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

Name not shown inside Council District 5 October 21, 2017, 11:35 AM

I support the Master Transit Plan and urge the Council to start with expanded bus service (more frequent and into the evenings, especially on weekends) and the bus corridors. This will make it possible to take the bus downtown for an evening out, without relying on SOV or encouraging drinking and driving.

Name not shown inside Council District 6 October 19, 2017, 9:33 PM

ADU's are NOT appropriate in Harvard/Yale.
Salt Lake City has worked for decades to establish and enforce the current zoning ordinance. Limiting "mother-in-law" and other illegal dwelling units, and the number of non-blood-related tenants per dwelling unit, has been effective in reducing the negative effects of non- or mis-managed rental property.
Permitting ADU's will reverse the gains that the present zoning has created, i.e., a stable, safe neighborhood, relatively unpolluted from too-many vehicles and residential and commercial over-development.
The neighborhood developed when the rate of private vehicle ownership was much lower. The streets do not support large volumes of traffic. We already have to tolerate the negative safety and environmental effects of thousands of drivers cutting through the residential streets daily on their way to the University of Utah with its hospital and research park. Why should we have to accept the fallout from more vehicles and the services needed to support the increase in transient and short-term occupants - occupants that have no permanent stake in maintaining the quality of life in the neighborhood?
Permitting ADU's will result in more poorly-managed properties. It will make neighborhood housing a commodity for investment landlords and indifferent owners that will put profit ahead of quality-of-life matters. Do the elected officials and the planning staff really think they can enforce the owner-occupied provisions in the proposed ordinance? They already struggle to enforce the ordinances on the books - adding an impossible-to-monitor ordinance will only create more work for an already overworked staff and conflict for the elected officials.
I appreciate my neighbors' rights to dispose of their property as they wish - but they don't have the right to devalue my property, and that's exactly what will happen if ADU's are permitted - even encouraged - by Salt Lake City.
ADU's are NOT appropriate in Harvard/Yale.

SD Williams inside Council District 3 October 18, 2017, 5:16 PM

I'm opposed to allowing ADUs to be built in the Avenues, especially in the historic district. In 1985 we made the decision to buy the 1896-era Avenues home of my wife's great-grandparents from her family's estate. An important factor in our decision is that it was on a block with no apartment buildings. We completely renovated and stabilized it, gladly complying within the regulations of the historic district. Over the years we also bought and renovated two other smaller historic houses on the block which we carefully maintain, rent and monitor closely to make sure our renters are good neighbors. It's unjust to now change the rules and fill the interior of the block with structures, potentially doubling the density impacts (people, traffic, outdoor lighting, parking, noise, overhead power and cable wires, etc.) so that Salt Lake City can solve it's growth problem at the expense of our quality of life and property values.

Barbara Brown inside Council District 6 October 16, 2017, 1:52 PM

I favor allowing ADUs within the city where they fit. I appreciated being able to rent basement apartments for housing close to the U when I was a graduate student. I’ve known of cases where they provide good solutions: a homeowner provides affordable rent to a student in exchange for dog sitting while the owner is away; a homeowner gets to stay in her neighborhood after a divorce or between jobs by gaining extra rental income; a homeowner can provide lodging to boomerang kids while allowing for separation between households.

I published an evaluation of a neighborhood that allowed ADUs in Draper (Journal of the American Planning Association, 2001, 67(4), 402-419. Although the setting was different (new housing with the option of above garage ADUs), residents did not complain about the addition of renters to the neighborhood. Residents did complain about the extra cars taking up space in back alleys. It makes sense to provide effective mechanisms to enforce parking space requirements for ADUs. I think it is interesting that even if I added an ADU to my home, we would collectively own fewer cars than exist for many single family households in the neighborhood. With only 25 ADUs allowed per year, the city has time to evaluate how well this works and to tweak requirements over time.

I thank the city for proposing creative ways to add affordable units that provide minor increases in density that serve to reduce sprawl and enhance sustainability.

Aline Devaud inside Council District 7 October 14, 2017, 8:47 AM

The size of the house and yard should be considered as well as the off street parking. A small number of basement appts or over the garage dwellings seem to be more congruent with a pilot proposal. I would caution about these becoming more AirBnBs.

robert markham inside Council District 5 October 12, 2017, 5:53 PM

I am opposed to the proposed Accessary Dwelling Unit changes. The ADUs are being labeled as "mother-in-law apartments" but they are actually rental units that could be rented to anyone for profit. By allowing the ADUs in all areas of the city the R1 Zones, which are for single family homes, would effectively become R2 with duplexes being allowed. Rental units would be detrimental to the feel and quality of our existing residential neighborhoods. We do not need the extra traffic and parking problems created by the additional living units. Our roads are already falling apart and the rest of the infrastructure is overtaxed. Let's not make it worse.

Kelly Hannah inside Council District 5 October 10, 2017, 11:45 AM

I am in favor of allowing Accessory Dwelling Units throughout the city. Yes, there are numerous challenges and consequences that come with it related to parking, renter population, and the city's ability to enforce the ordinance. I would like to embrace these changes. We need more quality housing in Salt Lake City and creating some of that housing by allowing Accessory Dwelling Units will beneficially (geographically and relationally) connect the new housing and the people who will live there to the individuals and families who own the property, and subsequently to the neighborhood, to the community, and to the city at large. I generally enjoy the character of my neighbors, in our similarities and our differences, and I will welcome and respect the people they choose to have live with them on their property in an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Name not shown inside Council District 5 October 9, 2017, 3:38 PM

I support updating the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. I believe this has the potential to help: 1) deal with the afffordable housing shortage; 2) reduce urban sprawl and increase the viability/utilization of mass transit (critical for improving air quality and reducing SLC residents' carbon footprint); and 3) support more lively and walkable neighborhood business districts.

For these reasons I also urge the City Council to: 1) eliminate the minimum 650 sq. ft. cap (I believe the limit of 50% of the primary dwelling unit is sufficient); 2) eliminate or raise considerably the unnecessarily low cap on the number of annual permits that will be granted; and, 3) give preferential treatment to ADU permit requests that meet high energy and water efficiency standards, incorporate renewable energy, and/or commit to offer affordable lease agreements for a specified amount of time (e.g. a minimum of 5 years).

William Woods inside Council District 3 October 4, 2017, 4:49 PM

I oppose greatly expanding the ADU program due to parking and traffic issues. If two adults live in an ADU you have just created more parking problems for high demand Avenues parking spots and will cause delays in winter snow clearance. Additionally, this will double wear and tear on our roads. Limit any ADU creation to one per block per year if the City Council is intent on this Portlandesque ordinance.

Kelly White inside Council District 6 October 3, 2017, 9:42 PM

I do not support having a blanket policy for ADU's throughout every neighborhood in Salt Lake. Every neighborhood is different and ADU's may fit into some neighborhoods better than others. The neighborhood I live in features small lots, small to no driveways, causing lots of cars to be parked on the street. The streets are narrow and feature lots of commuter traffic to and from the University and Research Park. Adding ADU's to pack in more density would create more traffic and cars in an already congested area. In addition, looking at the specifics of the ordinance specifying that the ADU's will house related family members, I am not sure how the city will enforce this ordinance. I already see not a lot of enforcement regarding building codes and development so I don't have a lot of faith in the ability of the city to properly enforce the ordinance. I did not support this ordinance when first presented a few years ago and I do not support it now. It should be left up to individual neighborhoods whether they support ADU's or not.