O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116466477091743129";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-27T07:47:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-27T13:59:31.613-08:00";s:5:"title";s:21:"What a View...For Me!";s:12:"atom_content";s:1952:"Gotten rather busy with work and family being around for Thanksgiving, etc., so I haven't blogged much lately.  I did take some time on Thanksgiving morning to go and hike the land that has been at the center of the dispute between the City of North Salt Lake and Salt Lake City and County (see stories <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650209001,00.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.clippertoday.com/print_this_story.asp?smenu=1&sdetail=18076">here</a>).  As much tramping around the hills as I do, I have not hiked this area (not in recent memory, anyway.  I did tramp some of this area years and years ago when I was an intern with Davis County, long before Eaglewood Golf Course and all its surrounding development were ever even thought of.)<br /><br />No question, this is a great area.  The views are fantastic!  Given the rapid pace of development in Davis County and all along the Wasatch Front, it is nice to have some areas that stay undeveloped.  But...but, to some degree, it does strike me as more of the Gangplank syndrome (you know, "I'm aboard, now hoist up the gangplank and don't let anyone else on board!")  There are large, beautiful homes on this benchland in both North Salt Lake and in Salt Lake City.  I suspect much of the drive to keep the remaining benchland undeveloped comes from these homeowners -- a great way to have some (almost) private places to run and walk your dog (both of which I saw while I was tramping the area on Thanksgiving.)<br /><br />Now let's turn the pancake again -- I understand this land was acquired years ago by North Salt Lake City either for its water rights or for watershed protection.  If that was the case, then why not keep such publicly owned land undeveloped?<br /><br />It cuts both ways on this one.  It's just interesting to see a couple of governmental entities fighting each other over powers that each would absolutely die for if the shoe were on the other foot.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116466477091743129/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116466477091743129";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116466477091743129";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116466477091743129";s:4:"link";s:67:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-viewfor-me.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:3:"208";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116397287844851153";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-19T13:38:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-19T13:47:58.470-08:00";s:5:"title";s:38:"Connection Land Use and Transportation";s:12:"atom_content";s:1686:"Stories in the <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208072,00.html">DesNews</a> and the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4687491">Trib</a> this weekend about the Wasatch Vision 2040 plan, developed by Envision Utah as the first step in updating the regional long-range transportation plans for the Wasatch Front Regional Council and the Mountainlands Association of Governments.  The plan updates this time around are attempting to make solid connections between the cause-and-effect relationship of land use patterns and what the subsequent transportation system will need to be.  It makes intuitive sense that judicious land use and help reduce the size and scope of transportation systems that may be needed, if we can find ways to keep people close to home for work and daily needs.<br /><br />A couple of the more interesting websites (of the many that are now out there) about this connection between land  use and transportation can be found <a href="http://www.plannersweb.com/wfiles/w159.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.lutr.net">here</a>.<br /><br />The difficult part will be in convincing independent self-governing communities that they may need to make some modifications to the way they allow development, to help in the overall regional picture.  It's just a lot easier to let somebody else allow for that higher density development, or that mixed-use area with dwellings near offices and services.  The report from Envision Utah is meant to serve as a guide to the kinds of actions communities can take to get us closer to the better picture -- but it will take a concerted education effort to even make communities aware of these options.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116397287844851153/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116397287844851153";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116397287844851153";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116397287844851153";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/connection-land-use-and-transportation.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"49";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116355692134913509";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-14T18:05:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-14T18:15:21.370-08:00";s:5:"title";s:45:""Where There is No Vision, The People Perish"";s:12:"atom_content";s:1305:"Interesting <a href="http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/print/12447/">story on the New West website</a>, about the most recent attempt in Oregon to reinvigorate the public about planning and vision.  Many were concerned that it had been more than a generation since the remarkable public support of the 1970's when Oregon's unique planning system was conceived and implemented.  Since that time, the vision got lost in the mechanics of day-to-day work and the poorly explained reasoning behind land use decisions.<br /><br />Oregon planners, through the Oregon APA chapter, attempted for several years to get a new, broad-based visioning effort going, but it too has become mired in technical details rather than taking a new, sweeping look at statewide visions and goals.  The ultimate repudiation happened in 2004, when voters passed Measure 37, halting and even reversing much of what earlier Oregonians had been trying to accomplish.<br /><br />Where are we at in Utah?  Do we have broad-based visioning and support?  Envision Utah has surely done much to help us get there, but it has been ten years.  Time to reinvigorate and re-establish that vision.  Some of that effort is currently underway in Washington County with the Vision Dixie effort, something that deserves support and encouragement.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116355692134913509/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116355692134913509";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116355692134913509";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116355692134913509";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/where-there-is-no-vision-people-perish.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"12";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116338882750075540";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-12T19:24:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-12T19:33:47.520-08:00";s:5:"title";s:12:"Pay to Learn";s:12:"atom_content";s:1396:"<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650205639,00.html">Story last week in the DesNews </a>about the efforts of school districts, some cities and citizens to get the state legislature to authorize impact fees for schools.<br /><br />I have long thought if cities, counties and special districts can use impact fees to help build necessary new infrastructure, schools should be allowed the same.  But given the atmosphere we've been in over the past couple of years regarding development issues in the legislature, it may be suicide to bring those fees up now.  Impact fees have been subject to a lot of displeasure and threats by certain legislators, at one point a few years ago nearly losing them.  The fees were saved when certain accomodations were made, with the implicit understanding that they would be left alone.  So to have them brought up now again may endanger the fees the fees in general.  We'll have to see, as this effort is not being led by local governments but by the school districts.<br /><br />Envision Utah founding chair Robert Grow has raised another interesting issue with regard to school impact fees:  by allowing them to be implemented, are we sending the message that paying for education is up to all those new people, that long-time residents have only a minimal role in helping to provide education?  Some interesting implications and thoughts here.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116338882750075540/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116338882750075540";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116338882750075540";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116338882750075540";s:4:"link";s:64:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/pay-to-learn.