Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall
Peak Democracy

Subscribe to Registered Statements from Citizens

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Peak Democracy.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).

Subscribe

Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from citizens

Lynn Hanson inside Council District 1 December 5, 2017, 3:54 PM

I strongly oppose the ADU's. I cannot believe that this city has again introduced another idea that will encourage congestion and blight. Wasn't enabling the homeless problem to grow out of control enough for the children that run this city?? The moronic idea that everyone is going to build a nice little "cottage" that will never deteriorate is absurd.. I have a neighbor who already has about 12 persons living in his single residency as renters and the city acts helpless to address the situation. Do you really believe that someone like that will obey the ADU law?? It is another example of dreamy ideas with no relevance to reality. And then, to compound this disaster, they exempt certain areas because those residents don't want them. I don't want them either but I am in District 1, so dump anything on us and the hell with what we want.

Philip Hallman inside Council District 7 December 5, 2017, 3:51 PM

My name is Phil, I am building a house on Wilson Ave. How can housing be affordable if it takes a year to get a home building plan approved? I have been trying almost that long to get Salt lake to approve my plans, I am using many recycled materials and I get nothing but push back from the city when trying to build a home for less than $50 per foot the city seems hell bent on making the process more expensive and therefore driving up the cost of housing. I should have been pouring concrete in Aug, now it will be January and all the cost are directly related to city involvement. Otherwise the house would be closed in by now. Enforcement even charged me $150 per day for having lumber in my yard for the building prior to Demo! A large portion of cost to build is directly related how easy the city process is. I built a house in Lake Tahoe with 2 states involved and SLC is more difficult.

aaron johnson inside Council District 5 December 5, 2017, 3:41 PM

I am in favor of the ADU proposal. I would like it if the height restrictions were increased to 27 feet for a pitched roof and 24 feet for a flat roof, however.

Name not shown inside Council District 3 December 5, 2017, 1:48 PM

I am an avenues resident who strongly supports ADUs. They should be allowed citywide, including in the avenues and east bench. Growth is inevitable. Increased density is inevitable. Allow property owners the choice to add ADUs to the properties that THEY own. The alternative is to continue the unsustainable sprawl.

Stanley Holmes inside Council District 3 December 5, 2017, 11:18 AM

Public Comment on Growing SLC 5-Year Housing Plan

Dear Salt Lake City Council Members and City Planners,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the "Growing SLC 5-Year Housing Plan".

I appreciate your efforts thus far, but request that you add "Affordable Energy" to your affordable housing objectives for the plan. Salt Lake City municipal government should explore clean energy opportunities for low-income families to reduce their energy bills while also reducing the fossil fuel pollutants that disproportionately affect them.

My review of the "Growing SLC" document and associated staff reports found no mention of on-site clean energy generation. The terms "renewable energy", "clean energy", and "solar panels" do not appear in any of the documents I've read. There is also no reference to LEED certification. This strikes me as a significant policymaking oversight.

Given the praiseworthy 100% renewable energy and 80% carbon emissions reduction goals set by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Biskupski, I am surprised that there apparently have been no clean energy generation initiatives considered for the "Growing SLC 5-Year Housing Plan". I am concerned that low-income communities have been overlooked as potential contributors to the city's Climate Positive aspirations.

Cities like Ft. Collins, Colorado and New York City are demonstrating concern for their economically disadvantaged residents by working with electric utilities [Xcel, Con Edison] on community solar programs intended to give all customers the opportunity to be part of clean energy solutions. Colorado now has seven low-income community solar projects.

Locally, the August 28, 2017 net-metering agreement supported by Rocky Mountain Power and Salt Lake City calls for discussion of "potential options for funding and administering a low-income solar program". The Utah Office of Consumer Services (OCS) will initiate this process soon. Salt Lake City administrators should engage with OCS now to ensure that the best interests of our low-income residents are well-served.

Please take action to ensure that "Affordable Energy" factors involving local, residential renewable energy generation options and requirements are added to the Growing SLC 5-Year Housing Plan development template.

Best wishes in this endeavor.

