The State Would Never Push Something on Park City?
This morning, KPCW’s Lynn Ware Peak talked to Park City City Council person Andy Beerman about Mountain Accord. His response to a question regarding “vetoing” a tunnel from Brighton to Park City was interesting…
Lynn Ware Peak (KPCW): So if you go through the whole [Mountain Accord] process do you maintain the veto power?
Andy Beerman: I’m not terribly concerned about us having veto power over this [the Mountain Accord tunnel]. We are not ceding our land use authority to the Mountain Accord. We’ve had further reassurances, and there has been a lot of concern about this… everyone assured us that we ultimately maintain our veto power over this. At the end of the day, the feds or state could do this to us, whether we’re at the table or not, but we don’t expect that to happen. It would be fairly outrageous for something like that to happen.
Our question is … is that really outrageous? Take the Park City Film Studios. That was a very contentious project. I’ve heard many stories that if Summit County or Park City didn’t approve the studio, the state would have found a way to make it happen. Perhaps those are just rumors. Perhaps not. Either way, it doesn’t shock me. I don’t find the concept of a state “threat” as outrageous.
With the tunnel concept, it doesn’t seem outrageous to think that the state could “do this to us” if someone powerful enough in state government decided they really wanted a tunnel.
I think Mr. Beerman knows that too.
in Schools
We’re Live Blogging Tonight’s Master Planning Committee Meeting
Tonight, Park City School District is holding their second citizen-based Master Planning Committee meeting. These meetings are designed to get public input on the construction needs in the school district. The first meeting was generally regarded as a waste of time. We’ve heard that the School District recognized there were issues with the first meeting and this one will be better. We sure hope so.
We’ll be live blogging once the meeting starts at 5PM.
Today’s Shower Thought
If 2/3 of Park City homes are second homes, shouldn’t Park City focus its attention on servicing that group and not full-time residents?
Park City Has Changed. Is it the Growth or the People?
I had a conversation a while back with a friend who was lamenting how Park City had changed. I said, yeah the growth is really killing us. She said, “It’s not the growth, it’s just the people.” It was one of those comments that sticks with you. I wasn’t sure I agreed with her, but it was worth considering.
So I’ve been trying to pay a little more attention to people I see around town, and I think she may have a point. Over the past few months I’ve seen everything from elderly drivers being honked at because they were only driving 45 by the Blue Roof (the speed limit is 45 there by the way) to people passing other drivers on the shoulder. I’ve seen pedestrians walk right into traffic and cause everyone to stop and not even give the obligatory wave.
Yet this morning, I saw everything I needed to know in a 15 minute period. On the way to the vet, I saw a driver flip-off another driver for what appeared to be stopping and turning left into Summit Center (which by definition, you kind of have to, if you are turning left). As I was talking to the receptionist at the vet, a woman barged in, interrupted, and cut in front of me to talk about a rabbit she had found in her driveway. As I was sitting in the waiting area, a SUV pulls up and parks in a handicap spot, in order to take his dog in to doggy daycare. The driver jumps out, gets his dog out of the back, and walks in. No handicap sticker… Nothing…Yes, there were 5 other spots open in front of the daycare.
How would you describe Park City? Are people friendly here? Are they considerate? I’m sure the snap response would be “yes.” After some more thought…really?
In my case, my friends and (some) neighbors are very friendly. Some random people are nice, but I would say many of the random people I meet seem self-absorbed and I wouldn’t call them exactly NICE. It’s more “new” San Francisco than Omaha. Maybe that’s understandable. Two-thirds of homes in Park City are second homes. One third of homes in the Snyderville Basin are second homes. They’ve brought their baggage from the coasts. What do I really expect?
This morning I heard Park City Council member Andy Beerman say, “Let’s keep Park City, Park City.” I personally think that ship has sailed. Perhaps it should be “Let’s keep Park City, like 1985 Park City.”
Just a thought.
The Words You Choose Mean Everything
Earlier I was writing a story on Park City’s new head of transportation, Alfred Knotts. According to Tahoe Transportation District’s website, he is currently Transportation Projects Manager for The Tahoe Transportation District and will be starting his new position in the next few weeks.
What’s interesting is Park City Municipal’s press release regarding hiring Mr Knotts. The press release says, “City Manager Diane Foster announced that Tahoe Transportation District’s Transportation Program Manager, Alfred Knotts, will become the new leader of the City’s Transportation Planning Department.”
Do you spot the difference between how the Tahoe Transportation District lists Mr. Knotts’ job title and how the Park City press release lists Mr Knotts’ Tahoe job title ? Projects Manager versus Program Manager. Granted, it’s a subtle difference but I think most people would conjur different mental images of what a project manager does versus a program manager. I certainly do.
This isn’t a jab at Mr Knotts whatsoever. I previously said he sounded very competent and a selection committee obviously thought he was the right guy. This is more a jab at the press release.