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"11";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116309381367992198";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-09T07:27:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-09T09:38:26.310-08:00";s:5:"title";s:18:"Hi, Ho, SkyBridge!";s:12:"atom_content";s:1142:"Stories in this morning's <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4628942">Trib</a> and <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,650205665,00.html">DesNews</a> about the proposed skybridge for the City Creek Center. Taubman says it is critical to their project, and I can see that that may be the case to tie the upper levels of the development together. However, there is a long-standing aversion to skybridges in the Salt Lake psyche, partly because of our desire to protect the views of the mountains. We also have much wider streets than many of the downtowns that have them, which adds to that desire.<br /><br />I actually opined on skybridges over a year ago, which I think is still relevant to the current discussion. See that commentary <a href="http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2005/08/skybridges-in-salt-lakes-future.html">here</a>.<br /><br />I tend to agree with the quote by Bob Bliss in one of the news stories, what's the rush? We have time to work through this issue, the plans for the City Creek Center are still have not been presented in detail. Let's work through this and get most everyone on the same track.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116309381367992198/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116309381367992198";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116309381367992198";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116309381367992198";s:4:"link";s:67:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/hi-ho-skybridge.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"8";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116300425358837372";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-08T07:30:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-08T08:44:14.766-08:00";s:5:"title";s:50:"Property Rights Measures Fail - Except for Arizona";s:12:"atom_content";s:1444:"In the spirit of yesterday's elections, I took a quick look around the western states that had Measure 37 clones on their ballots this November.  It seems that all have failed, except in Arizona.<br /><br />The most-watched one was in Washington state, where a strong property-rights movement worked hard to emulate the actions of their sister state Oregon.  The <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003367233&zsection_id=2002111777&amp;slug=propertyrights08&date=20061108">Seattle Times reports</a>, however, that the measure was soundly defeated, losing by a landslide in all the Puget Sound counties, and even trailing in the more conservative eastern Washington counties.  The measure was pushed primarily by the Washington Farm Bureau, but previous allies such as the realtors, builders and timber companies stayed away from this proposal.<br /><br />Prop 90 in California was headed to defeat, with more than 52% of the vote going against it, and even in super-conservative Idaho, <a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/101/v-print/story/59395.html">Proposition 2 failed</a>.<br /><br />Arizona, however, appears to have <a href="http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjA5NjUx">passed Proposition 207</a>, which in addition to limitations on eminent domain for economic development purposes, requires landowners to be paid of land-use decisions affect the value of their property.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116300425358837372/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116300425358837372";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116300425358837372";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116300425358837372";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/property-rights-measures-fail-except.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"6";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116285196735523048";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-06T18:20:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-06T14:26:07.383-08:00";s:5:"title";s:26:"Voila -- Suburban Centers!";s:12:"atom_content";s:782:"With the emphasis recently on the new development of downtown SLC and the Downtown Rising project, I felt a little out of sync in discussion the "centerization" of the suburbs -- see some of the recent blog postings.<br /><br />But now, here comes a story in <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4609946">today's Trib </a>about the attempted creation of "downtowns" in some of the suburban communities.  No question it's hard to create from scratch, and it may not always succeed, but the attempt is underway.  The emphasis still seems to be heavily on retail, however, with office and job centers as kind of an afterthought.  We have the same issue going in Davis County with Farmington Station.  We need to get those jobs in there to make them more truly viable "urban" centers.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116285196735523048/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116285196735523048";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116285196735523048";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116285196735523048";s:4:"link";s:74:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/voila-suburban-centers.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"34";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116258992863896446";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-11-03T18:16:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-11-03T13:38:48.850-08:00";s:5:"title";s:34:"Downtown Rising and Transportation";s:12:"atom_content";s:3989:"A good <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650203876,00.html">opinion piece in the DesNews this morning </a>by my good friend Ralph Becker about the current efforts underway to reimagine and revitalize downtown Salt Lake.  This is a critical part of keeping our metro area vital and attractive.  While downtown no longer functions as THE location for all important business and economic activity, as downtowns all over the world once were, it is still important as an activity center and "heart and soul" for the region.  The last thing in the world we should allow is for the downtown to become as some others have, where the metro area essentially become a donut -- lots of stuff happening around the edges, but a big hole in the middle.<br /><br />Along with the focus on downtown, much of the region is also in the midst of a campaign for transportation improvement, with lots of talk about expanding the transit system.  I just attended this morning an open house by UTA marking 50% completion of the FrontRunner commuter rail system construction from Ogden to Salt Lake City.  We are anxiously looking forward to having this great service up and running soon!<br /><br />Anthony Downs, senior fellow with the Brookings Institute, put much of this kind of discussion in context a couple of years ago when he <a href="http://www.anthonydowns.com/baltimoretransportation.htm">addressed the Partnership for Downtown Baltimore</a>.  Many of the things he said there are relevant to our situation, I think.<br /><br />Downs said, "Downtown is still a major employment center for office workers, government workers, and health care workers, and the retailers and service workers who serve the former.  The largest office complex (in the state) is located here... .  A lot of people who work here do not want to commute from a distance so they form a market for downtown housing.<br /><br />"Downtown has the greatest aggregation of business services in the ... region; hence it can provide a better setting for many types of business than any suburban location, even though many suburban locations are getting larger and more urbanized, with many more retail and office complexes competitive with downtown.<br /><br />"Now I would like to discuss some basic realities about transportation relevant to downtown.<br /><br />"...traffic congestion is rising in intensity all over the world, and is likely to keep on doing so.  This trend is caused partly be increasing population and prosperity, which enable more households to own more vehicles.<br /><br />"By any reckoning, most commuters use private vehicles. ...  There is a widespread belief that a bigger off-road transit system will surely reduce traffic congestion because it will take all its passengers off the highways during peak periods.  But that is not necessarily the case.  Your (Baltimore's) present light rail system has 25,000 unlinked passenger trips on a typical weekday.  Even if all are commuter trips, then 12,500 commuters are using the light rail system daily.  