottonwoods. Therefore, their whims would be served first.
Second, the horse trade will likely turn out to be underwhelming… Something like UDOT agreeing to upgrade 3 buses to Natural Gas and giving us a 10% off coupon to Arby’s.
Third, the farther this progresses and the less specifics around what benefits us, the harder it will be to pull out of the Accord (if necessary). At some point, face-saving will put us in a bad situation. While we think we may have leverage in the future, that leverage could be compromised over time.
So, while we think Mr. Robinson may be playing a more intelligent game that we are, we still doubt the outcome. We’d likely prefer a nice game of tic-tac-toe instead. As they say, “Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
in Schools
Update on Park City School District Master Planning Committee
The Park City School District Master Planning Committee met on Thursday. The topics they discussed included:
- They received two responses for their request for a planning company to assist with the New Treasure Mountain School. They felt they received a limited response because of tight deadlines and the need to be licensed in Utah. The companies who applied were VCBO and IBI. Both are architectural firms that brought in an outside planner.
- $50,000-$100,000 is approved for a planner
- Committee chairperson Rory Murphy is concerned of a conflict of interest if the planner also bids for the construction work. No other committee members seem to share the concern at his level.
- The Master Planning Committee was trying to hire a communications firm to help educate the public on the upcoming bond (that’s the most politically correct way we can put that). Firms applying were too expensive and they’ve decided to rely in the planner to run meetings getting public input. They will then pay a local communications firm to work with local media to educate the public about the need for a new Treasure Mountain School (and a bond).
- The Committee has reached out to financial services firms (like George K Baum) to begin the process of selecting a financial advisor to help with financing a new school.
- The Committee seems to be trying to decide what big ticket items like a fieldhouse or baseball bleachers should be accounted for as part of the master planning process. There are items some items related to safety, like sidewalks that perhaps should be done now, even though they will be thrown away when Treasure Mountain is rebuilt, that perhaps should be done now. There are other items like fixing the gym floor in the high school that may warrant immediate attention. The School Board wanted the Master Planning Committee’s takes on what items perhaps should receive immediate funding.
Is the Utah State Legislature Unaware of How Much They Are Spending on Mountain Accord?
During Wednesday’s Summit County Council meeting, council member Dave Ure said he would be surprised if more than a handful of Utah State Legislators knew what was being spent by them on the Mountain Accord. Mr. Ure, having been in the Legislature, probably knows better than most what is being paid attention to.
It also appears that an appropriation measure of $5 million for Mountain Accord has recently been put before the body.
If you think your legislator may be unaware of the costs being spent on Mountain Accord ($22 million projected) versus other areas that are being underfunded, you may want to contact them.
Here is a PDF document describing expected outlays that can be sent to them (you can save this by right clicking on the link below):
Mountain Accord Phase 2 Budget
Here are the various legislators representing the greater Park City area (click to email their office):
How Summit County Council Members Feel About Mountain Accord
We are going to make an attempt to describe where we believe each of our Summit County Council Members stands on Mountain Accord. While we understand opinions are nuanced and we’re sure we won’t get it spot on, here is what we gleaned from watching the members debate the issue on Wednesday.
Kim Carson (Council Chairperson): It appears Ms. Carson learned a lot about Mountain Accord from her trip to Switzerland. She was able to spend time with Laney Jones, the head Mountain Accord consultant, who explained the details of the Accord. She appears to believe growth is coming to the Salt Lake Valley and the Mountain Accord may help slow some of its “spillover” into Park City and Summit County. She says she wants to continue with the Mountain Accord so that we can learn more about what it may be able to offer.
Roger Armstrong: It appears Mr. Armstrong continues to believe that the Mountain Accord will bring more day skiers to Park City and that is not a good thing for our businesses and community. He understands that the Cottonwood Canyons have challenges and hopes they can solve those. However, he does not seem convinced that there is much benefit to Park City or Summit County from the Mountain Accord. He stated he is not completely opposed to spending $150,000 to stay in the Mountain Accord process but wonders if there are better ways to use that money that would directly help Summit County.