Were Park City officials concerned that the sound of “promoting” a project manager to head Park City’s entire transportation department wouldn’t be received well? Was it an honest mistake and they meant project instead of program? Perhaps Mr Knotts recently received a new title and Tahoe’s website wasn’t updated. I’m not sure.
And does it really matter in the scheme of things? Probably not. Mr Knotts will either be successful here (or not) and it has little to do with his previous title. His success is really what residents care about.
That said, if it was an intentional change of his previous title in the press release, it tells you a lot about Park City government.
Park City’s New Transportation Coordinator Appears to be a Good Choice
This morning, KPCW’s Lynn Ware Peak interviewed Park City’s new head of transportation planning, Alfred Knotts. Mr Knotts was previously a Transportation Project Manager with the Tahoe Transportation District. The Tahoe Transportation District oversees transportation in the Tahoe area, which encompasses 5 counties and 2 states.
He is replacing Park City’s Kent Cashel who is retiring after 17 years of employment with Park City Municipal.
During his interview, Mr Knotts spoke about the challenges they faced in Tahoe with huge numbers of visitors coming into the area during the summer months. This is starting to align with what we are seeing in Park City with more visitors in the summer months, as well. Mr Knotts also worked on a complicated ferry project that may link the north and south shores of Lake Tahoe. This project required an environmental impact study as part of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. This is similar to what will be required with Mountain Accord.
Both from his interview and limited research on his background, he seems like a solid choice. I view this as a great opportunity for Park City. Kent Cashel, who held the transportation helm at Park City for many years, is highly regarded. However, I haven’t had the chance to interact much with him, so all I can judge his recent performance on is results. Most would say that traffic has become a problem on his watch. Likewise, I personally haven’t heard much out-of-the-box thinking from Park City on transportation in recent years. Whether that is Mr Cashel’s fault, or not, I don’t know (it’s always complicated). However, the buck stops somewhere and that’s probably in the transportation department.
So, fresh blood and new ideas are probably not a bad thing. I hope Park City leadership will give him an opportunity to see what he can come up with and be a little creative.
in Growth
Why I’m a Bit Skeptical of Population Growth Forecasts
Every time I hear that the population in Summit County is going to be XXXXX (pick a number) by 2040 or 2050, I cringe a bit. It’s just so far off. Yet we base so many of our decisions and spend so much of citizens’ tax dollars to get ready for this “coming growth.” These forecasts come from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB). The 2010 forecast, with 87% growth by 2040 is what everyone quotes these days.
Yet, let me take you back to a quieter time. A time before the Great Recession struck. A time when home values were rising 10% per day. A time when we were all so innocent. Here is the 2005 GOMB population forecast:
By 2010, Park City’s population was supposed to be almost 11,000. What did it turn out to be? 7,547. That’s only a 45% miss. By 2013, what was the forecasted population? About 12,000. What was it? 7,950. That’s about a 50% miss.
Now, we get that forecasting is hard but let’s not pretend it’s accurate. This also isn’t to say that there hasn’t been growth. Park City grew about 5% between 2010 and 2013 (the latest years with data). It’s just not near what was predicted and we can’t believe that if over 10 years it’s off that much, that over 30 years it will somehow be better.
So, the next time you hear that Park City’s population is set to boom or that Wasatch County is poised to grow by 7 billion percent, remember that the people forecasting those numbers haven’t exactly been in the ballpark this millennium.
Opposed to The Mountain Accord? Time to Stop Focusing On the Tunnel.
Listening to Lynn Ware Peak this morning on KPCW it became clear that people in opposition to Mountain Accord need to change their strategy.
The image that is being painted by media and politicians is that the only reason people don’t like Mountain Accord is because they are focusing on the tunnel between Brighton and Park City. Ms Peak effectively said that people opposed to the Mountain Accord don’t see the great things in the economic, environmental, or recreation parts of the blueprint. Liza Simpson, Park City City Council member, put up the straw man argument (on KPCW) that it seems if you’re for the Mountain Accord then you’ve drank the Kool-aid. She takes personal offense at “the Kool-aid” statements because she grew up knowing Jim Jones or something. Therefore, if you’re against the Mountain Accord, you are an insensitive bast**d.
The point is that the Mountain Accord, who has been on the defensive for the last month or so, is striking back. If you don’t like the Mountain Accord for any number of reasons like lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, impact on Park City’s economy, you believe it will add growth in the Wasatch, you’re opposed to special benefits to ski resorts, etc. … you “actually” don’t like the Mountain Accord because of the tunnel between Brighton and Park City.
You and your opinion are getting marginalized because … You are narrow minded. You are on the level with a Climate Denier or an Obama “Birther.” You are a nut. Well, maybe not quite a nut, but at least naive.
