Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants
Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.
A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:
- It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
- It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Community Feedback.
- It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.
If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.
Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).
Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants
Lewis Gunter outside City Boundary January 24, 2023, 10:45 AM
Hi there - actually just a neighbor at this time (living in Highland) but a 2X BYU grad, football season ticket holder, and a general Provo fanboy. Quick introduction is that a friend/BYU classmate and I are looking to create high-end mobile escape room games using repurposed shipping containers. These will be tastefully decorated and obviously commercial enterprises and we'd like to put them in parking lots as temporary structures (up to ~6 months in one spot). Unfortunately some existing codes seem to potentially prohibit this activity, specifically certain zoning ordinances regarding construction materials that prohibit corrugated metal (e.g. 14.23.150) and 14.34.355 which references 'Portable storage containers' (though I'm not positive this applies since they're not being used as storage containers and are visually very clearly repurposed). I spoke with someone in city planning who pointed me to an amendment process but that appears to be a fairly lengthy and expensive route. I was hoping to get a sense from the council prior to that whether it would be a waste of money and energy to pursue that route. I believe the business is in line with many of the values I love about Provo - a spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation, and wholesome fun - and I'm convinced Provo is a great fit to launch what we think could be a significant nationwide business. My partner and I want to keep things above board and ensure that we're compliant with both the letter and the spirit of the law - I'd love your feedback on whether we can make this dream a reality in Provo and ideas on how to best execute it.
Celeste Kennard inside City Boundary January 10, 2023, 1:41 PM
This development does not fit the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood plan is well thought out, and it zones a large portion of the total area of the neighborhood for increased density, urban renewal, and adding mixed commercial use. This will allow for more housing and it helps focus renewal activities that will spur redevelopment. There is no need to build a large apartment building in an area meant to sustain the current density in the southern portion of the neighborhood. There are several apartment buildings that could use redevelopment. In the past the development happened randomly poaching the single home sights with the largest yards because that was the cheapest land. It was the biggest bang for the buck to investors from out of the area that do not have to deal with the parking issues it creates. This resulted in many historic homes being demolished. The worst part was there were places much closer to campus that were in greater need of up upgrade, but few wanted to pay the increased land rates compared to the single home land expense. Our plan incentivizes redevelopment north of 500 N.
One of the values of the Joaquin neighborhood is the presence of many grand homes from all the decades starting in about the 1900's. This is a quality of life issue for many neighborhood residents and as we saw with the out pouring of letters to the editor and to BYU concerning the Amanda Knight Building there are many people across the county, state and country that also value some historic preservation in this iconic area of Provo. Plus fruits of the rivalry between the Taylor family and the Jessy Knight Family in the first half of the 1900's are treasured by many that take a stroll down Center Street during a work break or they visit some of the other. About a third of the homes on the historic home tour of Provo Guide are in the Joaquin Neighborhood. One of the ways we are protecting a few of these gems is by reducing the area of the neighborhood where there is pressure to replace a single home with a large apartment building. We understand that some homes are past repair. The neighborhood plan also allows for redevelopment for single family homes if the density remains substantially the same.
Plus our area has been open to ADU's for decades. Joaquin is a mixed use mixed density example. Accusing this area of not offering enough housing is frankly laughable.
The development on 313 E 200 N is not in the zone for increased density that lies north of 500 N. And it also does not meet the other reason neighbors and the city might benefit from increased density development consideration. We have UVX public transportation that runs through and around the neighborhood. This house does not sit immediately adjacent to those areas either.
The Joaquin is a great place to live because it mixes the old and the new. Home ownership stabilized in the last 1-2 decades and this helps the school district with planning, it increases the willingness of citizens to serve on city boards, keep an eye on crime and develop the thriving arts center in this downtown area. Plus all the downtown area residents that have a bit more of a long-term tenure have really started to work together on revitalization efforts and in generally making the place a great place to live.
This development will not be an asset to the area and it does not fit in any part of the well thought out Joaquin Neighborhood plan. We can do better.
I ask the city council to continue their support of this well thought out Joaquin Neighborhood Plan.
Grant Skabelund inside City Boundary January 10, 2023, 8:07 AM
I want to voice my support for Kent Johnson to represent Edgemont in District 1 of Provo City's Neighborhood District program. We need a fresh voice in Edgemont who is willing to listen to and represent Edgemont's residents. The previous folks who have served have been dedicated and diligent, but many of us feel they have represented a narrow agenda and have not been willing to consider options that do not fit that agenda. I've visited with Kent and he assured me that should he be selected, he will listen to all voices and make an effort to influence decisions that are positive for Edgemont, District 1, and all of Provo. We need Kent's involvement, voice, and wisdom.
