Feelings of outrage and betrayal erupted this week as dozens of community members, clad in cherry red, booed and shamed the Summit County Council for approving a controversial mixed-use development expected to bring hundreds of residential units and commercial development in the S.R. 224 corridor after five years of fierce debate.Around 100 people attended the County Council meeting in person on Wednesday, most wearing the color in opposition to the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project, with at least another 75 watching online. Residents tuned in to witness the long-awaited decision regarding the Park City Tech Center development: a 725-unit neighborhood and various community benefits in Kimball Junction.Members of the County Council provided an extensive overview of their thought process going into the vote, and several audience members yelled outcries of protest and frustration.Longtime County Councilor Chris Robinson, who served on the subcommittee dedicated to exploring a public-private partnership with the development firm, said he’d heard from friends and constituents who warned him he would destroy his legacy if he voted for the project. Robinson was sensitive to the public’s concerns, but he suggested the positives of the project — and the potential for state interference — outweigh the negatives.Robinson said he hoped his preamble explained his position, though attendees were not swayed. When he concluded, audience members shouted “No!” and “Shame!”Some people also interrupted Vice Chair Tonja Hanson when she said she thought the “build what you bought” slogan of the opposition was obsolete. The Tech Center vision in the original 2008 development agreement only allows for office and research-related buildings to be constructed on the land, and 24 Skullcandy building equivalents with thousands of parking stalls are permitted in the original plan.“It’s my turn, OK?” she reminded the crowd. Hanson also acknowledged the intense dispute the project has caused within the community and cries that the public is being ignored. However, she said not all Summit County residents are against Dakota Pacific. While there is opposition to the development, others who support it tend to be quieter. “Everyone says the majority of your constituents are against this development. There are 27,000 people who live in the Snyderville Basin. I can tell you I’ve not heard from half of them who are against this. I’ve heard from loud voices against this, but I have talked to people who are also for this and they’re intimidated to speak to their neighbors and in public comment because they’re worried about backlash. There are people for this development,” Hanson said.After the vote, some attendees shouted their disapproval before quickly filing out of the room. They thanked County Councilor Roger Armstrong on social media for being the single “no” vote. Other comments criticized other county councilors as “corrupt” and said they should be “ashamed” of their “unbelievable” decision. Armstrong appreciated the thoughtful, difficult decision his co-councilors were forced to make. He noted the calls from some in the public to vote those who approve the development out of office, and said the rest of the County Council would be “taking a bullet for the community.” He speculated they would not be voting for the project if they weren’t facing pressure from the Utah Legislature. Chair Malena Stevens, who voted in favor of the Dakota Pacific development when she served on the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission and on the County Council, did not run for reelection and will vacate her seat in the New Year.Summit County voters chose Mountainlands Community Housing Trust Housing Advocate Megan McKenna to take over Seat C in the November election. McKenna has often spoken in favor of the Dakota Pacific project as a way to help the working class. She also attended the vote in person this week. She said in an interview she has a lot of respect for the sitting council and supports their decision.“I am proud of them for being brave and doing what they have come to understand is in the best interest of Summit County residents and future generations,” McKenna said. The proposed development is not perfect. Nothing is, but I do believe after much deliberation and weighing the impacts and community benefit, they made the right choice.”McKenna cited the significant portion of affordable and attainable housing included in the mixed-use development plan as opposed to a tech park, which would “bring in thousands of commuters at peak traffic times.” It also aligns with the Kimball Junction Neighborhood plan that was adopted in June 2019.“While the decision may not be popular with some residents, I don’t think it’s as unanimous as some have made it out to be. I have spoken to hundreds of residents who understand well the need for affordable housing in Summit County. If not there, then where?” McKenna said. “What better place is there to put housing than next to a transit hub, library, urgent care, restaurants, shops and access to trails? Density where we already have the infrastructure to support it allows us to preserve Summit County’s open space and rural communities, while preventing further sprawl.”Friends for Responsible Development of Greater Park City, a volunteer citizens organization dedicated to promoting responsible development and an outspoken critic of the Dakota Pacific proposal, did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.The post Seeing red: Community responds to approval of Tech Center development appeared first on Park Record.