In 1992 Democrat strategist James Carville popularized the adage, “It’s the economy, stupid.” His point was that in the upcoming election the Democrats should focus on the economy. The problem was that, up until that point, Bill Clinton’s campaign was all over the map. It wasn’t focused.

Similarly, in Park City, we’ve known that our corner of world is getting more crowded. People love this place. Yet, this love (and additional people) impact everyone who is already here. We have too many cars on the road.

So, how do we reduce the number of cars on the road?

Simply put, we reduce the number of parking places. You can’t park; therefore, you don’t drive.

We’ve witnessed this. Do you plan on skiing fresh powder at PCMR? If you are there after 9:15, forget about it. Don’t even drive there.

Plan on skiing the Canyons on a Sunday and driving? You had better get there by 11 AM.

There is no parking. When you expect there is no parking, most people won’t want to drive.

You plan your routine around alternate forms of transportation.

A recent commenter told us that change is inevitable. That is true.

They decried the term NIMBY and all the other epitaphs that are used to degrade people who are concerned with growth in Park City. They said, “It seems you are a fan of the horizontal approach aka sprawl aka NIMBY, aka increased traffic, decreased walkability, increased resources used, increased pollution, less climate change resilience.” They recommended that we support developments “which are mixed-use, have limited parking, and which would allow people to walk or take the bus since they are in a part of town that is well served by transit.”

We’re not sure all that will work given the reality that is the Snyderville Basin. However, what we can get behind is No Parking.

Speaking of NIMBY, we are seriously concerned with Summit County buying the Cline Dahle parcel between Burt Brothers and Jeremy Ranch Elementary. The county is allegedly looking at building a transit oriented development that will mix “affordable” housing with bus stops. What would it take for us to support that development? Zero parking spaces. Our concern has always been that a housing development there will increase traffic and endanger children. If there is no parking then the number of additional cars traversing Rasmussen Road will be minimal.

What about the increased entitlements requested by Power Corp for the Woodward art Gorgoza? That is the development where in 1999 they wanted to build an outdoor recreation facility (which was approved). Now, they want to build an indoor recreation facility the size of Walmart. Do we care that the building is 50 feet tall and next to the road? We are sure some people will but our concern is traffic along Kilby road. So, to gain our support (for whatever it is worth), just get rid of the parking lot. Let people bus there.

Then let’s move to the Park City School District. This week the Park City School District talked about the proposed renovations to the Kearns campus. Now the proposed bond for adding on to the high school, building a 5/6 school, and purchasing land is likely over $100 million. This includes finding a new space for a second high school. What if they removed parking at the high school, McPolin, and theDistrict offices? Talk about improved utilization of resources, by requiring all students to ride the bus (or be dropped off), it seems a lot of land would be freed up. Would that provide additional space for building (should it be needed in 10 years)?

What we wonder is if the city and county need to find a way to limit parking in any new development. Currently, it is almost the inverse. In the county, there are a minimum number of spaces that are attached to any new development. Instead, we wonder if there should be a maximum. Should we limit parking to both encourage the use of different forms of transportation (and or cars).

The question is, as citizens of Summit County and Park City, what impacts you most? Today, is it the number of people here or the amount of traffic?

We’d wager it’s the traffic. Bring in 10,000 more houses with no traffic and would you care? Likely not. The tax dollars would pay for all sorts of services.

Tell the Canyons Management Association that they can expand, but in exchange the lower parking lot is going way. There is no parking.

Is it a perfect solution? No. We’d have to build more park and ride infrastructure.

That sounds like a good thing.

It seems as if our leaders want their cake and eat it too. That leads to solutions that are half baked and have little chance of success.

If we want less traffic, limit parking as much as possible. Don’t charge more for it. That’s regressive. Just limit it. Everywhere we can.

As residents of Park City and Summit County, many of us have become accustomed to luxuries. Some of those luxuries include the services provided by our local governments. Those government entities include Park City Municipal, Summit County, and the Park City School District. We live in a wealthy area, and growth has enabled our government groups to flourish.