That is only 1.25% of all the region's commuters.<br /><br />"There may be good reasons to build more transit capacity, such as improving mobility for people without access to cars.  But expanding transit capacity will not significantly reduce peak-hour traffic congestion on any major roads that are already congested.  It is no accident that most of the U.S. cities with the biggest transit systems also have very intensive traffic congestion.  Both transit useage and congestion intensity are highly correlated with city and regional population density -- the greater the density, the worse the congestion.<br /><br />"I am NOT saying that your desire to spend a lot of money on more transit is a waste of time, or should be scrapped.  But I think it needs to be considered within a larger framework of thinking about transportation downtown and beyond."<br /><br />Read the rest, there's some interesting and thought-provoking stuff here.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116258992863896446/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116258992863896446";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116258992863896446";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116258992863896446";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/11/downtown-rising-and-transportation.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"8";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116232923053053177";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-10-31T17:59:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-10-31T13:13:51.070-08:00";s:5:"title";s:40:"Desire for Open Space -- A Trojan Horse?";s:12:"atom_content";s:2298:"<a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,650203121,00.html">The DesNews this morning ran a story </a>on the Dan Jones poll commissioned by the Utah League of Cities and Towns asking people what their most pressing local concerns were, and their opinions on this topics.  Some of this was discussed at the League annual conference in September.  Growth and the way it is handled are among the top concerns among community residents.  At the League conference, Dan Jones even went so far as to say that the issue of how growth is handled would be the top issue of next year's municipal elections.<br /><br />What I find particularly interesting is the strong support for open space preservation.  On the surface, this seems like a great result, something many have been working for for some time.  But as I looked at the overall survey results, it is summed up in how one of the questions was asked -- should open space be preserved to resist further development?<br /><br />While I think people are generally sincere in their desire to see open space preserved, there is another motivation at work here -- that is, if we preserve open space (particularly the pieces near my house), then we've stopped new development, or at least shifted it to someplace else.<br /><br />If we are truly desirous of seeing the pattern of suburban development change, then we should also be supporting the intensification of density so that the same number of dwellings will still be built in a given area, just that more of the area will be in open space.  Otherwise, don't we risk just pushing development even farther out because the land that would have had new homes built on it is now unavailable?  But I don't see our citizens supportive of increasing densities near their homes -- if anything, their opposition has become even stronger.<br /><br />If the public doesn't want to come up with the money to pay for all that extra open space (though right now it seems they are willing to do so -- we'll see what happens with the measures that are on the ballot in Utah this November), then what better way than to incentivize developers by giving them increased density for setting aside open land?<br /><br />Just a little something to keep in mind as there are more calls for preservation of open space.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116232923053053177/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116232923053053177";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116232923053053177";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116232923053053177";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/10/desire-for-open-space-trojan-horse.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"8";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116212731303384935";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-10-29T05:42:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-10-29T11:35:53.723-08:00";s:5:"title";s:29:"Expand Transportation Options";s:12:"atom_content";s:3318:"Another opinion piece is <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4567858">in the papers this morning </a>supporting the passage of the transportation propositions that are on the ballot this November in Salt Lake and Utah counties. In my mind, there is no question that these questions should pass to help us expand our transportation systems and give more travel options to commuters.<br /><br />As I've said in the past, I believe that the transportation sytem is the "skeleton" of a metropolitan area, on which we hang the substance of its character (the kinds of homes and businesses that make it up). The Wasatch Front metropolitan area is somewhat unique in that it is long and relatively skinny -- we have natural urban growth boundaries with the mountains to our east and the Great Salt Lake/desert to our west. Such a configuration allows transit to work particularly well, because much of our daily commerce moves along in narrow corridors.<br /><br />The downside, however, is the complex pattern of commuting that has developed in recent years. The latest edition of on-going <a href="http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/CIAIIIfacts.pdf">studies of our commuting patterns by Alan Pisarski </a>points out that the dominant commute these days is not suburbs to central city, but suburb to suburb. I see evidence of this by just looking at the commuters who live in my neighborhood in Kaysville. Only a couple of them travel to downtown Salt Lake City -- most go to a great variety of destinations: LakePark, International Center, Draper, University of Utah, one even drives to Orem every day.<br /><br />I asked the Wasatch Front Regional Council staff if they had good figures on what percentage of Davis County commuters goes to downtown Salt Lake each day -- their answer was about 10-15%. Our transit system, however, is primarily focused on getting people to and from downtown Salt Lake.<br /><br />I have long maintained that even with the best and most extensive transit system, it will accomodate only around 10% of the commute, because that is the most it does in other metro areas. And yet, even with that fairly paltry number, I feel that it is needed, for a couple of reasons.<br /><br />First, in sizeable metro areas around the world today, there has to be another way to get around other than by car because it just isn't possible for many to drive, and because it gives everyone options. If I have to go in to Salt Lake on a given day, and if I hear on the traffic report that there is a bad accident blocking I-15, or its a bad weather day, I have no option right now other than to drive (or take the express bus, which will also have to sit in traffic). We need options to keep our population appropriately mobile.<br /><br />Second, I believe it is an indication of the relative strength and vitality of a metro area to have a good transit system. It is a factor in economic development, so to speak. It says to the world, "Salt Lake City is a world-class player, it has an extensive transit system." It's just one of those things that business people seem to look at when they contemplate making investments in different areas.<br /><br />So vote for the transportation questions on the ballot right now. We need it, it is necessary, but just keep in mind, it won't be a panacea.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116212731303384935/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116212731303384935";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116212731303384935";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116212731303384935";s:4:"link";s:81:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/10/expand-transportation-options.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-116183391879319340";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-10-25T19:14:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-10-25T20:38:38.993-07:00";s:5:"title";s:33:"I'm Baaack!  Let's Talk...Kotkin!";s:12:"atom_content";s:2253:"Well, I guess I might finally get back in the saddle and fire up this old blog again. When my home computer blew up, it took me a while to get a new one (I tried to get the old one fixed for a while, before finally giving it up). Then, I just lost the desire to pick it up again! It is rather demanding trying to keep up a blog, finding things to blog about, thinking what to say, etc. I know, whine whine whine, but hey, it's good therapy!