Stanley T. Holmes
846 N. East Capitol Blvd.
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

Name not shown inside Council District 6 December 5, 2017, 11:06 AM

I drive to work at the University Hospital because there are no options that get me to work at 6:40 am or take me home after 11:45 pm on weekdays. The weekend situation is even more useless. My drive takes 15 minutes and the bus takes 45. Every 15 minutes is the minimum time between busses that is acceptable. UTA does poor planning for commuters that work other than nine to five on weekdays. The University hub as well as the entire system needs to take this into account. I have less problems using public transportation systems in large cities in other parts of the world that do not even use the same alphabet I use.

Marisol Jones inside Council District 2 December 5, 2017, 10:35 AM

I am against this proposal
1 - We purchased a home with a yard with privacy. If our neighbors are allowed to build ADU even with the high limit, the privacy is gone. Reducing the utility of our yard. I see that there is a "30 day notification of proposed ADUs to abutting property owners" but what does that do to keep my neighbor from building anyways?
2 - Not applying this citywide is inequitable. Putting the burden of this on only part of the population when Avenues and East side neighborhoods are also areas of opportunity to add housing near the Universities. Do those neighborhoods not have families with elders that they would like to provide housing to? Why are you denying them this wonderful opportunity?
3 - The city does not enforce current laws regarding property and will not enforce this either. The owner will live on site while it is being built but what happens 5, 10 or 15 years later? The owner moves and then the entire property is rented to multiple people. To echo a previous comment "We also have a NO Air B&B law in this city, but again, look on line and see how many Air B&B's are advertised in SLC and, again, this is against the law! NO ENFORCEMENT!! "
4 - This will not create affordable housing. Why would an owner charge a lower price than what the current market rate is? You are delusional if you think a landlord will out of the goodness of their heart charge lower prices. If you want to build affordable housing, build apartment complexes and require that a percentage must be affordable housing. We have many new apartment building going up. If 10% became affordable that would go much further than adding 25 annual ADU units.
5 - Review the comments, the majority are against this proposal.

Name not shown inside Council District 3 December 5, 2017, 9:32 AM

1. I agree with one of the comments on here about the ambiguity of your wording. What does "affordable"/"safe"/etc. mean? It seems to me that you are proposing a vague plan with some 10,000 ft. view ideals, but actually have no real plan for implementation. Which leads me to...
2. The mention of an anti-discrimination agenda is interesting because we have laws that have already been put into place that address exactly that. So how is it that building more housing will affect that problem directly?
3. This is all to say that this plan seems like a veiled way to allow more developers to come in and build skyscrapers (and maybe do some rent-control for a small percentage of those buildings but really just to allow the buildings to get built). NO ONE who lives downtown wants that. You're congesting the downtown area (have you looked around lately? We are starting to look like L.A.), and causing the cost of living to skyrocket. If you want to do something helpful re: population growth, invest money into building NEIGHBORHOODS (single family homes, townhomes) within 15 minutes of the downtown area (industrial Salt Lake, State Street, Bountiful, North Salt Lake, Rose Park, Marmalade, South Salt Lake, Murray). Focus on distributing the population (that includes homeless and low-income families), rather than centering the problem downtown by building gigantic skyscraping money-makers that, in the long-run, help no one but developers.
** I also agree with some type of tax or transportation credit for people who both live and work downtown.

Name not shown inside Council District 6 December 5, 2017, 7:57 AM

We live on Michigan Avenue close to Foothill Boulevard and we say absolutely NOT in our neighborhood. Vancouver BC has implemented this ordinance and it causes neighborhood streets to be congested because of parking. We do not want to have more rentals in our neighborhood. The lots are too small, there is already a parking problem and the additional housing units built on the same lot could be unsightly.

Name not shown inside Council District 6 December 5, 2017, 7:43 AM

Because of our severe pollution problem on the Wasatch front, the only way you are going to get most people out of their cars is to make public transportation free to all. This would mean paying more in taxes, but would potentially save a lot in medical costs due to respiratory, cardiac and prenatal problems. This should be our city goal