This is a standard tactic. The problem is that the message is controlled by those with money and access to the media. The solution is to think and research things for yourself… and then hold people accountable. Just because a voice on KPCW tells you something, it’s not necessarily true. Just because your elected officials have a position, it doesn’t mean you need to agree with it. In Summit County, Council member Chris Robinson effectively asked fellow council member Claudia McMullin, “Isn’t there something that would make you want to stick with the Accord?” So when you hear Mr. Robinson advocate staying in the Mountain Accord, there is some motivation there. He obviously thinks there is a carrot that will benefit some or all of Summit County if we stick with it.
Frankly, we don’t know what that carrot is. We don’t know what the carrot is for anyone for or against the Mountain Accord. Mr Robinson may be right. Perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel so great that no matter the cost, we’d be willing to support the Mountain Accord. Or maybe it’s something that means absolutely nothing. There-in lies the problem. We are only left with trust. However, I don’t see any other option. We as citizens will never have the knowledge that Mr. Robinson has about the game being played. Therefore, we can only judge him and our fellow city and county council members on outcomes.
In my mind, the tunnel is now theirs to own. In the words of Steven King in his book Pet Semetary… “It’s your cat now” Park City and Summit County leaders. Our leaders are playing a dangerous game of continuing to fund Mountain Accord while claiming that we will have “exit ramps” to ensure that Park City and Summit County are not impacted negatively by Mountain Accord. So, if that tunnel is included in the “preferred” NEPA alternative (the best option provided to the EPA by Mountain Accord), it will likely be built. If that happens, it’s our elected representatives who are responsible for it. They own it. Their names and reputations should be associated with the results.
Regardless, those people in opposition to the Mountain Accord need to stop focusing on the tunnel and move on to other aspects. The tunnel is out of your hands and to focus on it, just marginalizes your arguments. You need to decide whether you want your local governments to continue down the path of spending money for recreation, environmental protections, and economic benefits on the front side of the Wasatch or not. You need to decide whether you are in favor of the Mountain Accord…sans the tunnel. It’s truly time to become educated on what it all means.
The game is truly afoot.
The Old Cock and Thumb
I was having dinner with a friend last night when talk shifted to Mountain Accord. She doesn’t really follow the Accord closely but asked me if I thought “this whole tunnel nonsense” was really just the “old cock and thumb.” I gave her that look that says, “I don’t know what you are talking about but that doesn’t sound quite … normal?”.
Evidently on the season premiere of HBO’s Veep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ character (the President) uses a negotiating technique called the “Cock and Thumb” to try and get what she wants. She needs to cut the military budget so she proposes something so extreme it would castrate the military, knowing that when they finally settle, they’ll be glad that only their thumb was cut off.
I don’t know if that’s quite the reference I would have made, but it’s an interesting thought regarding the Mountain Accord. Ask for a multi-billion dollar tunnel through a mountain, connecting the Cottonwood Canyons to Park City, knowing that it’s never going to fly. Then come back after the public yells and screams, and say “how about we just do bus rapid transit over the road to connect Brighton to Park City.” I can hear people saying, “wow, that sounds a lot better than a tunnel. We should do that.” Then if we oppose that idea too, we come off as completely negative — like we are irrational and won’t agree to anything.
Even if that sounds a little outrageous, how about what’s already happened. Let’s say Mountain Accord had only proposed changes in the Cottonwood Canyons. There was no connection to Park City. Everything ended at Brighton. Nothing on this side of the mountain. Would Park City and Summit County have forked over hundreds of thousands of dollars to “have a seat at the table”? Probably not. Yet, by throwing in a tunnel and an irrational connection to Park City, the money flows. Even though we’ve made it clear that we don’t want a connection to the Little Cottonwoods Canyons and THERE WILL NEVER BE A TUNNEL OVER OUR DEAD BODIES, we are forced to stick with the process, and continue to pay … just in case. If that was the strategy, it’s positively brilliant.
I’m not sure that would still be considered a “cock and thumb,” but I’d guess this tactic is described by a saying as equally vulgar.
Is There an Obsessesion With Tunnels?
A Friend of the Park Rag sent through an interesting document from 2006, that discusses transportation options in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I find two things truly interesting in the document. First, many of the same players who are part of the Mountain Accord now were part of this study then, namely Lochner and Fehr & Peers. Second, they considered building a tunnel from the base of Little Cottonwood Canyon to Alta, to enable cars to drive underground the whole way and avoid avalanches.
So, in 2006 it was an 8 mile tunnel from the base of the canyon to Alta. In 2015, it’s a tunnel from Brighton to Park City. It sounds like either every project today has to have a tunnel, someone important majored in tunnels at school, someone has a vested interest in building tunnels, or Summit County, Salt Lake City, and UTAH have SO MUCH MONEY that the “Cadillac” option is always presented.
For sure, though, it’s safe saying the more things change the more they stay the same.
h/t to A Friend of the Park Rag who pointed us to the story from 2006.
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.