Chris Robinson: Mr. Robinson seems to be the Council’s biggest proponent of continuing with the Mountain Accord. Unlike most other council members he could see reasons why we may eventually want to allow a connection between the Cottonwood Canyons and Park City. He appears to believe we should stay part of the process and continue funding the Mountain Accord. He also believes that we should build in “exit-ramps” though just in case we want to leave the Accord at some point.
Claudia McMullin: Ms. McMullin seems most adamantly opposed to a connection between the Cottonwood Canyons and Park City. She appears concerned that by continuing with the Mountain Accord they may assume that Summit County automatically agrees that a connection is fine. She said that if Summit County continues with the Accord that she would like to put in writing that they don’t support a connection. She also stated she is concerned about the amount of time Summit County personnel have spent on the Mountain Accord when they could be using that time to solve our own problems.
Dave Ure: Mr. Ure stated that he believes that the watershed that the Mountain Accord aims to protect will not be as pristine as it is today, even with the Mountain Accord. He stated that he doesn’t believe that growth will be curbed by the Accord. He also seems to share the feeling that this will have little benefit to Summit County residents. Finally, he feels Summit County staff involvement in the Accord has allowed them to educate the county council; however, he too is concerned about the time staff would need to spend going forward.
Note: if we have misunderstood and/or misrepresented an opinion above, or one of the individuals would like to expand on their feelings toward Mountain Accord, we are more than happy to print those opinions.
Summit County Council Discussions on Mountain Accord
If you want to know where all your Summit County Council members stand on the Mountain Accord, it doesn’t get better than this 50 minute video. If there was a vote today on the Mountain Accord, we’re pretty sure it would be 3-2… we just don’t which side has the 3.
Save Our Canyons Take on the Mountain Accord Thus Far
A Friend of the Park Rag sent us a link to a post by Carl Fisher of Save Our Canyons, regarding Mountain Accord. Save Our Canyons is an outspoken group on many things, including development in the Wasatch. Their post highlights their thought process on the matter and asks for input from the public
We’ve reproduced their post here, because their website is down.
MOUNTAIN ACCORD UPDATE; COTTONWOOD CANYON TASK FORCE NEGOTIATIONS
February 3, 2015 · by aschmidtsoc
·
For the past seven weeks, Save Our Canyons has been engaged in a negotiation to figure out our future participation in the Mountain Accord process. As I listened to discussions at our Board Retreat in November, I began to realize there was little, if any good, coming out of the Mountain Accord process especially for the environment, our water, but also for the many dispersed recreational interest that connect so many of us to this unique mountain mecca. Despite overwhelming opposition to a train and tunnels in our mountains from system groups (there was not majority support these ideas) and also for pushing ski area expansion and “One Wasatch.” I questioned, why are we still participating and began evaluating our options: I came up with two…
Leave the process because it was doing more harm than good.
Strive to make the process do more good (or at least include some good) than harm.
After numerous conversations with the SOC board and our partners with whom we represent on the Mountain Accord, I decided to give option #2 a shot, full well knowing that #1 could be an option down the road. The premise for me as I thought is, one of the greatest threats to this landscape, particularly the Central Wasatch, as I’ve found over the years is uncertainty. If we can remove this uncertainty, or significantly reduce it, we have a unique opportunity to remove the threats to the Wasatch. Over the years, the most threatened and volitile areas of the Wasatch reside on the lands owned by the ski resorts – Mount Superior threatened with subdivisions and roller coasters, Flagstaff by ski area expansion under the guise of avalanche control, Grizzly Gulch by One Wasatch, Silver Fork by resort expansion, Guardsman Pass by One Wasatch and the threat of year round vehicle access. Is there a way to put these increasingly creative threats to bed once and for all? The short answer is yes… but for what in exchange.
Before you read any further, the Mountain Accord is a public process and we want your input on how to move forward! Click here to view the Mountain Accord “Booklet” and 2 page summary of the Cottonwood Canyon Task Force negotiations then visit www.mountainaccord.com to submit your concerns, ideas and feelings about the future of the Wasatch.
We engaged with the Mountain Accord, the Cottonwood Ski areas, and elected officials to see if there was a willingness to negotiate the transfer of lands owned by resorts. All agreed to try, so in mid-December convened by a facilitator from the Mountain Accord, representatives from the USFS, Snowbird, Solitude, Brighton, Alta, Town of Alta, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, the Outdoor Industry, and Save Our Canyons sat down for our first of four negotiations of what will go down in history of being called the Cottonwood Canyons Task Force.
