Holladay residents launch referendum petition to block old Cottonwood Mall housing development

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • quackquack Park City, UT
    June 27, 2018 9:36 a.m.

    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 prejudice.

  • banliberals Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:27 p.m.

    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!

  • SLC-UT Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:15 a.m.

    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.”

  • Truth2017 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 25, 2018 9:31 a.m.

    looks like (from photos) the site is already levelled. My son and my daughter could really benefit from reasonably priced housing.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 25, 2018 9:18 a.m.

    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 proposal.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 25, 2018 7:57 a.m.

    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.

  • DGA28 Monticello, UT
    June 24, 2018 6:55 p.m.

    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 folks!!!!

  • 1Observer Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2018 1:55 p.m.

    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 the market.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2018 11:43 a.m.

    @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."

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2018 11:28 a.m.

    "...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.

  • NeilT Ogden, UT
    June 24, 2018 9:08 a.m.

    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.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2018 8:54 a.m.

    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.

  • PeakBagger1 Heber City, UT
    June 24, 2018 7:32 a.m.

    They don’t want “sprawl” and they want high density; just not in their back yards. Someone else’ back yard is dandy.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2018 6:23 a.m.

    NIMBY

  • Hustler Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2018 5:47 a.m.

    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.

  • ddub SLC, UT
    June 24, 2018 12:51 a.m.

    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.

  • ofer4 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2018 10:50 p.m.

    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.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    June 23, 2018 9:20 p.m.

    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!

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 23, 2018 8:09 p.m.

    More housing, more parking, more more more. Buy big, consume huge.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2018 7:36 p.m.

    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.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    June 23, 2018 7:07 p.m.

    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 compromise somewhere.

  • Wyoming Jake Casper, WY
    June 23, 2018 4:57 p.m.

    A greenbelt or park would be more satisfying to locals but not to the owners of the project.

  • Magicburro Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2018 4:41 p.m.

    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.

  • thebig1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2018 4:33 p.m.

    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