<br /><br />So what's got be ready to go again is a <a href="http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/print_friendly.php?artid=2335">piece in MetropolisMag </a>by Joel Kotkin on the "suburban village" concept that he's talked about before, and that I rather like (this will get my old friends, the Peak Oil guys, going again, I'm sure).<br /><br />Kotkin derides "traditional" suburban development as unsustainable and wasteful, but he also recognizes that packing more density into existing urban cores isn't going to a) appeal to the vast majority, or b) provide enough housing for the expected 100 million additional people expected in the U.S. in the next forty or so years.<br /><br />He advocates a series of suburban centers or villages, which makes a lot of sense to me. Find ways to densify and centralize in the suburbs and create an "archipelago" of new development. In our own area, this seems to be where Kennecott Land is heading with the long term plans for the west Salt Lake Valley and Oquirrh foothills.<br /><br />This approach works well when you have a large blank slate to work with, like Kennecott land has. But how do you make this happen in someplace like southwest Salt Lake County, or west Utah County, where the land is not in the hands of one large owner, or under the control of one political entity?<br /><br />Also, the idea that people will live and work in a particular center or village is a nice thought, but looking at how we live our lives today, it is more likely that we will live in one village and work in another, greatly complicating commute patterns and making effective transit difficult or impossible.<br /><br />We need to keep exploring new ideas and work things out.<br /><br />Great to be back, I think. We'll see if blogging is a release, or becomes a taskmaster again.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/116183391879319340/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=116183391879319340";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116183391879319340";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/116183391879319340";s:4:"link";s:77:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/10/im-baaack-lets-talkkotkin.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"10";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115876629030972348";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-09-20T07:30:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-09-20T08:33:09.623-07:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"How Big is a Region?";s:12:"atom_content";s:2049:"I attended the legislative committee meeting yesterday in which the proposed transportation sales tax was discussed. The bill eventually passed during the special session of the legislature later that day (see <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650192178,00.html">DesNews</a> and <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4365697">Trib</a> stories), which I think is a good thing, as it will give voters the option to increase funding for transportation needs, including transit! My gosh, the legislature actually took a positive stand on transit (albeit also combined with road projects).<br /><br />The thing that I am finding interesting, though, is that this bill pushes the decision making about what to fund to the county level. It does require that the funds go to projects "of regional significance," and that they must be on the regional (or statewide) transportation plans, but the actual decision making is at the county level. The same kind of move was made last year with passage of the car registration fee increase, which is optional to the counties, and decisions on where to spend it is made on a countywide level, through Councils of Government.<br /><br />This same trend is showing up elsewhere, as the Wasatch Front Regional Council recently decided to run their region-wide long range plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan (the 5-year project funding list) through the County COGs first.<br /><br />I have been the administrator of the Davis County COG for some ten years now, and have long believed that some of the most effective (often, the ONLY) regional planning that we do is at the county level. These recent events simply serve to reinforce that notion. What we can't forget is that the Salt Lake Metro region is more than just 6 or 7 separate, independent counties - we need to make sure there are good mechanisms in place to coordinate between counties as well. Wasatch Front Regional Council is one way to do this for transportation, but there must be others for issues in addition to transportation.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115876629030972348/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115876629030972348";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115876629030972348";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115876629030972348";s:4:"link";s:69:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-big-is-region.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115852136792446631";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-09-17T12:18:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-09-17T12:29:27.943-07:00";s:5:"title";s:27:"Coming Attractions for 2007";s:12:"atom_content";s:2108:"First, I apologize for the spotty nature of my blog entries as of late.  My home computer, which I took in to be fixed a week ago, was declared terminal by the techs at my local computer shop, and I am now in the process of looking for a new one.  So I haven't had a consistent home base to work from, which makes blogging rather difficult.  I work from where I can, but until my home computer issue is resolved, I guess it's going to continue to be hit and miss.<br /><br />Now, as to the topic for this blog, I attended the Friday morning business session at the League of Cities and Towns annual conference, where Dan Jones and staff presented highlights from their recently conducted survey about public perceptions of local government.  Some very interesting items were noted by Mr. Jones.<br /><br />Most notable was the strong increase in citizens saying that growth and "overdevelopment" were among their chief issues of concern.  Also, of public services provided by local goverenment that were identified by citizens, among the lowest rating in satisfaction was planning & zoning.<br /><br />Dan stated that these indicators lead him to believe that growth, and the desire to stop or control growth, will be THE BIG topic for the municipal elections in 2007.  He also said that poll respondents have been listing preservation of opens space as one of their top concerns, an item which wasn't even on radar screens in polling in previous years.  Some of this seems to be connected to the desire to stop growth.<br /><br />Utah, in my experience, has avoided much of the "stop growth at any cost" fever that seems to have swept many other states in recent years, but these poll results indicate that maybe the honeymoon is coming to an end.<br /><br />Given what has happened in the last couple of years with developer-led charges in the state legislature for "liberalized" growth controls, we may be headed for a heck of a train wreck in the next year.  This could be interesting to watch, if many of us planners weren't right in the middle of the whole darn affair.<br /><br />More to come on this.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115852136792446631/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115852136792446631";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115852136792446631";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115852136792446631";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/09/coming-attractions-for-2007.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"38";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115810279010837468";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-09-12T18:08:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-09-12T16:17:39.160-07:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"Hoist Up the Gangplank!";s:12:"atom_content";s:3272:"Arrgghh! My home computer went down several days ago, and I've had it in for repairs, and I haven't been able to blog easily (it's just too much effort to go to one of my kids' computers or something), and it's been such a target-rich environment out there! Finally I've figured out a way, and I must comment on an amazing juxtaposition of two opinion pieces that appeared on the editorial pages of the two main Salt Lake dailies in the last few days.<br /><br />First, the piece by Bruce Wilson, retired CIO of Universal Studios who moved to Washington, Utah (just north of St. George), which appeared <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_4308368">in the Trib on Sunday</a>. Mr. Wilson laments the rapid pace of growth in Washington County, and figures that much of it is happening because local officials welcome and invite it. "Such growth could not occur unless many residents were rolling out the red carpet and inviting one and all to move to Washington County. ... The welcoming committee is headed by elected and appointed county and city officials."