My first summertime visit to Park City was many years ago. I had come to Salt Lake City from out of state for work and had some time before my flight. My drive around Park City that beautiful summer evening was peaceful and quiet. I had dinner at Davanza’s in Old Town. Fantastic.
For many years back then, the Park City government struggled to grow the area into a resort community with abundant winter skiers and enough visitors in the summer months. The government encouraged construction by willing land developers, and it subsidized innumerable special events (think: lacrosse and softball tournaments involving hundreds of teams and thousands of participants from distant lands).
Park City government’s path was decidedly pro-growth. Maybe for good reason at that time. But that approach ultimately has been too successful.
Park City is now suffering from overcrowding, too much traffic, too many cars, and a preoccupation with more building density and housing. It is time to substantially dial back on that stimulus.
We are lucky to have two mayoral candidates with markedly different visions for the future of our town. In particular, the two candidates for mayor offer different views on whether that economic stimulation should be dialed back.
One candidate, Ryan Dickey, is a Realtor. His Realtor income benefits from growth and strong tourism. He supports city governments pushing growth and has a strong financial incentive not to dial back the local economic stimulus.
I don’t think it is a leap to believe that as a Realtor, Mr. Dickey has friends and colleagues who are Realtors, property managers, contactors and developers. Those folks are very much pro development and pro special events that put heads in beds, in the local vernacular.
There may be personal financial incentive driving Mr. Dickey as well as real estate community pressure on him to keep the tourism spigot wide open. As a voter, if you want more density, more special events, more development, less open space and more traffic, Ryan Dickey looks to be your man.
The other mayoral candidate, Jack Rubin, is not generally in favor of more density or more special events. He is in favor of preserving open space, reducing traffic, finding ways for the resorts to pay a greater share of the cost to our town of their operations, and diminishing wasteful city spending.
He is opposed to the wildly impractical and extravagant Clark Ranch development (near Quinn Junction). I think it’s accurate to say that he is shocked and dismayed at the hulking, glowering look of the EngineHouse high-density construction (the state bureau of prisons has called to ask who our architect was).
He is open to the idea of Bonanza Park becoming a park for all of Park City residents to enjoy. If you are in favor of preserving open space, reduced traffic, more careful stewardship of taxpayer funds, Jack Rubin looks to be the better fit.
I want to touch on a final consideration in comparing the two candidates for the mayor’s office. Preparation for the 2034 Olympics will likely test the most energetic, skilled and experienced Park City mayor.
In the current contest for mayor between a real estate agent and a candidate with decades of management experience, it seems pretty clear which of the two candidates is the more qualified and would likely better represent the city.
This is a consequential election. Circumstances have changed for Park City. The city’s direction should reflect this new reality.
Jeff Owen
Park City