I live in Bluffdale, and for years I supported the idea that Bluffdale remain
rural. However, it is virtually impossible to keep up the farming community it
once was with such close vicinity to more developed cities. Bluffdale remains
rural only in population according to the Census Bureau, and that is likely to
change in the near future. If we wanted to keep the city rural, why did we
allow Springiew Farms? other developments? There's just no way to keep the city
rural when we're so close to urbanized cities. Plus, what harm could a train
stop do? I disagree whole-heartedly with the council's decision. This could
have been a good thing for Bluffdale.
Bravo Bluffdale!Bravo, for saying no to the UTA juggernaught of 19th
century trains. And, Bravo for thinking about what is best for your
citizens and not just going with the flow of most of the cities along I-15 and
West Valley. They demand these trains, even though a 1996 Federal Congressional
resolution once characterized light rail and commuter rail projects as
"expensive civic window dressing". The only other city to say NO! to
UTA was Sandy, back in 1998, when it told UTA it would not contribute toward a
study of putting TRAX up 94th South. Stick to your guns, Bluffdale!
Bluffdale does not want stores, gas stations, or train stops. They want citizens
from other cities to pay for their right to be a rural heaven. I say no more
money to Bluffdale for streets and schools from other entities. Let them build
their own school district and support their own life style. Bluffdle should be a
The Bluffdale time warp continues. Maybe the next big earthquake will clean up
the hamlet of bluffdale. No wait the city council will just vote to rebuild as a
separatist nation! Enjoy driving your suburbans and pulling your horse trailers
in congested traffic outside of Bluffdale!
I would imagine a number of Bluffdale residents commute to either Orem/Provo or
Salt Lake. I would think that a commuter rail stop would be supported by a
majority of their residents and council. However, it appears they do not. My
summation then would be that they might support a 12 foot wall surrounding the
Along the Wasatch Front the rural lifestyle is dying off. There is no way it
can persist in such explosive growth and land values. If you want rural then
move further away, as all the bigger farmers have done. They've been able to
make a bunch of money by selling their land, which has allowed them to buy
similar farms further away, plus have the capital to invest in better machinery
and a better home. To turn down something like a rail stop is just plain silly.
Thinking of the quality of resident it would bring to the area makes me think
of my family outside NYC, living in a $700k home in a quiet suburb just a 45 min
train ride to the big city. Get a clue and join the future, don't die in the
If Bluffdale doesn't want a rail stop, I'm OK with that. I will not be boarding
or departing the train in Bluffdale, so their decision will save me a few
minutes on each ride and save UTA some cash. We should all enthusiastically
applaud their decision. Bluffdale would be an origin, not a destination stop,
so the council's decision will harm the city's residents, but no one else.
Now come on Jeff, if the people in Bluffdale just keep their head in the sands,
the growth is going to magically pass them by, NOT!!
Bluffdale, wipe the pasture mud off your glasses! You want to maintain the rural
nature of your city in a county of 1.3 million people that is expected to grow
to over 2 million in the coming decade or so. Wow, go ask Midvale that in
hindsight if they would have allowed the interchange on 1-15 at 78th south 40
years ago. Their decision to not allow it eventually killed their downtown when
that is what they thought they were protecting. Your council is being blind and
naive about what is coming to your city's doorstep in the next 10 to 15 years.
The funny thing is that these people will call this leadership.