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.
You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.
Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).
Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants
Name not shown inside Council District 3 October 14, 2018, 7:40 PM
I do not think ADU should be allowed. There are plenty of ugly apartment buildings being built in our downtown area. How about making them more attractive, as they will be there for many many years to come. There isn't enough parking spaces, either on the street, or off the street. There is a small SF home next door to my property. The owners use it as a rental, and now there is, on average, FIVE cars to find a place to park in a single car driveway with a single car garage.
Name not shown inside Council District 3 October 14, 2018, 6:36 PM
Revising the ADU rules will not have the hoped-for benefit of improving affordable housing, but it will come with several major downsides. The price of home ownership will march further upward as property values rise. With time, this will push out owner-residents even from the main dwelling on the property as investors compete for opportunities. Meanwhile, pride of ownership will diminish. Parking and traffic will worsen substantially. City services and demand on our scarce water resources will be negatively impacted. All for a mere temporary benefit in affordable housing inventory. If we pursue these amendments, we will still be facing the same problem in 15 years but our streets will be more densely crowded, air quality will be worse, sewers will be under more pressure, and the overall quality of all of our neighborhoods will have markedly declined without any benefit in price. I say no, to the proposed amendments.
Name not shown inside Council District 3 October 14, 2018, 10:36 AM
I am all for ADU units, though maybe not as a blanket right across the city. Parking is the biggest issue to be considered, maybe household in certain areas have a right to x number (2?) of transferable on-street parking permits for overnight parking. The number being equal across parcels. In other areas ADUs proceed as planned.
I am for excluding provisions requiring landlord to live in the home.
Name not shown inside Council District 3 October 13, 2018, 3:57 PM
I've submitted comments before strongly opposing this ordinance and do not see anything in the current version that changes my mind. I grew up on the Avenues and I now own three homes here, all on the same block, that I have maintained as single family dwellings for over 30 years. I live in one, some family members live in the other and I rent one. This is my largest single investment and I chose the Avenues precisely because of its current density and character. It is an abuse of your authority to change the zoning rules after people have made major financial investments in property because of its existing zoning. The Avenues went through a phase of allowing multi-unit dwellings to be built on a single residential lot and it nearly ruined the neighborhood. We are still paying the price for that mistake. Please don't repeat it.
Here are the practical reasons I've stated before why this is a bad idea:
- double the parking problems
- snow removal will become much more difficult
- double the party noise
- double the overhead wires
- increased demand on old and failing infrastructure- sewer lines, water lines, gas lines
- loss of trees and bird habitat
- this will disproportionately affect middle income neighborhoods where some people will see it as a potential income stream. The people in upper income neighborhoods (e.g Harvard- Yale) will be unlikely to build an ADU. Speaking of which, why are the R-1 and Foothill neighborhoods exempt when the original plan was to make this apply city wide? What is the policy reasoning behind that? How does that "build a more equitable city"?
- will a restrictive covenant be added to the titles of all properties with an ADU requiring owner occupation in perpetuity?
-the city doesn't have nearly enough staff to enforce landlord ordinances now, so there is little chance that the owner-occupied provision in this proposal will be enforced, especially when the property changes ownership.
- the units will be used as AirBnB rentals, disrupting the sense of community just like it has done in other cities.
Please find another solution to Salt Lake's housing needs. This proposed ordinance is unfair to those of us who have already invested in property here.
Name not shown inside Council District 6 October 13, 2018, 2:09 PM
Please, please, please exclude District 6 from this proposal. This has been done in other cities and it does not lead to beautiful neighborhoods.
Name not shown inside Council District 6 October 13, 2018, 2:08 PM
Please, do NOT allow more ADUs in Sugar House! The high population density from all the many, many, many new apartments has resulted in far too much traffic and congestion. It's ruining our neighborhoods. People need some space. Enough is enough.
Nicole Vallières inside Council District 5 October 12, 2018, 8:11 PM
I support the updates on the ADU regulations. As someone who is responsible for both young children and aging parents it would very helpful to have the ability to build on our property to care for all without having to move out of our neighborhood. The space in my Liberty Wells bungalow just doesn’t fit everyone- but we love living here and being part of this community.
ben lariviere inside Council District 5 October 12, 2018, 3:42 PM
Allowing ADU's is a great option for creating more affordable housing. ADU's are cheaper to build than a new apartment building, so the do not need to be rented at "luxury apartment" prices. My only suggestion that the residency requirement be removed. There is not much evidence that the owner living in the house prevents tenants from being messy or loud. If the concern is that ADU's will bring messy or loud residents to single family neighborhoods, pass noise ordinances.
Allowing all landlords to build ADU's would create many more affordable units.
Name not shown inside Council District 5 October 12, 2018, 2:41 PM
I support allowing ADUs. I own my home but do not have off street parking so I oppose any parking requirements associated with ADU permitting. Yes, parking can be challenging at times and more residents means more parking issues but if the city is going to allow businesses and mixed use dwellings to be built without adequate parking, they might as well let homeowners do the same. Urban residents will adjust, just like in other metropolitan areas.
Larry Stucki inside Council District 6 October 12, 2018, 2:01 PM
62 years ago my parents built one of the first houses on our street just a short distance above Foothill Drive. My handicapped wife and I now are the current occupants of that house. We are greatly opposed to the proposed city-wide expansion of the current permitted boundaries. In contrast to the downtown area well-served by TRAX and buses, our area has only extremely poor bus service along Foothill Drive. As a result our narrow streets are already often crowded with parked cars on both sides which in winter make it especially difficult for snowplows to adequately clear the streets. In addition to the presence of duplexes on our street, during many of the 62 years, the city has been very lax in limiting the number of unrelated individuals living in some of the houses in our neighborhood. For example, for a number of years the house just next to us was rented to seven or eight college students each of which had a car only two of which could be parked off-street in the house's driveway.
As a college professor in Reading, Pennsylvania for 16 years, I witnessed the decay of the city as individual homes were subdivided and rented. Narrow streets were clogged on both sides with cars and neighbors often broke out in fights trying to reserve parking spots in front of their houses, Also, people would think nothing of double parking, blocking traffic, after seeking in vain for a vacant parking spot.