<br /><br />"But why do they think that rolling out the welcome mat instead of putting up the stop sign is a good thing for Washington County?" he says.<br /><br />The solution, according to Mr. Wilson? "Growth in southwestern Utah needs to be managed by tough minds, not soft hearts. Washington County will not be able to soft-heartedly satisfy the demand without destroying everything that made it so attractive in the first place."<br /><br />Hmmm, interesting. Lots of thoughts come to mind on those comments, the primary one being, we call that the "gangplank syndrome." That is, "I'm aboard, now hoist up the gangplank and don't let anyone else in."<br /><br />Now consider a piece by Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, that actually <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199334,00.html">appeared the Thursday before in the DesNews</a>. Mr. Sowell's column is titled, "Left talks equality but practices elitism."<br /><br />Sowell writes, "Monterey County in California is a classic example, though by no means is unique. A recent story in the Wall Street Journal quoted residents of that coastal community as saying how much they liked its lifestyle and ambiance -- as a justification of laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone with less money to live there. First of all, laws forbid building anything on three-quarters of the land in that county. Existing residents who support such laws don't own that land, but they can politically keep others from living on it, which is the whole point of much rhapsodizing about "preserving" this and "saving" that. Land prices skyrocket when the supply of land is artifically and drastically reduced (and demand remains strong), which means that housing prices become astronomical."<br /><br />Now there is a lot that Mr. Wilson in Washington, Utah, says that strikes a chord within us all -- all that growth changes the very things we like about the community and makes it not so desireable any more. That is what has been part of the challenge in planning. But to simple shut the doors and not allow anyone else in?<br /><br />Lots to think about in these two editorials. Read 'em and weep, friends.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115810279010837468/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115810279010837468";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115810279010837468";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115810279010837468";s:4:"link";s:70:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/09/hoist-up-gangplank.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"6";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115760048375525983";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-09-06T20:28:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-09-06T20:45:17.023-07:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Accomodating Density";s:12:"atom_content";s:2335:"Jim Wooten, associate editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, writes an <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opinion/wooten/stories/2006/09/04/0905edtuwoot.html">interesting opinion piece </a>about the appropriateness of density, given recent trends and statistics about traffic congestion in the Atlanta metro area.<br /><br />Wooten says that while higher density development seems to be the "in" thing in urban planning these days, it may not be the smartest thing to do. "Every impetus economic and political is to create high-density development," he writes. "But unless that density feeds a concentrated employment center -- the nearly extinct downtowns of yesteryear, for example -- it's nothing more than high-volume, congestion-worsening traffic clutter."<br /><br />Wooten cites the recent report released by the Census Bureau showing that several parts of the Atlanta area have some of the worst congestion and longest commute times in the nation. "One could argue that, once built, high-rise dwellings and high-employment centers would spring up. That has not been Atlanta's experience with rapid rail in the decades since the east-west line opened. And with the possible exception of the Lindbergh station, MARTA hasn't driven density around stations on the north-south line, either."<br /><br />But Wooten is not entirely anti-density. He just argues that it should be placed where it can be accomodated. "The practical remedy is to ratchet down density in all but the places where roads exist to carry it. Just as water withdrawal permits exist, so too should jurisdictions be assigned traffic-addition permits for every major highway based on the road's carrying capacity. If cities and counties want to add traffic, they should be required to jointly fund new capacity."<br /><br />Some interesting food for thought here.  I'm reminded about the studies that show Los Angeles to be one of the densest metro areas in the nation, and also one with the worst traffic congestion.  Higher density doesn't automatically mean more efficient transportation.  As Wooten points out in his piece, and as we all know from experience, in today's world, people travel all over the metropolitan region for a variety of purposes.  Finding ways to efficiently accomodate that kind of travel demand is difficult.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115760048375525983/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115760048375525983";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115760048375525983";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115760048375525983";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/09/accomodating-density.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"24";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115741136998208314";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-09-04T15:06:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-09-04T21:26:57.696-07:00";s:5:"title";s:11:"Two for One";s:12:"atom_content";s:4171:"Just read an interesting <a href="http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16409">story by Ray Ring that appeared in the High Country News on July 24</a>, about the drive by certain anti-government types to promote Measure 37-like laws in states all around the country by confusing (some would say pairing) them with the strong anti-Kelo fervor. It is something I have also thought to be the case, where the "evils" of eminent domain are intermingled with land use regulations in general and a strong case is made against both.<br /><br />Ring, quoting John Echeverria, head of the Environmental Law and Policy Institute at Georgetown University, writes, "'The Kelo case is presented as a caricature in the news.' ... We talked about some of the horror stories, where governments use eminent domain in questionable ways. But those are few and far between. What's really going on, Echeverria said, is that, 'The property-rights advocates have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda.'<br /><br />"Libertarians and property-rights activists believe that a huge array of common government regulations on real estate, such as zoning or subdivision limits, 'take' away property value. Therefore, they say, the government should compensate the owner, or back off. The extreme view of 'regulatory takings' is really at the core of this campaign -- not eminent domain."<br /><br />With efforts underway in a number of states to get similar Measure 37 laws in front of voters or before state legislatures, Ring tracks down who is responsible for funding most of these organized efforts. He writes, "One key figure is the chairman of the board of Americans for Limited Government, Howie Rich. A real estate mogul based in New York City, Rich...(is) famour in libertarian circles for funding initiatives in the 1990s that imposed term limits on congessional delegations in 23 states... . This year, Rich says he has funneled nearly $200,000 through a group called Montanans in Action to back the Montana initiative... . Records in other states show that Rich has put $1.5 million into the California regulatory-takings initiative, $230,000 into the Idaho one, and $25,000 into the Arizona version.<br /><br />"On the phone, Rich was confident of the rightness of his cause. 'I believe in the American Dream. ... I believe in free markets. I believe that ... government has been growing at an excessive rate, at the federal level and in many states. I'm happy to support local activists who are working to protect property rights in a whole bunch of states.'"<br /><br />Rich notes, "While each initiative has its own sales pitch, they all deliberately tuck the notion inside the unrelated eminent domain controversy. The Los Angeles-based libertarian Reason Foundation mapped the strategy in a 64-page paper published in April, titled <a href="http://www.reason.org/ps343.pdf">Statewide Regulatory Takings Reform: Exporting Oregon's Measure 37 to Other States.