Yet recently the Park Record has reported that the fairy tale is ending (or at least pausing). According to Summit County Finance Officer Matt Leavitt, “It’s a subject that has been brought up just about every year for several years now and in the past, even during the recession, the county was getting enough new revenues from new growth and we could sustain government programs. But now growth has really slowed down significantly and that has impacted our ability to expand or even keep basic services.”

To counter this, the county says we need to raise property taxes. So we are faced with the prospect of raising property taxes related to our general and municipal funds by 27%. A primary homeowner with a house valued at $650,000 would pay $150 more per year in property taxes. According to Summit County, if taxes are not raised law enforcement, corrections personnel, ambulances, animal control employees, road maintenance, and donations to non-profits could be impacted.

Often in the past, our populace would rise up and say “NOT HERE! We will invest in Summit County and Park City. ” Yet, these may not be the same old times.

Alongside this 27% property tax increase, we also have a potential school bond. While not finalized, the likely bond is between $65 million and $110 million. For the same house mentioned above, it would likely cost the one owner at least another $150 per year.

If you live in Park City “proper,” the purchase of Bonanza Flat was approved by voters. When that goes through (and it will), that same $600,000 house will require at least another $120 per year in property taxes.

There is also the likelihood that other areas will require additional funding from property taxes as well. Think recreation. Think service areas. Think replenishing accounts.

All in, these likely tax increases could equate to a $500+ tax increase (per year) for Park City area residents with a $600,000 home. You folks in “real” Park City may pay double that if all this comes to fruition.

It feels like we are approaching a time when government entities are against each other for tax support from residents. It is almost like a Kickstarter. Who do you want to invest in?

Do you want to invest in Park City Schools? Will they spend the money wisely and make a return on your investment?

Should your money go to Park City Municipal? Will you get value from that money spent? Do you like them deciding on businesses that are allowed on Main St?

Do you want Summit County to raise property taxes and then spend $1.8m million dollars on increasing the average tenure of employees when the average county employee has been with Summit County five years more than the nationwide average?

“A town with money is a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and dang’d if he knows how to use it.”

In TV lore, it doesn’t get better than when Conan O’Brian wrote those words for the Simpsons episode “Marge versus the Monorail” back in 1993.

In 2017, Park City government seems to have got a little bit of mule in them.

Park City Municipal is considering entering into a pilot agreement with Downtowner, Inc. to provide up to four cars to transport people in Park City short distances. For example, the service may shuttle someone from their home to a bus stop. Sounds good.

People can use an app and request a pickup. Sounds good.

The city says we’ll take a number of cars off the road because it will be easy for people to take buses. Sounds good.

That all sounds good. However, when you get to the cost, which is $68,000 per month during peak periods, it starts to lose its luster.

So, why is Park City considering this?

According to Park City Municipal documents, “Park City’s transit ridership has been relatively stable over the last five years…In order to increase ridership in these markets it is necessary to better serve the residential populations of Park City by providing better service into underserved neighborhoods. Additionally, many areas require a somewhat lengthy walk or bike ride over varying topography or without adequate and/or safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities which can deter non-transit dependent populations from utilizing public transportation. Providing all electric on-demand response app based transit provides additional and attractive alternatives to the private automobile and seeks to eliminate the ‘first mile/last mile’ barrier and furthers the City’s energy and transportation related goals.”

So, the plan is to hire an outside company to have between 2 and 4 electric cars rove areas of the city between 11A and 11PM. Those areas include: Old Town, Prospector, Bonanza Park, Thaynes, and Aerie neighborhoods. Park Meadows and Aspen Springs may be considered later for inclusion. There will be an app (smilier to Uber or Left) that people will use to request a ride and an electric vehicle will arrive a few minutes later and take them to their destination.

On its surface, we like the concept of finding ways to shuttle people from deep in neighborhoods to bus stops. However, we’re not sure this service is actually going to prioritize that.

