Subscribe to Registered Statements from Citizens
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:
- It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
- 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.
- 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).
Check out some recent Registered Statements from citizens
Name not shown inside Council District 6 November 17, 2017, 1:31 PM
What is your opinion of the proposed ordinance?
The locations of the HRCs make sense.
What are your main concerns about the HRCs?
Main concern is potential for HRCs to become overloaded and people on the street. I hope this doesn't happen.
What design elements do you think will make the HRC compatible in your neighborhood?
Pleasing design and upkeep, also lots of police presence.
Do you think the rules will successfully encourage communication between HRC operators and the neighborhood?
Name not shown inside Council District 5 November 16, 2017, 8:51 PM
I agree that any city should eliminate discrimination of any kind. Don't we have anti-discrimination rules already? YES. Do that.
The best way to create affordable housing is by requiring a percentage of it in every new mega-apartment development. They seem to be growing faster than dandelions in July.
If the city is just now discussing making a percentage of these units affordable housing, it seems as though many ships have left that dock.
And please, please, be more careful about where you allow those. The huge ones at 400 S. and 700 E. now obscure the beautiful mountain view I enjoyed driving east. But, (sigh) I'm sure it was one of your "areas of opportunity". The city I loved for its beauty seems to be disappearing before my eyes. Soon, I suspect, we'll be like all the other big cities whose politicians decided that it needed to "modernize".
I agree with the comment that the city is putting the cart before the horse. You need to get your funding in order before you make plans. That's what we all have to do before we "remodel". What's your budget?
And please, don't plan on getting any money from me because mine is fast disappearing. My property taxes went up $1,000. this year. One year!
By the time I'm in my eighties, I'll probably be forced to move from the neighborhood I will have lived for fifty years because I won't be able to afford it. But I suppose with your city plan, I'll be able to move in the basement (unfinished) and rent my upper floors to someone poorer than me. Sorry to be so impertinent, but I really wish you'd concentrate on providing services to your constituents and stop acting like developers. I could say more, but I really am biting my tongue (and that hurts!)
Work with landlords to improve housing stock — a lot of unspoken details there. YES.
Work on that. But, I really don't know what you mean when you use the word "entice".
My teenager used that word on me once. I sent her to her room.
"In-fill" neighborhoods with ADUs while "minimizing the impact to the neighborhood"? How exactly does that work? "Promote" the use of ADUs — that's advertising. And that requires money.
Expedite the process for developers creating new affordable units. Another YES.
Develop educational programs to dispel myths about high density!? You're kidding, right?
Create safe neighborhoods, lower crime. YES. The crime in my neighborhood has gone up. Please work a little harder on that one.
One last thing — when communicating with your audience (in this case, constituents), it's best to use words that aren't left open to interpretation or that need more explanation. It's vague, confusing, and just leaves a person with more questions. It slows down the process of communicating. Sorry, I'm an editor, can't help myself.
You have four agreements from me. See, I'm not as bad as you think.
Name not shown inside Council District 7 November 16, 2017, 3:35 PM
If the stakeholders in Salt Lake City, including the developers involved in the Pioneer Park Coalition, really cared about creating an equitable housing landscape then they should step up and offer to build affordable housing as part of the development scheme in this city. If these folks really were trying to make a difference, they would lead by example. If Salt Lake City and its development partners really cared about affordable housing, they would step up and offer a living wage to people so they could afford housing and basic needs AND they would encourage state legislators to do the same. If those leaders were to illustrate that they care, they would lead by example and make the service jobs that sustain our economy jobs that allow people to have housing in the first place. They would also encourage other leaders of industry to do the same. You talk about wage disparity in the housing plan, but what do you intend to DO about it?
The housing plan talks about more affordable housing creating less in-commuting, but how does bolstering public transportation fit into affordable housing as well? Sugar House was rezoned in 2014 to create opportunities for more transit-oriented development yet the streets are crumbling under pressure from the influx of development that DOES NOT include better transportation service, DOES NOT include incentives for people moving into the developments to use public transit, and DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHATSOEVER.
If Salt Lake City and their development partners truly cared about affordable housing and equitable opportunities for housing, they would step up and create ordinances that enforce a mandatory minimum affordable housing quota AND affordable small, local business retail space is included in EVERY new development. They would also work on creating better public transit opportunities that service low and moderate income citizens, many of whom work hours outside of current public transit hours and who cannot afford current transit rates.