</a> It recommends pushing 'Kelo-plus' initiatives, combining eminent domain reform with regulatory takings, to capitalize on 'the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling...'"<br /><br />So far, we've been lucky in Utah that we are not dealing with our own Measure 37-inspired effort, though we are about the only state in the West that is not. How did we escape? Probably because last year's SB170 was such a multi-pronged assualt on land use law, and it was home-cooked. We'll see if it stays that way.<br /><br />The thing that is so disturbing to me is how easily people fall for these measures. I just recently saw a story in The Oregonian about a group of people in southwest Oregon had signed petitions and voted for Measure 37, but now that a property owner had applied for a Measure 37 exemption which would put a lot more development in the neighborhood, the same citizens had submitted a petition opposing the proposal. And this was not an isolated incident.<br /><br />We live in a world of sound bites. Very few people take the time to examine closely what it is they are being asked to support. It seems to be the sign of the times!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115741136998208314/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115741136998208314";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115741136998208314";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115741136998208314";s:4:"link";s:63:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/09/two-for-one.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115706526589650664";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-31T18:47:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-31T16:01:29.330-07:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"More on Dealing with Traffic";s:12:"atom_content";s:1983:"A <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645197589,00.html">story in this morning's DesNews </a>about increasing congestion and where Utah is at -- we're more congested than we were, we will get a lot more congested in future years (more so than what New York and LA are now).  The story cites as one source <a href="http://www.reason.org/ps346.pdf">a study by the Reason Foundation </a>which touts building new highways as a viable way to reduce congestion.  The Reason Foundation generally takes what some would call the conservative, hard-line approach to planning-related issues, and this sort of falls in that vein, as most urban planner types are all about transit, walkability, and demand reduction through better land use coordination with transportation.<br /><br />The study points this out in one section, noting that many metro area long range transportation plans do not even include congestion reduction as one of their primary goals, and in some cases the plans indicate that building new road capacity is the last thing on their priority list.<br /><br />The Reason study contests the old maxim that "we cannot build our way out of congestion."  Often, Reason commentaries are very critical of transit, particularly rail transit, but this study says virtually nothing about it.<br /><br />In a region growing as rapidly as ours, there is no way we can survive without building new road capacity.  The question becomes how much can we afford, and what else should we be doing (like transit).<br /><br />Again, I go back to my "hero" <a href="http://www.anthonydowns.com/congestiontostay.htm">Anthony Downs</a>, who for a variety of well-thought out reasons, believes that we will always be stuck with congestion from here on out, so just learn to live with it.  One thing to consider, according to Downs:  congestion is a characteristic of growing and vibrant economies.  Places that are stagnating generally don't have this problem, so maybe it's a good sign!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115706526589650664/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115706526589650664";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115706526589650664";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115706526589650664";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-on-dealing-with-traffic.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"4";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115697518106097913";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-30T18:48:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-30T14:59:43.283-07:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"The Chink in the Armor?";s:12:"atom_content";s:1691:"Interesting <a href="http://utahtaxpayer.blogspot.com/2006/08/congestion-pricing-in-sweden.html">little entry on the Utah Taxpayers Association blog</a>, which on the surface seems to me to be an about face on what they normally espouse.  The entry is about Stockholm, Sweden charging drivers to drive into downtown during peak times.  Now this is a government-imposed solution that costs people more, and thus I say this seems to be the opposite of what a group like the taxpayers association strives for (reducing what government "charges" to provide services).<br /><br />But there are two reasons I think this is being embraced by the organization.  One, it was touted as a "free-market" solution in a Wall Street Journal editorial, which automatically (to some groups and viewpoints) means it is the "right" way to go.  The other is that the Taxpayers Association, according to its position on transportation/transit, encourages the implementation of congestion pricing on state highways.<br /><br />Now the obvious response for me to make to this entry is one which a commentor on the blog entry has already noted, so I'll just quote it here.  It says, in part, "For pricing incentives to work, people need an alternative to driving into the city.  Obviously, carpooling and working nontraditional schedules could help reduce peak congestion, too. ...  Personally, I think we're going to need more transit to make congestion pricing actually produce a decline in traffic.  Also, if Utah starts leveling congestion fees, it's going to make your tax and fee burden ranking go even higher.  How (do) you react to that?"<br /><br />Either way, costs go up for commuters.  Pick your poison!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115697518106097913/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115697518106097913";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115697518106097913";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115697518106097913";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/chink-in-armor.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"4";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115679905940242804";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-28T18:04:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-28T14:24:51.330-07:00";s:5:"title";s:41:"Salt Lake's Downtown to Become a Phoenix?";s:12:"atom_content";s:1940:"No, not Phoenix, Arizona. The mythical bird phoenix, rising from the ashes!<br /><br />Quite the insert in today's daily newspapers, titled Downtown on the Rise. It is the latest update on where things are at in the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce's recent initiative on downtown Salt Lake City. You can see the details of all that is in the insert by going to the <a href="http://www.downtownrising.com">Downtown Rising website.</a><br /><br />A really impressive effort. There is no question in my mind about the need for a viable, vibrant core central city, if for no other reason than to give a metro area a sense of identity and history. The actual function of that core, however, is something that is a little tougher to nail down. Once the primary location for high-end jobs, today's metro downtowns serve a variety of functions. The trick is to keep them from becoming abandonded and run down, as some have been. I don't see that happening in Salt Lake City, but still, it needs to find a solid role.<br /><br />An interesting contrast in how two downtowns have fared in their transformations are the stories of Worcester, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, as detailed in a <a href="http://www.riedc.com/files/Worcestor_Prov.pdf">story in the Boston Globe</a> last year. There may be some lessons there for us.<br /><br />The story notes, for example, that Providence resisted the urban renewal projects of the 60's and 70's, resulting in a better base of stately buildings and historic streetscapes, while Worcester wiped out a section of downtown and replaced it with a concrete monolith of a shopping mall that has now failed and needs to be "renewed" again.<br /><br />Providence was also more successful in engaging its universities in civic life, which Worcester has failed to do, to the detriment of both.<br /><br />Lots of interesting parallels for us here in Salt Lake, with some lessons about the roads not taken.