I expect that both sides of this argument will take exception to some of my opinions on this issue. The park people have several arguments: The project will obstruct views of the mountains for many in the city. For the most part, this is only true for the cars sitting at the westbound Kearns/ Bonanza intersection stopped at a red light or for the few seconds passing through on a green. The development will increase traffic at an already busy intersection. The truth is that it will likely decrease traffic, in that the folk living there will not be commuting to and from work in cars but will be able to use public transportation. We should not be subsidizing people who can’t afford to live in Park City to live here. There is a large benefit to the existing residents of Park City if more of our workforce lives here. We benefit immensely from having resident public employees like police, fire, teachers and public works actually living here. We benefit by reducing commuting congestion for all commuting workers. Spending public funds on this project is a waste of money. We have already spent $19 million on the land and will spend more on this project, whether it is a mixed use/housing project or a park. The park will require continual annual maintenance. The mixed-use development will generate property tax income. The park will not. There are better places to build affordable housing, but not in my neighborhood. There are one or more better locations, but this is an excellent place for a mixed use/housing development. We should use all available good sites. As to the City Council’s desire for more affordable housing, I agree it is necessary, but the council is taking half measures that are fiscally inefficient. Due to the realities of the cost of construction, the most fiscally efficient structures are six-story, wood-frame construction on a concrete foundation. Our three-story maximum height makes the entire project more costly on a per unit basis. Underground parking is expensive. Why not build the car park above ground and put the housing above it? If we are serious about building affordable housing, we need to change the height limits for this type of occupancy in areas where it would be useful.  Are there other locations suitable for affordable housing? Yes.  Developing Richardson Flat for commercial, remote parking and housing would contribute to solving many problems. The open space moat around Park City was a reasonable concept in the ’90s, but those days are gone. That property is now vital to the future of the city. In addition to being a perfect spot for remote parking, a transportation hub, and housing, it could be a spot to generate economic diversity. HOPA, the Mountainlands redevelopment project on Monitor, would be more likely to qualify for LIHTC funds if taller. There is an interesting sticker circulating in Park City, “More Park and Less City.” I submit that it is exactly backwards for the future of Park City. We will need to be “More City.” Climate change is having a long-term effect on us. This past “no snow’ year is an omen of the future. Snow years like ’25/’26 will become more frequent as the snow/rain line moves up the mountain. In 20 years, the past year, at the 7,000-foot elevation level, will be typical and by the end of the century it will be considered a heavy snow year. Think “mud season” from November to April at 7,000 feet. That means that our economy must change. We will need to add non-winter tourism to our economy. During my six years on the County Council, I would frequently mention that we needed to start planning for a 50-year future. As the planet warms there will be increasing population movement from lower elevations to higher ones in the Wasatch Back. If Summit County and our neighbors are to avoid becoming suburban sprawl for those who can afford to move here, we will need to develop a diverse economy. That will require housing for all levels of income. In discussions I have had with business leaders and economic development advisers, one of the most common reasons companies do not relocate here is lack of housing for their potential employees. I am too old to see how all of this will settle out, but the children in our school systems will be the beneficiaries or victims of our decisions. They will live and work here or move out to make room for the millionaires and billionaires escaping the heat. Glenn Wright Park City The post What we do need appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less