Thanks for considering my feedback, grant
David Knecht inside City Boundary January 8, 2023, 9:46 AM
While the roll out of the new program has been less than ideal, the most important thing is to make sure the best
possible people are picked to serve in it.
So while I think the process and deadlines are important, if some of the best people are among the late applicants, then they
should be considered along with the others.
R. PAUL EVANS inside City Boundary January 7, 2023, 11:03 PM
Comments, Concerns and Questions regarding the consideration of Neighborhood District Program applications submitted after the publicly announced deadline. I would appreciate a response/explanation.
1. The extension of the Neighborhood District Council application deadline was unannounced and thus excluded an equal opportunity for all residents.
2. The "Introduction" in this Open City Hall topic states that the City Council made the decision to include applications received after the 17 December 2022 deadline. In what meeting of the City Council was this deadline extending decision reached?
3. The deadline was extended by the City Council "Because of ... a lot of public input..." Please explain the rationale for including more applicants for only two neighborhoods (Edgemont and Grandview North) with 4-7 timely applicants when there are four other neighborhoods that each have 4-7 timely applicants (Joaquin, Lakewood, Provost, Provost South). The Provost and Provost South neighborhoods are in Neighborhood District 2 which received the greatest number of visitors (89) and statements (15) than any other Neighborhood District. District 2 generated the greatest number of statements (public input) than all other Neighborhood Districts, combined. One would expect that applicants that applied after the deadline in District 2 would best fit the “a lot of public input” criteria, yet, there is not one late applicant included from District 2.
4. The deadline was extended by the City Council "Because of the need for representation in certain neighborhoods..." One late applicant was permitted from the Grandview South, Carterville, Dixon, Timp, and Franklin Neighborhoods which each have one timely applicant. There are seven other neighborhoods with but a single timely applicant, yet, no late applicants have been included. There are three neighborhoods with zero timely applicants, yet, no late applicants have been included. Why do the Grandview South, Carterville, Dixon, Timp, and Franklin Neighborhoods need additional representation when the East Bay, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods have no representation at all?
5. Residents who missed the 17 December 2022 deadline are invited to submit application for consideration in the future. The next scheduled solicitation of Neighborhood District Council applicants is in two years. There was no expectation, announced, that late applications submitted between 18 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 would be included in the selection process for the 2023 Neighborhood District Council seats. There certainly was no understanding by citizens that late applications could be submitted and accepted for consideration in forming the 2023 Neighborhood District Councils. Including applications submitted after the publicly announced deadline is an error. Errors in the inaugural events creating the Neighborhood District Program will cause a long-term if not permanent taint. Transparency over expediency.
David Knecht inside City Boundary December 24, 2022, 11:07 PM
I support Ashley Rayback, Timothy Stockdale and Edward Gilbert in that order to represent the Provost South Neighborhood.
I am also disappointed that this poll was only open for a week. I found out about it today by accident.
I realize our old Neighborhood Chair is AWOL, but why were there no emails to the neighbors to alert them?
Not everyone is on Facebook these days.
Vickie Knecht inside City Boundary December 24, 2022, 10:13 PM
Ashley Rayback is my first choice. She has been active in the PTA for years, and has a Master’s degree in Public Relations. She is intelligent and dependable I would also recommend Tim Stockdale and Ted Gilbert who are very reputable and reliable.
Troy Carter inside City Boundary December 24, 2022, 8:24 AM
I support Katherine for this position. She’d do a great job.
Name not shown inside City Boundary December 23, 2022, 11:59 PM
I don’t feel like Leo Lines would be a good representative for district 5. His Joaquin neighborhood chair election was questionable at best. He only seemed to win because student housing landlords manipulated their tenants into voting for him as a way to prevent them from having to provide adequate on-site parking for their properties instead of relying on free on-street parking. He seems to only represent the interests of landlords in the district and not the actual residents who live in the area. I think the residents of district 5 would be better served by someone else.
Spencer Robertson inside City Boundary December 23, 2022, 6:03 PM
Leo lines has done a great job for the Joaquin neighborhood and has helped me resolve issues in the past, i’m sure he would do a great job. Mr. Ruffner would also be great and certainly cares about the neighborhood and it’s residents.. Roger Brown would do a fantastic job as well and has been a long-term resident and homeowner in the Joaquin neighborhood.