@truth2017I currently do not live in Holladay but I grew up in
Holladay and I have an office near the proposed development. I know for a fact
Romney and Ivory are ok with it because they both live very near the proposed
spot. Romney lives half a mile away on Walker Lane and Ivory lives in Millcreek.
We need the density to accommodate the masses who want to live in Salt Lake.
Higher density housing makes it more feasible to serve the neighborhood with
public transit and cut down on the number of cars on the road. The main air
pollution source in Salt Lake County is autos. Dispersing the same amount of
housing over several square miles would increase the number of vehicles and air
pollution as well as traffic congestion. Population in Utah will continue to
grow, and the healthiest and most efficient way to provide housing is by
building up, not out.
Per the artist's renderings: Note that those trees are 15 years tall, and
they don't blossom all year. That density is just way too
much. It's definitely not immoral to defend and maintain your quality of
life. As Utah grows, it will need to start new communities and not just build
upward (90 feet in this case). The environmental cost of building in desert is
so close to zero; this is a responsible place to expand.
After reading the 10 posts or so here, not a one is from Holladay! I guess the
developers have a point.......I hope these groups get the pants sued off them!
There is nothing wrong with Progress.........the revenue lost from these
Liberals hurts Holladay and its residents!MHGA!Make
Holladay Great Again!
During the first dozen years or so that Cottonwood Mall was in business, before
Fashion Place,there were hundreds of cars going in and out of this
property every day, and twice that on Saturdays.Get rid of the 74 luxury
homes; initiate a Holladay shuttle bus system that connects this neighborhood
with the rest of town, lease out the space for local neighborhood shops, so as
not to create a regional attraction, limit commercial parking, allow one
residential permit per unit, and lobby for increased bus service in the best
It is high time for people to give up on the extremist anti development stance.
We need more development to drive down housing prices.
@neadTownhomes in midvale are going for low 300’s to low
400’s. That is not exactly affordable for high density housing.Developers are just being greedy.
Holladay is one of the better places to live in Utah. Ask romney and ivory if
you are unsure. I am not sure how they would feel about high density housing
next to their mansions in the olympus cove, but for the people who live near the
old mall its great right? high density housing is like theft. it steals
the quality of life and equity from existing home owners. All future costs
arising from the negative consequences will be paid in higher taxes by the
citizens. Its time all high density developments be voted on by the people
of the community. Do we really want this, or is it just a way to make
developers rich? Let the people decide.
Its good to see the people stand up to developers. Its good for the people to
have a voice and a vote on issues that affect their quality of life. Its wrong
for the developer to unleash lawyers on people who do not want this project.Most people who are from here are familar with the camel in the tent story.Its not immoral to fight to stop developers from packing high density housing
into a community that does not want it. Cities that spurn high density will
continue to be the best places to live now and in the future.
@Rikitikitavi... The homes on this site are intended to sell for $1 million+.
Don't hold your breath.
My son rents a basement in a small Sugar House home. It's going on the
market for just shy of 400K. No chance he can buy the house. Maybe the proposed
Cottonwood project finally makes home ownership a reality.Same goes for my
daughter in Sandy.
@ofer4 - Salt Lake City, UTIt looks like reporter Jasen Lee needs to do a
little research and write a follow-up. We assume that journalists don't
take statements at face value.So Jasen, did Ivory ask for and get a
zoning change?And, is such a referendum binding on the project?And while you're at it, do these challenges to the petition have
any validity?Let's hope for a clarification after the holiday.
@Say No... This is where Ivory is just wrong. The city DID change the zoning
for this site, which was the whole point of the discussion. If it was just
approving a plan within the existing zoning, the City Council would not have
needed to be involved. It could have just been handled by the Planning
Commission. Ivory and Woodbury were asking the city to change the zoning, which
was made abundantly clear during all of the hearings and meetings. And the referendum would negate the vote. It is, in fact, binding. Of
course, nothing prevents the City Council from voting on a largely similar plan
thereafter, which would start this whole process over again. My own hope is
that the referendum forces the developers to reduce the density. Then I hope
that they do proceed with the lower-density plan and get on with life. :)
Always check your premise.It is hilarious to think the Holladay has
a monolithic character and charm to begin with. Rome it ain't.How does a project violate something that doesn't exist?The
project is a vast improvement over the eyesore there now.What
citizens ought to watch out for are sweetheart deals in the form of cash and tax
breaks to the developer. They should pay full price for the necessary
infrastructure improvements needed.By the way, from the rendering it
looks like they are going for a "Touch of Paris," plaza knock-off.
The lesson for municipalities and developers is for municipalities to get their
code and zoning straight without regard to individual developments and for
developers to develop within the code and zoning. That way most everything is
just administrative and not referable. Referendums are getting out of hand!!
Here's my unpopular opinion: arguments against increased density in the SL
Valley are immoral. Housing is pushing into the unaffordable range for many
people, so we need more housing stock. Building farther and farther from the
population and commercial centers is environmentally irresponsible. So a fight
against density-increasing development is either a fight for a higher cost of
living for the financially vulnerable or a fight for worse air; or both.
Holliday can't use more property tax revenue and sales tax revenue. Only
thing that would guarantee a successful development is walkable open space in
the development and flow through mass transit ability.
The lawyers have a point. If the city doesn't need to change the zoning or
grant significant waivers, then Ivory has property rights here.But
the question on the ballot is advisory, not binding. It is little more than an
approval poll or a "message bill" our legislature is famous for.Bringing out the lawyers is overkill here. Disclaimer: I
never did like Cottonwood Mall. My dentist had his office there when I was a