Opposition to new housing development will always be met with animosity. Locals
will always complain about traffic, pressure on existing infrastructure and
services, reduced environmental amenity ect ect.But this
couldn't be further from the truth. New homes and new development, the
exact same ones these local have moved into have increased the values of homes,
increase quality of life and increased tax revenue. Multiple case
studies have been done on adding multi unit housing to suburban areas and the the results show positive impact on the city and surrounding cities. Yes their will be more traffic but that's inevitable, Utah is
growing regardless of a new development or not unless you do not leave your
local neighborhood their will be more traffic. .The attitude of "not in my
back yard" meanwhile locals reap the benefits of a robust economy due to the
surrounding cities growth is plain and simple entitlement bordering on
Riddle me this Batman........you have every lib in the state against
this project for a myriad of reasons.........Enviro, traffic, profit,
subsidies......Yet everyone of these libs support illegal
Immigration which creates a far greater impact on our taxes, wages, traffic,
MS-13, enviro, subsidies, drains on our healthcare, education........The libs have lost their collective.......Its like they are resuming as the
Democratic Confederates of their fathers!
Several people who are replying to this don’t live in Holladay and are
making assumptions ... such as we don’t have apartments and should ...
Holladay has apartments - many complexes! Including subsidized
housing and yes refugees live here. And 3 or 4 new apartments so yes “high
density” built near Sprouts. Thank YOU “ofer4”!!
For bringing to the discussion FACTS and some of the important issues ....“the vote by the City Council was to *change the law*, not to just
approve/disapprove of some apartments. The developers could have built on the
site any time in the last decade, with no vote required, if they wanted to build
within the existing zoning law. “Furthermore, property rights
arguments tend to fall apart when the tax-increment financing comes into play.
... if taxpayer dollars are being used for the mall site project, I don't
see any problem with them having input on the plan.”
high density housing only benefits developers. Once the development is
completed, increased traffic, less green space, more crime, noise, pollution
etc. inevitably, taxes must be raised on everyone to improve the
infrastructure for all of the new traffic. high density housing often houses
lower income and more transient people. Thus, more resources are often required
for the schools, hence more taxes needed. In short high density housing
is theft. It often lowers housing values in surrounding areas and lowers the
quality of life for those in the community while increasing taxes. Holladay would be better off focusing on maintaing the high standard of living
that residents there enjoy. Cities that shun high density will be the most
desired living spaces in the future. Affordable housing is also a scam.
Building lots of apartments seldom allow anyone to build equity and own a home.
they do however benefit developers and apartment complex owners.We can
manage growth much better than whats happening now. Now greed seems to be the
sole purpose of unchecked high density developments.
looks like (from photos) the site is already levelled. My son and my daughter
could really benefit from reasonably priced housing.
A small home here could be perfect for my daughter. She is a single Mom and
would love this development. My single son could likewise benefit from this
So it makes such good sense to saddle the property owner with up-keep of a
rather large empty structure surrounded by weeds and decaying, crumbling
concrete and leaking roofs. Not to mention the inevitable broken glass and the
risk of breaking and entering by vandals. Then at some point he'll
have to demolish the empty shell and sell for what the bare property is worth.
How many years will go by until the structure becomes a worse eye-sore everyone
loathes. I clearly remember many shopping hours there but that was decades
ago.Let's all sing NIMBY, nimby, nimby!! And watch those local
tax dollars disappear.
Hey Bret, you have no idea what "rural feel" is. I live in and love the
rural parts of the state. My wife is from Holladay and most of my in-laws still
life there. In the nearly 40 years of going to Holladay it has never had a
rural feel, ever. It is just another mad house community on the Wasatch front
full of people who want to control other people's property. Have fun
High density housing is inevitable in the Salt Lake valley. It is foolish and
short sighted for residents to try to block this development. Once it is built
and people see it for what it is the opposition will fade quickly. If people
want their kids and grandkids to live in the Salt Lake valley they need to
support these types of projects, otherwise their progeny will be priced out of
@Wyoming Jake - "A greenbelt or park would be more satisfying to locals but
not to the owners of the project."That line appears to be the
sentiment of the residents of Holladay; and to me that line is just like a four
year old getting caught playing with his brother's toys; and when told he
may not play with them; he breaks them in a vindictive tantrum with the idea
that if he can't play with the toys no one else should be able to
either.Holladay residents sure do appear to be vindictive in their
continually halting any construction on that property over and over. It is as
if they don't want anyone else to use it; if they are not allowed to use
it. The only thing that would appease them is one giant public park. But, they
also refused to pay the money to buy the lot from a private entity, though I
understand they had that opportunity.So, to the residents of
Holladay, I say "go home and play with your own toys."
