in Growth
How Fast is Summit County Growing? Really Fast? Are You Sure?
There’s a saying, “if you repeat something long enough, soon everyone will believe it.” We are starting to see his point when it comes to population growth in Summit County. It seems like a day doesn’t go by when we here that “Park City’s population will double by 2040” or “Summit County will have 100,000 people by 2030” or “we have to be ahead of the growth” or “we need ____________ because the growth is coming.” Anything someone wants, whether that be Mountain Accord, more transportation funds, or trying to get investors to build another hotel in the Basin it seems founded on those six letters G-R-O-W-T-H.
The thought is so engrained we almost feel stupid for questioning it. That said, we here at the Park Rag aren’t above being stupid.
First, where do those growth calculations come from? Those come from a 2012 report from The Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget. It actually states that by 2040 Summit County (including Park City) is projected to have 71,000 people. Right now there are 38,000 people. So, that would be an increase of 33,000 people. Granted, that’s hefty increase of 86%… If it really happens.
First you have to recognize that the Governor’s Office is a political beast. Good growth must mean that Utah is doing well. If 2 million more people want to come to Utah in the next 30 years, that must mean we are doing something right! Yet, that “enthusiasm” for growth doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen… it just means we shouldn’t take their word for it. If we look nationally, Pew Research guesses that between now and 2050, the US population will likely grow by 42%. If we look at Utah between 2010 and 2014 it did grow at twice the national average, so perhaps it’s possible for our state. That said, what about Summit County?
One of the most interesting tools we have found is the US Census Flow Mapper. It shows on a county by county level the net migration and where people are coming from and going to. Summit County’s migration looks like this:
This map shows us that in an average year a net 261 people leave Summit County for Salt Lake. People also leave for Cache, Weber, Tooele, and Wasatch Counties. The most people come from Orange County California (282 people per year) with some coming from Davis and Washington Counties. Here is the spreadsheet of datap.
According to the Census Bureau, on average there is a net migration out of Summit County of 429 people per year (during the period they looked at).
The other part of the calculation to determine growth is births and deaths. In 2013, Summit County had 418 births and 146 deaths. That’s a net growth of 272. That still leaves Summit County with a net decreasing population. If we factor in foreign additions and a few other factors we may achieve a little growth.
To be fair, the Census data is from 2008-2012 during a recession and Utah grows more in good economic times. There are also more births during good economic times (for instance there were 595 births in Summit County in 2007). Yet, to turn around low growth to a growth of 3.3% a year is going to be a challenge.
We aren’t trying to be a “popper” here (i.e. someone who denies population growth). However, because so many decisions are based on it, it’s important to keep our eye on it. If their forecasts are right we should grow by about 1,270 (3.3%) people a year, every year. In the roaring years (2000-2010) it appears we grew at about 2.4% per year. Right now, we aren’t even achieving that. Of course, if the California drought continues, all bets could be off, in some sort of reversal of the Grapes of Wrath.
If we are going to make good decisions, we need to constantly monitor the underlying data and adjust our conclusions. We hope our local officials are doing that before they make any huge decisions.
in Environment
If the County and City Ban Plastic Bags, They Should Ban Paper Bags Too
This morning, Recycle Utah’s Insa Riepen was on KPCW talking about recycling. She mentioned that the Town of Vail (in Colorado) has banned all single use plastic bags and is continuing her push for our area to do the same. This was proposed a few years ago and promptly died over concerns of how it may impact tourists. Proponents of the bag ban cite the negative impacts of bags on our landfills and the impact they have on recycling machines when put in curbside recycling (hint: never put a plastic bag in curbside recycling). We’d always thought in a perfect world, we’d all have 10 reusable bags we’d bring to the grocery store. However, in the real-world, we realized it was likely a shift from plastic bags to paper bags.
We were surprised to find out that paper bags aren’t much better than plastic when it comes to global warming. You must reuse a paper bag 3 times before it has less impact than a single use bag on global warming. The non-woven polypropylene reusable bags sold at Whole Foods must be used 11 times and a standard cotton tote has to be 131 times to have less global warming impact.
Thee are of course landfill benefits to killing the plastic bag, but it does tell us that if Summit County and Park City ban plastic bags they also need to ban paper bags too. This would force people into using reusable bags, so they are used enough times to break-even environmentally. Even with that, there is still the issue of visitors. If visitors come to Park City, buy 3 reusable Whole Foods bags, and throw them away on their way out of town, we are in worse shape yet.
It’s a tough topic to crack and may be one without a good solution. We admire Ms Riepen’s passion and persistence but in this case there may be better fish to fry.
