It has been a long protracted process to bring us to this point regarding Dakota Pacific’s proposal to build their project at the Tech Center. It is clear the Summit County Council has expended great effort to give this project due consideration.
At the final public hearing regarding the Tech Center proposal, on March 8, Dakota Pacific representative Marc Stanworth was allowed to speak for longer than the three minutes given to the general public. Furthermore, despite Chair Armstrong’s request to the public to refrain from speaking if they had nothing new to say, Mr. Stanworth was allowed to revisit his previous assertions.
He also had the audacity to contradict his previous statements at a Feb. 15 work session where he clearly stated that Dakota Pacific’s lobbyist helped craft S.B. 84 and the company supported it. Furthermore, Mr. Stanworth insulted the Summit County citizens in attendance by stating the public is mostly uninformed and is acting out of emotion rather than factual evidence. As is evidenced by the intelligent and well-reasoned comments at both public hearings, this is simply not true.
The Council is determined to finalize a decision on March 15. At the March 8 public hearing, Chair Armstrong noted that two principals from Dakota Pacific will be out of the country on that date and they requested a postponement of the decision. This is very characteristic of the arrogance and disregard of the process Dakota Pacific has demonstrated since the beginning.
There are many well documented reasons the County Council should refuse to grant the zoning change required to build the proposed development. The overwhelming public opposition to the project alone should influence the council to deny the application.
In addition to the council heeding the will of the people, it should carefully consider the many disastrous consequences that would be triggered by approval of the zoning change and resulting development. It will set a dangerous precedent. Any landowner whose property cannot be developed due to current zoning could ask for similar concessions. Once an exception is made for Dakota Pacific, how will the council justify denying future requests?
Council approval would also likely eliminate any chance the county has to mount a legal challenge to S.B. 84. This bill left unchallenged allows developers to build projects in certain circumstances without county approval. This bill cannot be allowed to stand, or a tsunami of development will change our county forever.
Council approval of Dakota Pacific’s application could even have a detrimental effect on future open land acquisitions. Much of the open space acquired by Summit County since the 1990s has been farm or ranch land. This process has been a partnership between the county, farming/ranching families, and various open space advocates and agencies. If this land could easily be rezoned for high-density residential and commercial, the properties would be much more valuable and thus more difficult and costly for the county to set aside.
On the Summit County website, the council’s responsibility is to “enact ordinances that affect the general health, safety, and welfare of Summit County citizens.” I maintain that Dakota Pacific’s requested zoning change and subsequent development runs counter to these responsibilities.
We, the citizens of Summit County, elected you to safeguard our community. This includes voting no on this project and mounting a legal challenge to S.B. 84 and any other bills passed by the Utah legislature that take away local control.
This is your moment. This is your chance to show the citizens of this county, the soulless developers, and the scheming Utah Legislature that Summit County will determine its own future. Please do not fail us now.