I am deeply troubled by the recent developments regarding Dakota Pacific.After years of unproductive talks, multiple bad acts by Dakota Pacific, and unprecedented public opposition, the council this past February finally appeared to play hardball with Dakota Pacific. They informed Dakota Pacific they were unlikely to approve any project with over 500 housing units. They also specified half of those units would be affordable and one-third of the market rate units would be reserved for seniors. No nightly rentals or fractional ownership would be permitted across the development.They also stated construction would be dependent on the S.R. 224 improvement project receiving Statewide Transportation Improvement Program funding. Once that occurred, Dakota Pacific could build one-third of its development. Work would have to stop if the state transportation award is pulled for any reason.Not surprisingly, Dakota Pacific strongly objected to these proposals claiming the reduced number of housing units rendered the project financially unfeasible.  Unfortunately, shortly after the council finally took a principled stand, they once again betrayed the public trust.In April 2024 they announced that further negotiations would be conducted by a subcommittee with no public oversight. Only two council members, Chris Robinson and Canice Harte, represented the county. The two council members do not represent a quorum. Therefore, no public access is required.After finally getting tough with Dakota Pacific and laying out conditions that might be palatable to the public, one would think these private discussions would yield a proposal somewhat in line with the conditions specified by the council just a few months ago.  Unfortunately, this principled stand has been abandoned and an agreement ignoring the expressed opinion of residents gives Dakota Pacific nearly everything they have been asking for from the beginning.The new proposal calls for 750 housing units plus 165 units provided by the county.  There is also a possibility of adding 90 senior housing units. The proposal also calls for the county to invest $39 million in addition to the $17.5 million spent in May to purchase the SkullCandy building from an affiliate of Dakota Pacific.The resulting proposal of over 1,000 housing units is absurd and a slap in the face to the majority of Summit County residents that opposed this development from the beginning. The “pie in the sky” discussions of a public square, parklettes, a pedestrian bridge across S.R. 224, and even a possible gondola are ridiculous and will not provide the residents of Summit County with anything useful.  I anticipate the public will once again rise up in unified opposition.  The latest proposals for this property are a slap in the face to the County Council’s constituents and reads like a Dakota Pacific wish list. I urge them to return to the conditions they presented in February of this year. While not ideal, those parameters are at least a step in the right direction. Vincent A. “Van” NovackSnyderville BasinThe post Betrayed our trust appeared first on Park Record.