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115679905940242804/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115679905940242804";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115679905940242804";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115679905940242804";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/salt-lakes-downtown-to-become-phoenix.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115654023867288624";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-25T06:54:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-25T14:13:06.926-07:00";s:5:"title";s:29:"If Mom Says No, Go Ask Dad...";s:12:"atom_content";s:1477:"Interesting <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/191147/4/">story in Wednesday's Provo Daily Herald </a>about a brewing dispute between Mapleton and Spanish Fork over the annexation of some 1,000 acres. Seems the owner approached Mapleton to discuss possible development plans, and didn't like the answer -- so, off to the neighboring community to work out a better deal.<br /><br />The area is apparently in Mapleton's annexation plan, and the two cities have an annually renewable agreement between them to honor each other's annexation plans. But Spanish Forks hints that they may just wait until the first of the year, when the agreement expires, and then consider the annexation.<br /><br />When your city is the only game in town, it's easy to set annexation goals and policies and stick to them, but when "competing" cities are viable alternatives, it can lend itself to the kind of thing that is happening in Utah County. And whether the development is in your city or not, the impact on the character of the area will be there regardless. So should you annex to control, refuse to annex until you get an agreement with the landowners as to what should be developed, and what are relationships like between the competing cities?<br /><br />All questions that I may have to address when I present a session at the upcoming Utah League of Cities and Towns conference on whether to annex or not to annex. Can't say that I know the answers to those questions...";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115654023867288624/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115654023867288624";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115654023867288624";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115654023867288624";s:4:"link";s:77:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-mom-says-no-go-ask-dad.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115628752890160828";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-22T15:31:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-22T15:58:49.190-07:00";s:5:"title";s:45:"Oh, Give Me A Home Where I Never Need Roam...";s:12:"atom_content";s:2414:"One of the many interesting things that I picked up during my "sabbatical" was a <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003143245&zsection_id=2002256360&amp;slug=livework23&date=20060722">story in the Seattle Times </a>about the difficulty in getting people to live close to work, or trying to plan things that way.<br /><br />For some time I have listened to planners talk about the "jobs-housing balance," that if we can just get houses to be built near work centers (or vice-versa), then the need for commuting would be dramatically reduced.  While at a certain level this almost seems intuitive, the more I observed, the more I came to realize that this just wouldn't work at all.<br /><br />For one thing, people change jobs pretty frequently in the U.S., but they don't seem to change where they live quite so much, particularly if they just change jobs in the same general metro area.  So while someone may buy a house near their job at one point in time, often within a few years they have changed jobs and they don't live so close to work anymore.  By then, they've gotten to like the neighborhood, made friends in the area, the kids like the school, and they don't want to move -- so, the drive to work just gets longer.  I have a couple of families in my own neighborhood in Kaysville where the primary wage earners drive to Draper and even to Orem each day!  I have asked them, why don't you move to avoid the drive, and they say, "It's not so bad, and we really like the neighborhood and don't want to move!"<br /><br />Also, many households these days are comprised to two primary wage earners, and rarely are both workers employed in the same place.  So the solution is, live near work for one and let the other drive, or compromise and live somewhere near the middle between the two and require both to drive moderate distances.<br /><br />Now I can anticipate what many of you will say -- the rising cost of gasoline is going to change all that.  Well, maybe, to some extent over the long term.  But I don't think we're there yet.  One of my good friends who is a planner and believes in this concept, just took a new job that is considerably further away from where he had been working.  Is he planning to move?  I don't think so -- he's just getting to the point where his kids are moving through high school, and I don't think they want to leave.  Reality!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115628752890160828/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115628752890160828";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115628752890160828";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115628752890160828";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/oh-give-me-home-where-i-never-need.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"6";}}i:21;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115609657001951371";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-08-20T10:36:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-08-20T10:56:10.040-07:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"It's About Schools This Year";s:12:"atom_content";s:3289:"Well, by popular demand (or else driven by my idiotic propensity to get myself in trouble), I'm back in the blogosphere!  It's been a nice vacation, but it's hard to stay silent as so many juicy issues (soccer stadium, downtown Salt Lake, charter schools, etc.) go rolling by.<br /><br />Actually, here's what happened.  My wife, daughter and I took off on July 5 for a wonderful 2-week vacation to Scotland and Ireland (more interesting observations on what those cities and urban environments are like maybe in a future blog entry).  When we returned, any of you who have gone on an extended vacation know what it's like to return to your desk and see all the piled-up work that awaits!  Then, a few days later, we were off again to my wife's family reunion in Idaho, which she was in charge of -- which meant I spent lots of time helping her get ready and organized for that one.<br /><br />By then, I had not blogged for nearly a month.  Now for those of you who haven't tried this, to keep up a blog is a fairly intense exercise -- looking for interesting stuff to blog about, getting the time to write, etc.  I began to think it had been rather nice not having to try to keep up a near-daily effort, and thought, well, nobody will notice much anyway so let's just let it go.<br /><br />Well, I have heard from so many people asking me what happened to my blog, why I wasn't blogging anymore, how they enjoyed reading it (though very few comment!).  Nearly every day, I ran into people asking me about it, including many I had never met before or didn't know.  I started to think that maybe I should get things going again, I guess people do read and find it interesting, if not useful.<br /><br />I saw many topics float by that gave me that urge again to comment, but I kept delaying.  Finally, today, the <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645194318,00.html">DesNews lead editorial </a>gave me the final push to get me back online, so here I am.<br /><br />The editorial follows a <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645193822,00.html">story earlier in the week </a>where the West Jordan city council discussed and adopted a resolution urging the state legislature to change state law to allow impact fees to be charged for new school construction.  The editorial correctly points out the prohibition enacted a few years ago in response to a school impact fee arrangement implemented by Park City.  The charge against such fees was led by Sen. Al Mansell, the long-time lead warrior against impact fees, likely for the reasons pointed out in the editorial.<br /><br />As the opinion piece points out, if fees are allowed for water and sewer systems and parks and so on, why shouldn't they also be allowed for new school construction?  No question, there needs to be the recognition of what extensive impact fee totals can do to the price of housing, but the impact of rising taxes (primarily property taxes) and the resistance to them must also be considered.<br /><br />Given the recent furor over charter schools, it looks like one of the big issues in the upcoming legislative session will be growth and schools.  What could be more emotional to our citizens than land use and education?  