Funniest Thing We’ve Seen in Park City In a While
Yes, we’ll answer the question you have been probably asking yourself… This car is for sale. Just $10,000. So, if this screams “dream car” to you. Keep your eyes open as you drive around the Basin. You won’t be able to miss it.
in Skiing
Sale of Brighton Ski Resort Will Likely Tell Us a lot About Where Our Mountains Are Headed
A Friend of the Park Rag tipped us off to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune about the parent company of Brighton (and 16 other ski resorts) selling their holdings. Our thoughts quickly jumped to who would buy it. Would it be someone we know like Vail, Deer Valley, or John Cumming? Would it be some random investment trust. If it’s the latter, they are likely thinking they got a great deal, and will hold out for a time when winters are better in Utah.
However, if it’s the former, we think that will tell us a lot about what’s really happening with regard to the future of the Wasatch.
If John Cumming (CEO of Powder Corp and part of of Snowbird) was to buy it, we would look at that similar to an outside investor but with a more personal touch. There is something to be said for owning parts of resorts in both Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon.
If Deer Valley bought it, we would see that as a sign that they are going to combine resorts in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Deer Valley recently purchased Solitude which has a connection with Brighton. Because Deer Valley likely wouldn’t want to degrade the “Deer Valley” brand with the combined Solitude/Brighton property, we would think that would put an end to any connection talk between Brighton and PCMR. Likewise, they probably wouldn’t want to help a competitor (Vail). They would concentrate on making their Wasatch Front property a unique and different experience than the one in Park City.
If Vail purchased the resort, we could see a big push behind a connection between PCMR and Brighton. You would likely see a big push for Mountain Accord initially (if they thought they could influence it) and if that didn’t fly, they may fall back to a private connection between the two resorts.
Likewise, if Vail is not the purchaser, that may tell us just as much about the fate of any connection. If Vail, the smartest guys in the room and the ones with ever-deepening pockets, don’t think Brighton is worth it, then that likely means a connection doesn’t make much sense at all.
We’re sure there are probably twenty other takes on what a purchase of Brighton means in the grand scheme of things. It should be interesting to watch as a sale may come before the end of the year.
h/t to Our Friend for making sure we saw the SL Trib article.
in Skiing
As Heard Around Town At Least 10 Times This Weekend…
“No way our ski resorts will stay open until April 12th.”
If we get a few more days of 65 degree weather, it should be interesting. Our opinion is that Vail will stay open exactly as long as it needs to stay open.
That, of course, could be tomorrow.
New Whole Foods Will Test General Plan’s “No New Entitlements” Policy
The Snyderville Basin General Plan Phase 2 is moving through the County approval process. The General Plan defines how citizens believe development and growth should occur in the Basin. It defines everything from our desire for open space to a focus on trails to limits on big box stores. One of the most interesting aspects is Policy Statement 2.3. It says:
“Do not approve any new entitlements beyond base zoning until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.”
Effectively it’s saying that because there are so many development rights already in existence (to build offices and retail), “let’s not over build. Let’s first build what has been already promised to people, before we promise anything new.” It seems like a logical strategy.
Yet, the new Whole Foods development, across from the Outlet Mall, is asking for 7,000 more square feet than they are currently entitled. They are currently entitled to 61,000 sq ft. but are asking for 68,000 sq ft. That’s 11% more space.
If the county truly believes that we should first expend the majority of existing development rights before anything new is granted, they will ensure that this development sticks to its original agreement — at 61,000 sq ft.
If not, they need to remove that language from the General Plan and let our citizens know that our direction is “GROWTH… Full speed ahead.”
in Schools
Sally Elliott and John Hanrahan Lead Efforts to Start School Later in the Day
We were filming a meeting of the Park City School’s Master Planning Committee when someone mentioned that Sally Elliott, former County Council member and prominent member of our community, had sent emails requesting that citizens sign a petition to start a discussion on whether Park City High School and Treasure Mountain School should start later in the day.
We reached out to a Friend who put us in contact with Ms. Elliot. Ms Elliot gave us permission to reprint her email. It’s worth reading:
Dear all,
Though my children and three of my grandchildren are now beyond high school, I recall my continuing struggle to function before the sun is bright. Attached is a body of evidence that my struggle is medically demonstrated and applicable to a broad swath of the population.
If you feel compelled, it would be helpful to a large number of citizens and students in the Park City School District if you would sign the petition to at least have a broad discussion about starting school at a later hour.
|
This came to me from John Hanrahan who has children of an age to benefit from your efforts. He says:
If you only have time to take one action today to help our teens thrive in school, please sign the petition to start PCHS and TMMS later, through the link below, and send it on to all your friends! Yes that only counts as one action :). Our starting email list is 20, our petition goal is 300!
