Many concerns have been expressed towards the Dakota Pacific project, most using strong/expressive words to support opinions (disastrous, massive, critical, threat, radically deficient, etc.) and some going as far as accusing the Summit County council of being “in the developer’s back pocket.” While we should address the concerns, we should try to approach it from a “how can we improve the outcome” and benefit many who live (or will be given the opportunity to live) in the community while minimizing the drawbacks. What is an acceptable compromise? 

There are benefits to the project as well as some concerns that may not be material when looking at the big picture. Following are a few that appear to be hot spots in discussions: 

Because we live in such a desirable / beautiful place, there will be continued development and growth in Park City. To say “no growth” is not an option and not fair to those who want to work AND live in the area. Controlled/managed growth is key and development that caters to all (multi-million dollar homes down to those who wish to live in apartments and affordable housing). Looking at current home prices today and the makeup of most of the housing in the area, less expensive high density housing is an opportunity to help bring housing back into balance.

If we can agree that many who want to live in the area can not due to the high housing costs, less expensive high-density housing can help move the needle in the right direction. The question is, where is the best location for high-density housing? In most metropolitan areas, high density housing is located near transit hubs and shopping areas that are within walking distance, which reduces the need to drive (same for hotels). Kimball Junction is the perfect location with a transit hub and all amenities within walking distance. If located on the fringes of Park City, people would need to drive to get to their destinations, creating more traffic congestion.

Traffic is currently a problem on S.R. 224 during the ski season and with no changes, will only get worse. Fortunately, we have bus services and there is a plan to put a dedicated bus lane on 224, which will reduce some of the bus issues we have now. Also, it is just a matter of time before all parking at ski areas will be paid parking.  The traffic has decreased considerably between Canyons and Park City Mountain resort as a result of the paid parking at PCM and the same will most likely occur when paid parking is implemented at Canyons and Deer Valley. If a traffic study is performed, these changes should be factored in. The outcome may be to put in additional parking in Kimball Junction, Ecker Hill, Jeremy and/or improve busing from Richardson Flats. All of this could be implemented before the Dakota Pacific project is completed.

Assuming the Olympics come to Utah in 2030, this will have a big impact (much bigger than Dakota Pacific) and infrastructure will be put in place (including at Kimball Junction) to manage the event and influx of people. This will also help accommodate the impact from Dakota Pacific.

Point is, let’s not attack each other if you are for or against the Dakota Pacific project. Let’s look at the project objectively, factor in the benefits as well as solutions to minimize the drawbacks, exclude the emotion, and keep an open mind.  

While there will undoubtedly be some drawbacks to implementing the Dakota Pacific project, there could be a net benefit to the community if we all work together.

The post Guest Editorial: We can make Dakota Pacific work appeared first on Park Record.