While brevity is not my strength (context is important), I will attempt to summarize the negotiations, some 20 hrs of meetings over six weeks. First, the entire negotiation was predicated upon a rail and tunnels between Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood. This is how it was framed – go big, get big. Resorts want efficient, reliable, convenient and safe transportation and they believe that rail best for this. We disagree, but sweeping conservation gains of resort owned lands were not going to happen if buses were the option. Too, resorts want connectivity. This can happen over the snow and ridges in form of lifts (a la One Wasatch) or through the mountain via tunnel with fixed guideway… though rail has a WOW factor attractive to resorts. We, and by we I mean a host of conservation and recreation orgnizations and our members, have little if any interest in seeing trains in the canyons, however we also have little interest in seeing more development outside resort boundaries, One Wasatch and the other aforementioned (and yet to be dreamed) schemes to exploit the Wasatch.
Resorts also want more development to accomodate the influx of visitation they project they will see with the projected population growth in the region. Today, this development pattern, which some would characterize as “mountain sprawl,” is undesirable. However, with modifications of the ownership patterns we could cluster development to protect key recreation access points, vantange points, connectivity corridors and ultimately our watersheds. Some resort expansion is also requested as part of this. Snowbird further into Mineral Basin and Mary Ellen Gulch, Solitude a bit into Silver Fork, and Brighton into Hidden Canyon. With the exeception of Snowbird, Solitude and Brighton’s request are minor boundary adjustments bringing areas already used heavily by resort skiers into the ski area boundary.
The crux of the whole effort has been, their request for a train, 100 or so acres of base development and expansion into Mt. Wolverine/Mt. Tuscarora/Catherine Pass area. This point has yet to be resolved because of significant resistance particularly from SOC, and the Outdoor Industry represented by Peter Metcalf. As put by SOC co-founder and Wasatch Tours author, Alexis Kelner in Volume 2 of Wasatch Tours describing Tuscarora/Wolverine/Catherine Pass, “This tour was more appealing before ski lifts were thrust into Albion Basin, but the spectacular scenery compensates (somewhat) for the commercial intrusion. The Catherine Pass trail is the most popular route between Alta and Brighton in both summer and winter.” Alexis also noted, looking into his futuristic snow globe, that this area should be noted as “End. (Endangered) a notation used to warn tourers that an area has high potential for being absorbed into a commerical ski area opertation. Fair to say that expansion into this area in our opinion will jeopardize the whole negotiation.
So, what is the up shot in all this? Over 2,000 acres of land owned by ski resorts including areas like the Pink Pine ridge, Mt. Superior, Flagstaff, Days Fork, upper Silver Fork, Davenport Hill, Grizzly Gulch and Guardsman Pass area going into permanent protection (like Wilderness or National Monument) forever removing the threat of development. This of course is in addition to additional protection on other areas as we’ve proposed in the past. Over the years, to use Alexis’s terminology, its been common practice to add “End.” or “R.I.P.” to some of our favorite places in the Wasatch. It has not been very often, however, to remove those notations. This effort allows that opportunity. Time for another edition of Wasatch Tours, Alexis!
No doubt this effort will go down in history – my expectation is that it goes down in history along side the protection of Yellowstone and Yosemite, not like Echo Park, which sacrificed Glen Canyon to protect Dinosaur’s Echo Park, and the Yampa and Green Rivers. A unique and spectacular landscape for sure, but worth drownding the Glen and choking the Grand Canyon? We’ve worked to shape this outcome, now we need YOU to help us understand whether or not it is a good deal. The train and additional development are certainly undesirable, but the lure of conservation of valued private lands in the Central Wasatch is attractive. Send us your thoughts, make sure the Mountain Accord gets them too. The comment period begins Feb. 4. There will be more info part of this than what we’ve presented here.
Please let us know your thoughts, we tried our best through this process, but the ultimate protection of the Wasatch lies in the opinions of our community and validation of the ideas that we’ve carefully advocated for to better the Wasatch for today, and for tomorrow.
This is critical, we need your voice now!
In conservation,
Carl
We couldn’t agree more…
Someone sent us this picture this morning. All we can say is “yep.”
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.