"...that has more of a rural feel"That line had me Laughing
Out Loud. In my life-time Holladay has never been rural, not even close to
rural. It never felt like it was rural either. Suburban is a closer
description; but definitely not rural.Unless, as I fear, the currant
residents of Holladay actually like seeing a big hole in the middle of their
town and having that open space gives them a sense of "rural." In such
a case they will vindictively attempt to vote down any and every development on
that lot regardless of the type of development.If they are
successful in this petition; it will be the fourth time in 10 years they have
kept the developer from building on that lot.
Utah is fast becoming a state where the lower and even the middle class are
unable to find affordable housing. We are creating a permanent underclass of
homeless and renters. Home ownership was once the American dream. I wonder
how many of those who protest more affordable housing could qualify to purchase
the homes they purchased twenty years ago for a fraction of their market value.
The days of single family homes on large lots are in the past. Utah's
population is growing and there is no way to prevent growth. Either we invest
in housing and transportation or we become a state of have and have nots. We
already have an affordable housing crisis. Why make it worse.
High density development is the constructive answer to urban sprawl, long
commutes with its air pollution/traffic and efficient use of water resources. As
the Salt Lake Valley transitions from a rural to an urban pattern smart
decisions can be made that will allow affordable housing for new families and
environmentally sensitive development. The Cottonwood Mall land should be a
pattern for this change.
They don’t want “sprawl” and they want high density; just not
in their back yards. Someone else’ back yard is dandy.
I object!1- No public park! Could an acre or 2 be set aside for a
beautiful park offsetting the vulgar enrichment of the developers.2- Tax
subsidy is unnecessary for a project that will be profitable on its own merits.
I have zero problems looking at Mt Olympus and the rest of the Wasatch that I
can see as I drive by the site on Highland Drive each day. Tear down the old
Macy’s and let the “weeds” grow. I’d be happy to stare
at an empty 57 acres for many more years.
In regard to the comments by "water rocket"... I sympathize with your
view. None of us would want building decisions on our land made by our
neighborhoods. But what many forget is that the vote by the City
Council was to *change the law*, not to just approve/disapprove of some
apartments. The developers could have built on the site any time in the last
decade, with no vote required, if they wanted to build within the existing
zoning law. If I remodel my home or build anew, I work within the zoning laws.
The decision that was made in the Cottonwood Mall case was to change the law for
the developers (and, in many details, allow things that are not allowed
throughout the rest of the city).Furthermore, property rights
arguments tend to fall apart when the tax-increment financing comes into play.
I don't ask for a fraction of the property tax increase when I remodel my
home. And if taxpayer dollars are being used for the mall site project, I
don't see any problem with them having input on the plan.
While I sympathize with these citizens, it never ceases to amaze me how the
people who do NOT own the property, and have no skin in the game, seem to want
to dictate how property that they don't own should (or should not) be
developed. I always wonder how they would feel if their homes would have never
been built because previous near by residents opposed more people moving into
their neighborhoods. The developers have spent an enormous amount of money and
years trying to come up with a viable use of THEIR land. Here's a thought;
how about the locals pay the land owners for all their costs, expenses, and a
fair and reasonable profit for the land, and then they can let the weeds grow
all they want? Oh wait, that would mean that they would have to sacrifice to
get what they want. Right now they want the land owners to sacrifice so they
can have something for nothing!
More housing, more parking, more more more. Buy big, consume huge.
Holladay residents do not want low income or affordable housing on that spot.
The reality is they need affordable homes, townhomes, and affordable apts. on
the land with some kind of parklike area. Maybe a couple of small businesses.
Traffic? Face it. EVERY community has traffic challenges now. They could have a
bus line to the U pf U area, IMC Medical Center area/trax station, downtown, and
to the south end of the valley to encourage public transportation by whoever
moves in. The wealthy always find a dozen ways to get out of paying their fair
share of taxes so it would be better to have the housing geared more to what
middle and lower-middle-class people could afford. There are lots of good people
out there that would contribute to the neighborhood and city that have more
modest types of incomes. School teachers are one example. EMT's, nurses,
firemen, policemen are some examples. If you gave a little better deal to a few
policemen that could also help keep the city and neighborhood safer.
With the housing shortage and rents out of reach for many, where are people
supposed to go? For those who want continued economic growth, there has to be
A greenbelt or park would be more satisfying to locals but not to the owners of
The Mayor is right, everyone in Holladay demanded that developers build one of
the largest apartment complexes in the state. If they get the signatures and
this goes to a vote, the results will plainly show that the sensible citizens of
Holladay want high rises and high density, and they want the developers to get
most of the tax revenue for the next few decades. It's the best case
scenario for Holladay.
you are right holliday residents, let's leave that spot as it is an old
hunk of weedy field and an old building...get over your petty self's or you
develop it...wait it has been a blight for 20 years and that the way we want
it..that's what I here