Dear Mr. Rogers: It was so nice to finally meet you in person at the Blair Education Center last Friday. I didn’t realize how approachable, kind and dapper you seem in person. Admittedly, based on the commentaries you write, I would have expected more of an “Archie Bunker” type. No offense to you or to Archie. Of course, I can appreciate your desire as an opinionist to be contrarian. But isn’t a journalist’s job to be impartial or at the very least,to give both sides an equal share of voice? I understand that playing devil’s advocate can be entertaining, until it actually causes harm to someone, something, or a community. I agree that the 5.25 acres has been a “dusty, dystopian looking space” for over a decade, but your use of the word “abandoned” is not fact, only opinion. Mark Fischer, the previous owner who sold the land to the city, along with the city, the municipal government, and local residents, have worked hard over the last decade to find the right use for this important, centralized parcel. It wasn’t until last year, after Sundance and Kimball had decided to leave, that the city faced real pressure to act. I understand the temptation to make a decision under pressure, but decisions made in haste or in fear can be catastrophic, especially since whatever gets built on this piece of prime real estate will be there for decades to come. The reason you didn’t see a large turnout from the restaurant and lodging community at the Blair Education Center is that the invitation was last minute. I’m sure those businesses, who are the very fabric of our community, appreciated the gesture, but low attendance doesn’t mean indifference. It means this community needs reasonable notice and information to plan accordingly. The few who did manage to attend on short notice asked real questions and, yes, expressed strong feelings, but couldn’t the meeting have shown a bit more compassion for these business owners? Wasn’t the point to hear their concerns rather than shut them down? Most of the Park City community does not want this development as it currently stands, and nearly 3,000 residents have signed on to say so. For what it’s worth, one woman at the meeting who seemed confused about the opposition turned out to work for Berkshire Hathaway, the firm that will be leasing units and commercial space in the project. I’ve personally walked the business community, and many owners still don’t know what’s happening on this site. That’s not a criticism of anyone, just a fact. And those who do know, and who don’t support the project, are often afraid to say so, because their business depends on revenue from the city or because they stand to gain financially from it. It isn’t healthy when people don’t feel safe speaking up for fear of losing business. As for your office being right across from the 5 acres, I don’t think this project will affect your day-to-day work, since you only publish twice a week. How much time do you actually spend on site? Compare that to the other business owners running their locally owned shops five to seven days a week. They need parking for their employees and patrons, less traffic so people can reach their businesses, and clean air, especially once digging into contaminated soil starts kicking up arsenic near the gelato shops, burger joints, delis, and burrito stands. You may actually be one of the people who stands to gain, with a minimum of 250 new residents moving into the area. Just make sure you get there early to find parking, and maybe don’t eat your lunch outside. All that said, we do appreciate The Park Record’s gesture of providing free papers each week. You also mentioned that the workers living in this development would already be in town and therefore wouldn’t add to the daily commute. That isn’t accurate. This is a LIHTC funded project, which means residents aren’t required to work in Park City to live there. It isn’t workforce housing in the way some other developments are, whatever the developer Brinshore, Mountainlands Community, and the city might suggest. They don’t have full control over who ends up living there. And with Park City now labeled the “most expensive ski town,” how many low-income residents will realistically spend their money in the local tourist district? The data suggests this project will add to traffic without helping our lodging and restaurants around Historic Main Street. Would you want to start your ski day at Snow Park Lodge, Deer Valley, or Park City Mountain knowing you’d sit in an hour of traffic each way, when other access points already exist? We need better traffic mitigation and more transit options, so people want to come into Park City and spend their time and money here. That’s why we’re grateful to local attorneys Ryan McConnell and Matthew S. Boyden, who care about this town and its businesses enough to draft a legal statement on behalf of those with legitimate concerns about the project’s impact on their already thin margins, including height, traffic, parking and contaminated soil. I recently tried to have dinner at Sammy’s in the off season and couldn’t find a parking spot, so I went elsewhere. The Prospector Square Property Owners Association, which oversees the other side of the 5 acres, knows firsthand how much of a challenge parking already is for every kind of business there despite efforts to manage it. Add the potential overflow from Brinshore’s current proposal, not just the retail traffic but the number of new residents, and this problem only gets bigger. As you noted, the project is projected to add at least 1,200 car trips a day, with no solid plan to relieve the bottleneck. You’re right that there are already three- and four-story buildings throughout the Prospector commercial district, like the Regency, Alberto’s and the Sheraton, along with taller two-story buildings, including The Park Record’s own building. But if that’s meant to justify even more density, it’s only one side of the argument. You could just as easily make a logical, psychological and economic case for more park and less city, since preserving open land has always been a priority here, until someone decided to look past the current 35-foot height limit, the same limit we held other developers to, including the DoubleTree Yarrow. This site also sits within our Frontage Protection Zone, which the city created specifically to protect the mountain corridors leading into town. I’ll stop there, even though your commentary goes on, because it saddens me to see so little regard given to a mountain town community you only moved to a couple of years ago (or is it Kamas?). Despite the mockery some of us “concerned locals” get, including being called “pitchforkers” by a member of the Planning Commission, most of us have lived here for decades working, volunteering, and contributing to this beautiful place. We deserve to be heard by the city, and time is of the essence. But I’ll end on something we agree on. Moving City Hall to the Bonanza 5 acres, where locals actually live, and creating a true civic plaza and transit center there, while converting the current Marsac Building into a historic destination for tourists (something like the Jerome Hotel in Aspen), is a genuinely good idea. Unique attractions are what bring people to Park City and onto Main Street, where foot traffic is already dwindling. Added traffic and an uninspired design from the Brinshore proposal won’t help. It will only hurt this town. Kelly Pfaff Park City The post We just disagree appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less