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 Open Town Hall.
- 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
Rachel Pollock inside West Side (Provo) July 30, 2021, 4:01 PM
I don't think mixed housing should be required in all residential developments. I think the idea of mixed housing in some developments is nice and has a place. I also like homogeneous developments as well. I would personally choose to live in a homogeneous development over the mixed developments suggested. I think what the neighborhood wants should be the top priority not how council members interpret intent statements and not what they would like to see, especially if they don't live in the neighborhood.
Name not shown inside West Side (Provo) July 29, 2021, 2:10 AM
After buying a house on the Westside of Provo over 10 years ago, one of the first things that confused me about Provo was the lack of higher end stores (better grocery, movie, shopping, etc.). I found an article where a city council person (can’t remember who) explained it was hard to attract higher end stores because Provo’s average household income was so low. This was primarily due to the high amount of college students and young families trying to get by in rentals. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for them in our city, but it also sounds like we need to increase our average household incomes by providing more single family homes to buy. According to Towncharts.com, Provo has the highest amount of rentals (60.4%) and lowest amount of home owners (39.6%) in Utah County. We don’t need more rental properties. We need more people buying houses (particularly, single family homes). Keep in mind these are the people who will be staying in the city longer, and be paying their property taxes to support their city and the direction it’s going. These are your long haulers. These are your dedicated residents. These are the ones you should be listening to.
Jason Brotherson ½ to 1 mile July 28, 2021, 11:27 PM
I don't think high density housing is a good option anytime. It packs streets and increases traffic that is already burdened. I like that we finally have some businesses staying in the area. The housing will not help anything other than increasing population and crime. Please keep Provo a place America looks up too.
Ross Martin inside West Side (Provo) July 28, 2021, 6:21 PM
4.0 units/acre down to 2.8 units/acre is a 30% increase--that is not “slight.”
Quote: “Councilor Harding drafted the Future land Use Intent Statement to adjust policies to better align with the intentions of the Westside Planning Committee.”
Response: Only the Westside Planning Committee can decide if policies are better aligned with their intentions. If clarifications are needed, reconvene the committee.
Quote: “Density in west Provo is limited by sewer capacity with the lift station for the westside. The limit of four units per acre predates the Westside Development Policies by many years. Population density (i.e., whether those units are clustered or spread out) will not have a significant impact. The City will be able to provide water and sewer services to westside residents as long as the total number of units in the area does not exceed an average of four units per acre. It had previously been understood that the average was net, which turns out to be approximately 2.8 units per acre. The Intent Statement would change the limit to four units per acre gross (with a limit of four units per acre in RES zones), a slight increase that could be accommodated by the sewer capacity.”
Response: No evidence is presented to support the conclusion that water and sewer services could support a 30% increase in density. The previous understanding that the limit of four units per acre was net should be respected and not unilaterally changed.
Quote: “FINDINGS OF FACT - Density is limited by sewer capacity to four units per acre. The proposed Intent Statement would increase permissible density from four units net to four units gross, but it would not cause a problem for sewage.”
Response: NOT FACT. There is no evidence that 2.8 units would not cause a problem.
Quote: “b) Confirmation that the public process is best served by the amendment in question.
The proposed amendment clarifies the intent of the Westside Planning Committee and would be clearer and more understandable for developers and landowners in the area.”
Response: No—it clarifies the intent of David Harding. The whole Westside Planning Committee would be needed to accurately clarify their intent.
Quote: “(c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies, goal, and objectives.
The proposed amendment advances the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the Westside Development Policies for the Southwest area by refining and clarifying certain policy points.”
Response: “refining” = changing in this instance. Westside Development Policy goals, policies and objectives are not compatible with flat-out changes to those goals, policies and objectives—such as increasing density from 4 units/acre.
Quote: “(f) Adverse impacts on adjacent landowners.
Some residents might oppose higher density or housing types other than detached single-family in their neighborhood. However, the current policies already encourage that detached single-family should be the predominant housing type and that other types should enhance the single-family feel.”
Response: Not “some residents.” A more accurate statement would be “all adjacent landowners oppose higher density.” And how exactly does a non-single-family housing type “enhance the single-family feel?”
Quote: “In the Planning Commission discussion on July 14, 2021, the Commissioners expressed support for an intent statement that offered more clarity. It was requested that if such a document were drafted, it should not mandate any requirements,”
Quote from Future Land Use Intent Statement: “We do not intend to approve rezone requests without sufficient assurance that these policies will be followed within each development.”
Response: Sounds exactly like a mandate.
“Diversity within the block” concept.
Response: Where does this concept originate? Why is this a good idea for Provo, Utah? Show us some Utah examples of where this concept has been successful.
