Monday, September 25, 2006

Positive Developments At Salt Lake County

Members of the Salt Lake County Council have started catching flak over standing up to North Salt Lake. They're being asked why they're taking Salt Lake City's side over North Salt Lake. We all know what's being implied here. Mormon/Non- Mormon, Conservative/Liberal. NSL is trying to play every card but the good public policy card. Because they don't have it. I'm just extremely glad that FINALLY the County Council is standing up for Salt Lake City.

12 Comments:

Blogger Silus Grok said...

Hey Ethan... a little background? I'm not familiar with any 'spute.

9/26/2006 07:20:00 AM  
Blogger Shawn said...

Pardon my cynicism, but do you think this may have anything to do with the fact that a County Councilor is running for SLC Mayor?

9/26/2006 08:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Salt Lake City wants the open space so bad, they should just buy the land from North Salt Lake at some mediated value.

9/26/2006 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Natalie said...

Amen, anonymous.

Free the NSL 80!

9/26/2006 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger Former Centerville Citizen said...

I still find it odd that Rocky was OK with letting Mount Olivet's 13 acres be developed as something other than cemetery space (when SLC needs every acre of cemetery space it has for the future), but he's insisted that NSL's property remain undeveloped.

I'd like to hear Rocky explain himself on that one.

9/26/2006 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger Shawn said...

Mount Olivet is surrounded by development on all sides and is does not contain any trailheads.

9/27/2006 07:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just develop the land, i don't understand why land issues are such a big issue Utah.

I mean if someone wants to develop something, whats the harm.

I see nothing wrong with the development of property in NSL or in Moab..why does rocky and these nut cases from SWUA get all up in arms about.

it's land people its no big deal and there is plenty of it to be developed.

As an east coaster whose out here i find ur views so provincial..in new england we buy land and build on it..hense improving it..whats the big deal.

9/27/2006 08:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just develop the land, i don't understand why land issues are such a big issue Utah.

I mean if someone wants to develop something, whats the harm.

I see nothing wrong with the development of property in NSL or in Moab..why does rocky and these nut cases from SWUA get all up in arms about.

it's land people its no big deal and there is plenty of it to be developed.

As an east coaster whose out here i find ur views so provincial..in new england we buy land and build on it..hense improving it..whats the big deal.

9/27/2006 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger Former Centerville Citizen said...

Wow Shawn, just like Rocky, you've missed the point.

The Mount Olivet property was deeded from the federal government under the explicit provision that it be used as cemetery space. It doesn't matter how "developed" the area is around it. What does matter is that SLC has as much burial space as possible for the future.

Unfortunately the Mount Olivet debate has been too bogged down with people arguing over open space, how well Rowland Hall-St. Mark's would develop the property, and Mount Olivet's poor financial shape. But like I said, the most important issue is CEMETERY space.

And there could be a much better option. Mount Olivet could lease the 13 acres (just as they leased the land to the SL school district for East High's football stadium). It's a win-win situation; Mount Olivet gets the additional revenue it needs, but it keeps the property for future use as burial space.

9/27/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger brett said...

Dear anonymous development proponent:
As a Bountiful resident who loves the Bonneville Shoreline trail as it is, I can say that building McMansions there will not "improve" the area. It will ruin it!
What your east coast sensibilities seem to overlook is that there are people (both here and on the east coast) believe that private development for private individuals must be balanced with protection of areas so beautiful they belong to everyone. We are not "nutcases" but take our inspiration from people like John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, and other who believing in protecting beautiful areas for future generations to enjoy. Besides, I believe that there is enough development on the East Bench between NSL and SLC that requires a balance of open space.

9/27/2006 10:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former Centerville resident - I think you have some bad information about the Mt. Olivet property. The decision to sell Mt. Olivet property was the owner's not the mayor's. Mt. Olivet is a private cemetery that feels it has enough real estate for burial purposes without that piece of property. Their desire to sell is so that they will have an endowment (money in the bank) to maintain their existing cemetery for perpetuity. The property was going to be sold - period. Salt Lake does not own the property and they have no right to demand that Mt. Olivet keep it for cemetery space.

The only way Salt Lake City could have forced that property to be "green space" was to buy it and then fund the landscaping and ongoing maintenance of the property. Salt Lake just didn't want that financial commitment.

The land by North Salt Lake is left "natural". Not much maintenance there. But the property on Sunnyside is a weed patch and most residents would not like it to remain an eyesore. It would be expensive for SLC.

9/27/2006 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Former Centerville Citizen said...

Anonymous-

The land is owned privately, but when the U.S. government deeded the property to the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association, part of the agreement was that if it wasn't used as cemetery space, it would revert back to the U.S. government.

In the early 1990s Congress voted to allow Mount Olivet to lease the portion that is being used for East High's football stadium, but not to sell any property.

Congress could still decide to maintain the provision, which would mean that Mount Olivet couldn't sell the property to anyone.

The cemetery association may claim that the sale of this property will give them what they need to stay in the black for several decades, but remember, they did recieve 1.5 million for the stadium lease less than 15 years ago, and they're already in the red.

And Mount Olivet claims that they'll have burial spaces to sell for the next 90 years even if they sell the 13 acres to RHSM, but I wouldn't be so sure. When SLC's municipal cemetery is sold out by 2020, that will probably greatly increase the demand for plots at Mount Olivet. And don't forget about all of the aging baby-boomers.

The bottom line is, the land should be reserved for cemetery space, by either staying vacant or being temporarily leased for something else until it's needed for burial plots. It was publicly owned, and it was given to a private association because the association agreed that the land would be preserved as burial space for the public. If it is sold, the citizens of SLC lose needed burial space, and the U.S. Government (and by default American citizens) is shafted out of a few million dollars that could have been made had the U.S. kept the land and sold it now.

9/27/2006 04:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home