If you have more time to benefit the kids, send an email to the School Board and superintendent Dr Ember Conley, letting them know what you want. There are several links attached with great info and research showing the numerous benefits of a later start time for TMMS and PCHS.
If you want to go even bigger, send a letter to the editor as well, and gather more research articles for our ‘library’ and future presentations. Call or email with any questions or thoughts, thanks.
http://www.startschoollater.net/ this website has lots of useful information
As of now the petition has over 345 signatures. Having read the links Dr Hanrahan provided, the benefits of starting school later are generally that kids learn more and it’s better for their health. Secretary of Education Arney Duncan even tweeted his agreement with the concept. Yet, what was interesting was the reaction from some of the educators in the meeting we were attending, when news broke of Ms Elliott’s email. Their response was that given a choice, kids would choose to start earlier. The stat quoted was something like 75-80% of kids would start earlier because they wanted to work or ski. In effect they were saying “this later start time isn’t something we should even look at pursuing.”
If 70% of High School kids said they would like beer served at Prom, would they do that too? If 95% of kids said having sex in the next week was important to them, would the next PC CAPS group start working on their own version of TINDER to make it easier for our students to hook up? Probably not. It seems our school district prides itself on evidence based learning… except perhaps when it’s inconvenient.
We don’t know know that later start times would benefit our community as a whole. However, we do know that there seems to be enough evidence that a discussion is warranted.
We hope Dr Hanrahan’s efforts, and Ms Elliot’s communication of the issue, at least lead to a community meeting on the subject where data can be presented and parents’, teachers’, and childrens’ opinions can be freely expressed.
Here are links to documents attached in Ms Elliott’s email:
Mountain Accord Not Ready for EPA’s Evaluation
We received an email from a Friend of the Park Rag. The person had attended a National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) Meeting that had discussion related to Mountain Accord. Here are the comments:
Lots of great info and conversations at Tuesday’s NEPA meeting.
Federal Highway man Harold Peaks said the Mountain Accord is definitely NOT ready for NEPA. He said it needs to be much more precise and clear in it’s vision.
Forest service guys said they DO have the power to override city and county.
The clearer we can make our wishes and vision made NOW BEFORE NEPA the better the process proceeds and the better our chance of our vision being respected and included.
I brought up the Zion NP model of shuttle buses and restricted auto traffic. They said that is NOT represented in The Mountain Accord. They told me it needs to be proposed by me, and/or anyone else, to Mountain Accord, EIA, NEPA, etc… ALSO, If they went with the Zion NP model it might not even need NEPA if they just used the existing roadway.
What we wonder, given this, is the EPA doesn’t seem to have enough specifics to talk about environmental impacts…. Yet, how are we, as citizens, supposed to decide whether we want to continue with the process? It seems we as citizens have “donated” hundreds of thousands of dollars but the EPA says it needs to be much more precise and clear in the plan’s vision.
If the national government can’t be clear about it’s vision and specifics, how do we as Wasatch Mountains citizens have any confidence there is a specific plan. And if there is no specific plan, why do we keep giving it money?
Oh yeah, to have a seat at the table.
Summit County Is a Finalist for Social Media Golden Award
Many people rely on traditional media for their understanding of the world. Yet, the past 5 years have brought on a renaissance of the local organizations’ ability to let people know about issues that may impact them.
While we are undoubtedly biased, we may even say that social media is more important in many circumstances than traditional media. Case in point is the Rockport Rocks Fire. In an emergency you may tune in to Channel 5 to understand what is happening. Yet, that information has to pass through various filters, and hours later, via a helicopter, and some random person staged in front of a burned out building, it may get to the audience.
The better angle, should you really need it, is social media.
In our case, Summit County is a finalist for The Golden Post’s award for social media during an emergency. Our Summit County Public and Community Affairs person, Julie Booth, is responsible for informing the public.
While a number of issues such as school funding, Mountain Accord, and traffic dominate the headlines, we are happy to know that Summit County is being recognized for over-achieving at its role in informing the public for the information that could actually save our lives.
It’s one thing to read about the opening of a new restaurant; it’s another to know when to leave an area because fire is fast approaching.
We wish Summit County luck in winning the award; however we realize that we as a community have already won because Summit County has already invested in someone who can inform us of the important things … in a seconds notice.
We know we aren’t always complimentary on the Park Rag, but this an area where we think Summit County is doing a great job.
As Seen Today in Silver Creek …
We love spring around Park City.
h/t to K and M for the pics
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.