Name not shown inside West Side (Provo) July 28, 2021, 5:43 PM
I am against the proposal of mixed housing everywhere. That is a bad idea and not fair to the citizens who built in an area because they wanted the specific zone that existed at the time--such as single family residential or residential/agricultural. I’ve lived in townhomes and apartments—they have their place—and we specifically moved to the area to get away from higher density. And now we have two city council members pushing their agenda that is overwhelmingly disliked by the current neighborhood and citizens of the area, and trying to force everywhere to be mixed. Who thought this was a good idea? Provo should have mixed housing, and it can be mixed with certain areas being a certain way. But to make everywhere the same is ludicrous and damaging to the current residents. These two city council members seem to be on the younger side and are very verbal in comparison to the other members. I feel that the older members are tired and just defer to these two, and are letting them make a lot of decisions because it’s easy. It seems that we are not being protected by the city council, based on how they routinely ask these two for information/opinions to form their own.
Housing should match the surrounding neighborhoods, and be conducive to the area. Also, the idea of mixed housing everywhere seems very communistic.
It also seems very odd that these two council members would push so hard for an entitled, experimental idea. Why would these city council members be against a developer’s proposal of single family homes when it fits everything in the west side plan? These two want to interpret the plan and change it so it fits their agenda. Is there some sort of hidden, non-altruistic motivation? Why fight so hard for an idea so universally opposed? Also, didn’t mayor Kaufusi want to preserve the agricultural feel of this area?
Single family homes are hard to come by, especially in Provo. The developer of the Lakeshore Drive proposal says that these will be million dollar homes. If you add mixed homes in the neighborhood, that won’t appeal to prospective buyers of those million dollar homes. They will take their investment and tax dollars elsewhere where they are more protected. It also does not appeal to the surrounding neighborhoods or existing landowners/homeowners. It lowers property values, and increases congestion in the streets with more traffic and parked cars--leading to crime and safety problems. Existing water and sewage issues are only made more challenging with higher densities. And finally, current Center Street traffic is already near capacity. Increasing traffic would likely lead to eminent domain takings of existing Center Street properties, costing millions of taxpayer dollars.
Tom Chapman outside West Side (Provo) July 28, 2021, 12:36 PM
I am not sure why I receive emails asking my input on city proposed changes as it never makes a difference. The city will do whatever increases its revenues (including constant increases to my city taxes).
David McPherson outside West Side (Provo) July 28, 2021, 11:16 AM
I am assuming that "gross" area refers to the total land area; whereas, "net" area refers to usable land area. Hence, changing the density from 4 units per gross area to 4 unts per net area increases the population density on the usuable area unless the gross and net are equal. In other words, using net reduces the space between units thus compacting the units. Another question is the impact on schools, utilities, roads, and other services. In my opinion, because it may be good for commerce, it may not be good for the quality of life and the environment. If the City Council is not willing to issue a full impartial impact statement to the public, in readable format, this policy should not be adopted.
Name not shown outside West Side (Provo) July 28, 2021, 7:41 AM
There is been so much talk about the airport; however, to be successful there has to be a business draw for the airport to survive. Believe it or not; Provo is not a Vacation Destination. Therefore, I believe it's a big mistake for Provo to continue its focus on Airport and Housing; rather than the Airport and Tech Companies. Tech companies need to travel and having a hotel and corporate businesses next to an Airport seems to be much more efficient, increases the tax base, and makes better use of the land. A marketing base; mini shops; food, etc. also need to be in the area to support this model providing add-on use to local residents. Provo has limited areas of growth; unless they plan to expand into the lake. Focus on business rather than increasing the number of residents per sq ft. Does anyone remember the floods of 1983? That land would be under water. That's why there is still a swamp at the I-15 ramp interchange at University Avenue.
Name not shown inside West Side (Provo) July 27, 2021, 6:22 PM
Such a missed opportunity for a tech hub. Prime space for development and near an airport. Provo is short sighted in this regard. Just wish Provo could be more than a bedroom community for surrounding cities to capitalize on.
Chris West inside City Boundary July 24, 2021, 7:38 PM
I recently noticed that the UVX Bus Rapid Transit system stops at traffic lights. This makes sense, but I wondered why the buses are not prioritized at lights.
A bus, can move people significantly more effectively than cars in any of the other lanes, having a much lower impact per capita. One would hope that drivers might chose on occasion to take the bus instead of driving their car as this would personally save them money and reduce traffic, noise and pollution in the community. However, I recently took the bus and became quickly apparent why so few chose to take UVX if they own a car. As the system is currently set up, UVX is much slower than a car (except for during exceptionally heavy traffic) as UVX buses must stop at both lights and bus stops. It therefore seems strange to me that buses are not given priority at traffic lights. Allowing buses to pass through traffic lights without stopping would benefit both riders and drivers as the increased speed of UVX increases ridership thereby removing cars from the road (especially during peak hours) and reducing traffic. (This is an example of the Down-Thomson Paradox more information can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox) If these concerns were already debated and the current traffic light behavior of not prioritizing buses was purposeful, what is the reasoning? If not, I ask the Provo city council to discuss if changing traffic light behavior to prioritize UVX buses would benefit (and discuss making similar changes with the Orem city council).