Combining the two together should make for an interesting session!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115609657001951371/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115609657001951371";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115609657001951371";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115609657001951371";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/08/its-about-schools-this-year.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115196647371919437";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-07-03T15:24:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-07-03T15:41:13.746-07:00";s:5:"title";s:26:"Potboiler in the Southwest";s:12:"atom_content";s:1710:"Plenty of action taking place in the southwest -- part of Salt Lake County, that is.<br /><br />A <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,640191827,00.html">story in the DesNews </a>talks about the desire of the residents of far southwest Salt Lake County (beyond Herriman, near Butterfield and Rose Canyons) to keep out development by creating a township.  Mixed "blessings," those townships.  Sort of just delays the inevitable, I think.  It's darn hard to maintain that spread-out, rural feel when you are directly adjacent to a rapidly growing metropolitan area.  It's much easier to accomplish someplace where there isn't so much growth pressure.  Is it all about meeting the desires of the current residents, or is it a form of burying heads in the sand and failing to acknowledge what will be?  It's an all-to-typical story.<br /><br />Another <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,640191828,00.html">DesNews story </a>about the vote that took place last Tuesday in Bluffdale on the referendum that was part of the reason landowners petitioned for (and won) the right to separate themselves from the city.  The vote was close, but did uphold the action of the (then) council to create the "special development zone."  It's pretty much a moot point now, because the owners won their case in district court to have the property de-annexed.  An appeal before the state supreme court may change things, however, but we shall see.  Don't think there would be much question that the current council would rescind the zone, but it's a rather politically-charged topic right now, it's hard to say what would happen.  Interesting, though, to see what actually happened with the referendum vote.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115196647371919437/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115196647371919437";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115196647371919437";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115196647371919437";s:4:"link";s:74:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/07/potboiler-in-southwest.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"8";}}i:23;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115170854373652849";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-07-01T07:49:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-07-01T07:50:44.496-07:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"It's What Inside That Counts";s:12:"atom_content";s:1454:"Interesting development in California this week, as <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/28/BAG0LJLKDS1.DTL">reported in the San Francisco <em>Chronicle</em></a>. The secretary of state's office announced it had qualified signatures and cleared for placing on the ballot this November an initiative petition called the "Protect Our Homes Act," which would ostensibly require government to occupy property acquired by eminent domain themselves, or contract it out for public use.<br /><br />Nothing really new or surprising here, as this appears to be one of many such petitions circulation around the country in response to the U.S. Supreme Courts <em>Kelo</em> ruling on eminent domain for economic development purposes.<br /><br />What is more insidious is what else the petition contains, that is essentially "buried" in the more obvious anti-Kelo language. The Act also would require governments to compensate landowners if new regulations not directly related to public safety hurt a property's value. This is more in line with the language of Measure 37 in Oregon, but not in as direct a manner.<br /><br />The thinking must be that most people will support the anti-<em>Kelo </em>provisions, and will either not notice or not mind the additional language that will implement Measure 37-like actions in California.<br /><br />Wow. Watch your back, folks, the silly season (election time) seems to run year round now.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115170854373652849/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115170854373652849";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115170854373652849";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115170854373652849";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/07/its-what-inside-that-counts.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"3";}}i:24;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532.post-115166972578320092";s:9:"published";s:29:"2006-06-30T05:54:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2006-06-30T05:15:25.806-07:00";s:5:"title";s:18:"Now That's a Plan!";s:12:"atom_content";s:2111:"Salt Lake County is currently <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,640190622,00.html">working on a plan </a>for the "west bench" -- the west side of the Salt Lake Valley and the foothills of the Oquirrh Mountains.  It is essentially the area owned by Kennecott Land.<br /><br />What a plan!  It anticipates the eventual homes and communities for over 500,000 people.  There isn't a city in this state that I think is planning for that number of people.  The only plan comparable to that number that I can think of in Utah were some of the earlier Salt Lake County plans that were developed in the 1960s and 70s, but in those instances they were more regional in nature, as the area was covered by several municipalities that all had their own plans for the portion that would be in their communities.<br /><br />Is it even practical to plan for such a large area and number?  The plan covers all sorts of things, ranging from community centers to schools to recreation areas.  We are constantly reminded of Daniel Burnham's call in the late 1800s to "make no small plans," but can plans on such a scale really have any meaning and efficacy?  The guest opinion piece in this month's Planning magazine by a planning professor at the University of Illinois (I can't link to it yet -- it won't be available on the web until next month) suggests that lots of "smaller" plans work better than one large one, and there is some validity in that view, in my mind.<br /><br />The one difference with the grand West Bench plan is that virtually all of the land is held by one owner who is planning it as well, and has started development.  This may make it more likely that the "vision" of a grand plan can be acheived.  But even then, it will take many years for an areas of this size to build out, and in all likelihood the plan will change several times before then as conditions change and new ideas come about.<br /><br />Still, it's got to be one heck of a ride for the Salt Lake County planners and residents who are working on it.  Good luck, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the process.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/115166972578320092/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11861532&postID=115166972578320092";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115166972578320092";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default/115166972578320092";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/2006/06/now-thats-plan.html";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"11";}}}s:7:"channel";a:14:{s:2:"id";s:34:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11861532";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2019-01-08T01:49:01.034-08:00";s:5:"title";s:21:"Utah Planners' Corner";s:8:"subtitle";s:119:"A Utah planner's musings about planning in Utah, planning in general, and the growth and development of our communities";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:58:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default";s:9:"link_self";s:60:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default?alt=atom";s:4:"link";s:39:"http://utahplannerscorner.blogspot.com/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:90:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11861532/posts/default?alt=atom&start-index=26&max-results=25";s:11:"author_name";s:4:"Wilf";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/03520519333540861663";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"265";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:70:"W/"a14b1cce5c8a71fd99d505212717dd8a2494ab71098c3b632c0246b6693e6718"
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:49:01 GMT
";}