Comments about ‘Clearfield balking at UTA plan’

I attended that meeting and am aware of previous TUA proposals. This third proposal was basically putting window dressing on the previous porpossals. UTA, and the developors they have used in the past do not seem be really listening to Clfd leaders and residents! Cleafifeld cannnot absorb more rental units! I sure hope UTA is telling the truth when they say they will work with Clearfield as a full partner but, their track record does not lend confidence to their words.

Dropping a population, the size of West Point, onto a 70-acre parcel within Clearfield is ridiculous. Forty-five percent of the city's residents already live in rentals, and it's killing the place. Come on UTA. Come up with something workable!

I am embarrassed by Don Wood and the city for balking at this deal. Cleafield's leaders just do not want any additional apartments in the city. They want a retail development. But it is difficult to count all of the vacant business sites between Roy and Kaysville on the "old highway" because there are so many. And Cleafield already has their fair share. And there are more than enough pawn shops, used car delerships, lingerie shops and tatoo parlors in Clearfield. At least the apartments would be occupied and provide the city with a revenue stream. UTA should just leave it vacant for a year or two just to teach Cleafield leaders a lesson.

anything thats good and might make clearfield better will never happen. the city has a history of failing.

I like how Clearfield wants to require 3 churches in this proposal. Isn't it up to the religion if they want to build a church there.

Message to UTA: Get out of the Real Estate business and get back to transporation; before you comletely ruin the Real Estate business just like you have ruuined your transit business with prices that people cannot afford to pay.

New Clearfield residents can receive an education online and spiritual guidance from home, through TV or the Internet instead of brick-and-mortor facilities. And they can stay fit by playing Wii. Let the development commence!

The city is doing their best to give the residents what they want. Recent surveys have revealed that residents do not want more rentals, they want more retail. Because Mayor Wood is aware of this he and the city council have turned down UTA's proposal 3 times now. The LARGEST TOD in the nation is in Seattle, 3 million people, total space 30 acres. UTA's proposal, Clearfield, 30,000 people, total space 70 acres. Most TOD's in the nation are between 10-20 acres NOT 70. It's not the city who needs to get a clue, UTA needs to do their homework. One post already mentioned that we would be putting the population equivalent of West Point into the heart of Clearfield. That will necessitate the need for more city resources, police and fire to name but two. How does the city come up with the extra funding for those resources? If there is little retail businesses to use sales tax revenue from, then the only other source is to raise property taxes, for every resident in Clearfield. UTA does not care who ends up footing the bill, but as a resident I do!

Having lived in Tokyo I find all of the arguments against this laughable at best:

#1 T.O.D. DOES NOT mean live/work/play in the same place. It means that housing, offices, and entertainment are all connected by a convenient transit network. Clearfield could be a residential hub and Farmington can be the entertainment hub. You don't need 5 schools and 3 churches IN CLEARFIELD, you just need them at one of the other Frontrunner stops. In Tokyo, this would be Asakusabashi.

#2 This development is obvisouly vertical in nature and would provide a huge jump start to Main street. and surrounding areas.

#3 Clearfield could negotiate tax revenue sharing with Farmington and Ogden since they are agreeing to be the housing hub.

#4 We are not farmville anymore. You cannot keep applying the master equation of 1 church per X number of people in an area. We have to start thinking in terms of 20 minute walk = 5 minute walk + 10 minute transit + 5 minute walk.

Neo Tokyo, the idea that 10,000 people would all live in Centerville but do all of their shopping/entertainment spending in Farmington is exactly the problem that Centerville is trying to address. In the situation you describe, Centerville has all of the burden of supplying city services to the residents, but receives none of the financial benefits from sales tax revenue generated by those residents.

Good luck negotiating "Tax Sharing". Farmington and Ogden have no vested interest in such an arrangment, and no way to track what Centerville's share would be even if they did.

Why do we have to have transit?

What's wrong with having work, housing, church, school, medical, and retail all within walking distance? That's how America was before urban planning and zoning.

We don't need TOD - we need a lot fewer urban planners.

If you are confused between Centerville and Clearfield, you probably don't know enough about the subject. Centerville is about 15 miles South and has no hub.

Since when has UTA become a licensed developer and land speculator? What UTA has done is bypassed where Clearfield needs TRAX to develop land they purchased. This was their devious plans all along, and not to aid Clearfield's need, just give them more financial problems.

It's very disturbing to me that UTA is an all in one self serving and corrupt department.

Why didn't UTA just run the trains closer to the existing town? This is like the state coming in and telling a small town how they are to develop.

UTA is forcing higher taxes on existing citizens so they can develop as they see fit. This is all wrong and I hope that Clearfield tells them to take a walk and move the tracks to where they will do some good. This is a major hardship on a small town and the City Council has every right to deny UTA and do their own developing.

The state should be investigating the misuse, abuse, and fraud of tax funds UTA is getting. All they should be allowed to do is buy right of way, not develop and build cities as they go.

What is UTA doing in housing? Get them back to dealing with transportation only. That is their mandate. If they excess let them give it back to the public from which they took resources to get it in the first place.

Why does our legislature not get involved here. UTA is getting involved in something they shouldn't.

Go to work and make our roads safe and sufficient UTA!

How does the city pay for the civic services fire, police and parks from a new development? They’re called impact fees! I am sure you have them Clearfield that is what they are for. And I’ll bet they’re 3-4,000 per unit. But wait I’ll bet they’re not using them for civic services but rather the vast number of salaried administration positions, oh that’s right.
Schools, hey by law that is not the land owners responsibility nor is it the city's, turn your head and look straight into the school districts face for that answer. Or are they hiding behind you because they cannot afford it due to their bloated administration costs as well.
Retail! Bring the people first then you will get the retail. Or did your math class forget that lesson Mayor.
Get your act together and stop stripping property rights with your misguided rationale, its unbecoming Mayor.

For the record I agree with Planned Corruption, my post is in now way a show of support for UTA.

Just look at UTA's proposed development at the Midvale TRAX stop at 7800 South. It looks like bombed out WWII site. They think they are great developers - but NOT.

UTA never has and never will listen to anyone. It's their culture to believe they're better than anyone and have led-on many a company and city over their history. In their minds they answer to nobody. Stick it to 'em mayor and city council.

It is good that the city knows what their residents want (not a lot off additional rental units) and elected officals are trying to follow their wishes. I would assume these are reflected in the city's master plan as well.

One thing that is recognized by many cities and has been documented is that residentional development usually does not pay for itself tax-wise. You either have to have a proper industrial/business tax base, higher taxes to take care of area needs (even special districts) or somehow supplemented by services shared by the community. Certainly they will have the needs (police, fire, parks, recreation, open space, libraries, courts, libraries, water, sewer etc.) that other communities need.

Congratulations to the communit to requiring devolopment to include the costs for what they "cause" instead of asking current residents to subsidize the developers. Most places have some guidelines, such as acres of parks and recreation per 100 population.

I really wish Draper City had the guts to tell UTA no, but I guess the Clearfield officials didn't get as much in their personal stockings from UTA so they said no until they get a better bribe, at least that's what happened in Draper. UTA is the biggest racket in the state, nobody seems to have the guts to oppose them in anything regardless if they lie about ridership or anything else to make themselves look viable. Good for Clearfield, tell UTA to stick it!