I first stepped foot in Park City during an Air Force squadron trip almost 20 years ago. Since that time, calling Park City my home has been a dream. Although I had to put this dream on hold to serve out my military commitment, my family and I can now call ourselves residents of this amazing community.
We have settled in Park City Heights — one of the community’s most family-friendly neighborhoods. I recently spoke at a City Council meeting for the first time, compelled by the proposed location of the Clark Ranch housing project directly adjacent to our neighborhood.
Before diving into the details, I want to address a troubling narrative that has emerged: the suggestion that residents of Park City Heights are somehow opposed to affordable housing.
Let me be perfectly clear — nothing could be farther from the truth. We support affordable housing. We believe it is essential for the sustainability and inclusivity of our community. But we also believe that how and where we build matters. Reducing thoughtful input to “NIMBYism” is not only dismissive — it’s unkind and unproductive.
One principle I’ve tried to live by — both in military service and in civic life — is that it’s not enough to identify problems. You must also propose solutions. And when it comes to Clark Ranch, the problem and the solution are both abundantly clear.
The city owns roughly 300 acres at Clark Ranch. The current proposal calls for building 210 units — 160 of them affordable — on a steep 10-acre parcel west of U.S. 40. This site presents significant engineering challenges, as outlined in the city’s own feasibility study. It’s not only one of the most difficult parts of the property to develop, it’s also one of the most expensive.
The feasibility study estimated $1.3 million for frontage road improvements and $8.6 million more for streets, utilities, and retaining walls. Since then, new estimates suggest that the frontage road alone could cost $5 million or more. All before a single foundation is poured.
And for what? 200 or more units on 10 difficult acres. Compare that to the Engine House project, which will deliver 100 affordable units on just 1.8 acres for less than $100,000 per unit in public cost. Or the Studio Crossing project, which will provide 200 affordable units at zero cost to the city. In this context, the current Clark Ranch proposal is fiscally unsound and unnecessarily complex.
Worse yet, the feasibility study used to justify the hillside location explicitly limited its scope to the western portion of the property. It never considered the nearly 150 flat, developable acres on the east side of Highway 40 — land that is not constrained by steep slope ordinances or costly infrastructure demands. If this were your private land, it’s unlikely the city would permit you to build on the hillside. Why are we holding ourselves to a lower standard?
This isn’t about saying, “Don’t build it.” It’s about saying, “Build it smarter.” Move the project just 500 feet east. Build the housing we need today on 4 acres and preserve 6 flat acres for future needs. Save millions in taxpayer dollars. Deliver more units, faster, with less environmental and financial impact.
Jeff Iannaccone
Park City