In some ways we are fortunate to have a”sister” city who has plunged into the use of the Downtowner before us. Aspen has been using the service since April 2016. They recently renewed their contract for another 7 months for $280,000. That’s about $80,000 less than Park City’s deal, and includes one more month. We’re not sure if Aspen has fewer vehicles, whether that are using different vehicles, or if we are just paying Park City prices (as usual).

What’s also interesting is that Aspen is averaging around 2,000 rides per month using the service. One might ask, what’s the cost of a taxi ride in the narrowly confined area proposed for this service? $20? $25? The $60,000 a month invested in this service would probably buy 2,500 to 3,000 taxi rides per month in this are. So, it seems we may be expecting 25% to 50% greater usage than they have in Aspen, in order to break even.

Park City says they are also aware of the impact on the taxi industry. They have heard from taxi representatives on the topic. However, again, Aspen is instructive. According to a post relating to Aspen’s use of the Downtowner Inc. service, it has decreased taxi revenue by 15%-30%.

Aside from the comparisons, one must also step back and say, “Is this the best use of $60,000 a month?” Maybe we are naive and perhaps Park City spends more than $60,000 on break-room cookies a year, but it seems like real money. IT seems that sort of money could pay the rent of 45 people a year. It could subsidize affordable housing for hundreds. It could fix a number of roads. It could probably buy a fleet of natural gas mini vans (and pay for their drivers) to continuously shuttle people from the neighborhoods to bus stops (if that really is the goal).

Summit County bought recently bought over 20 acres of land between Jeremy Ranch Elementary School and the Burt Brothers. They plan to put affordable housing, a park and ride, and retail on the space.

We have a number of concerns. We recently posted an article asking where the water will come from for these 2,000 additional residents. There are number of additional questions that we haven’t asked yet, like will property tax revenue from this development pay for the additional sheriff’s presence required and the expansion of schools required from the addition of hundreds of children.

Yet, Summit County has bought it. What should they do with it?

So, how about an event space?

Having just lived through a miserable experience at the Park City 4th of July Parade, how about an alternative? What if the space could house a 4th of July beer garden, a stage for live music, and bouncy-houses for kids? It would be a win for both Summit County and Park City. A number of Jeremy Ranch, Pinebrook, and Silver Creek residents would be diverted from the Park City chaos. A number of people from SLC would stop at the event, instead of heading into Park City. People are just looking for something to do.

We realize that one day a year isn’t a successful way to plan for the future. However, if designed right, the space could be used in a variety of ways. It could be part park where kids could play. It could be a place where food trucks gathered. It could be another location on the weekends for a “silly market.” In the winter it could be a Christmas Market. It could be for rent and available during Sundance as a “pop-up” location. Every week there could be concerts. There are a plethora of ideas that would be better than slapping apartments on the location.

We also understand Summit County’s dedication to solving traffic issues. Could it be built with a transit first mentality. Could there be parking that would intercept drivers into Park City but also be used for other purposes during the shoulder season? Could we have a space for our Summit County October-Fest?

As we understand it, Summit County’s Economic Development leader, Jeff Jones, is leading the charge on this property. Everything we’ve seen come out of the county is focused on affordable housing and transportation. However, we think there are better ways to support current residents, make the property economically viable, and make it more interesting.

Anyone can put up an apartment complex.

We think we could build something far more interesting and useful to residents.

We hope the county will consider breaking out of the ox and do something unique and useful.

Yesterday we wrote about a poor experience with the Summit e-bike share

On Tuesday, the Park City School

On Tuesday, the Park City School District voted to indefinitely po

The spat between the county council and Summit Land Conservancy highlights a problem over the

Osguthorpe Farm

Summit Land Conservancy is trying to buy the Osguthorpe Farm and place a conservation easement on the property. That sounds good, but it appears to cost over $14 million to do that.

We always like to look at the alternative. The Osguthorpe Farm is zoned as Rural Residential. This means that with base de