The plan indicates that it is NOT specifically geared towards the most vulnerable populations. While the plan indicates it might provide opportunities, there are no assurances. This is another instance of this administration putting the cart before the horse in so many of its initiatives. One of the primary goals in the homelessness initiative, touted as a multi-agency, public/private partnership, is to prevent and divert people out of homelessness, so why would you not have specific targets for transitional and extremely low income housing? Why would you not prioritize housing for people with disabilities who tend to be more vulnerable? How do you intend to divert people from homelessness if you have no place and no plan for diverting them?
In-fill ordinances make me very nervous and should be very carefully considered. As a resident who lives in a mixed housing neighborhood, where bungalows were taken down to create multi-family dwellings in earlier decades of boom, many of the multi-family dwellings have become dilapidated and ran by "slumlords" over time. There is a rental duplex behind my home where enforcement of basic city policies have not been enforced. The landlord has consistently failed to retain rental and occupancy permits and the place is in such dire condition that when the neighborhood did finally contact the city, because of nefarious activity by the landlord, there are now "not safe to occupy" signs posted. If in-fill ordinances are included, will there also be ordinances to ensure new "alternative" dwellings fit the character of the neighborhood? Will there be enforcement to ensure property managers and landlords are consistently in compliance with city rental guidelines?
I get that we have to start somewhere, but this plan is too vague and does not tackle key concerns, particularly related to vulnerable populations. It also does not create any long-term assurances that people, sustainability, transportation, and basic needs - not developers - are the greatest concern.
Marisol Jones inside Council District 2 November 16, 2017, 2:26 PM
This is definitely a "not in my backyard" topic for me. While I appreciate the need for affordable housing for those who are working in SLC and would like to live in SLC, I do not want this housing the change the feel of my neighborhood of single family homes. We already have several homes which are rentals but they are rented by families. If the zoning changed allowing the owners to add buildings to the property or split the home into several rentals, it would not add more families but attract individuals to rent the smaller units. This would then increase the number of cars, the amount of traffic, the difficulty of finding parking and the need for power, water and gas. All of these things are already an issues in my neighborhood. If zoning is to change it should be to very limited, strategically selected areas.
Also, this plan is being vetted prior to the opening of several large rental projects. We have yet to see the impact these units will have to the city. If we have learned anything about building large housing units in Sugarhouse, is that regardless of public transit options people will still own cars. Parking for these units must be made available by the builder otherwise the issues with finding parking will only be exacerbated. Then the residents will instead of paying a higher rent to get parking, will have to pay for parking in parking garages.
I do agree that the process for builders to get permits can be improved. But other than that much of this plan creates a vision of the city that is so very different from what we have now, and moves away from the very things the attracts people to want to live in SLC.
Name not shown inside Council District 7 November 16, 2017, 8:21 AM
Affordable housing within city limits is an oxymoron. So don't go there. No one provided assistance for me to live where I wanted to live and raise my children. Don't trash current housing values by mandating affordable housing within city limits. The city has gone to great lengths to build apartments and condos to over crowd streets. Should have thought about affordable housing before now.
Name not shown inside Council District 1 November 15, 2017, 7:42 PM
I agree with others that this plan gives no details and is too ambiguous. But you will do what you want anyway and only pretend to listen to we the people. One thing I think needs to be changed is when these new apartments, condos, townhomes, etc do in they should be required to be handicap accessible. Hallways need to be at least 40" wide and all interior doorways need to be 36" . That way a person in a wheelchair can get around in the home. If the home is 2 story the staiways need to be wide enough that a lift chair can be put in. This will make it much easier for the disabled to find a place to live and the homes will be much more enjoyable and usefull for ALL tenants. Alsoneed to address parking. There needs to be a lot more parking downtown. Not every can or wants to use public transportation.
Peg Clark inside Council District 7 November 15, 2017, 6:51 PM
Keep in mind Sugarhouse is mostly 2 lane streets. Building high density housing next to 2 lane streets is insane. Traffic on 1100 E and 900 E will be at a stand still. Sugarhouse is not able to handle a huge influx of people.
In the last 6 months 600 E has seen a huge increase in traffic, (cars bailing off 700E). It's becoming a big problem, because the speed limit is 20mph and cars fly down 600 E. going 50mph, (thinking it's 700 E). A radar trap or speed bumps are needed on 600 E. before someone gets hit. Thank you
ben lariviere inside Council District 5 October 30, 2017, 10:32 AM
ADUs are a great way to increase affordable housing. It is an impingement of personal freedoms to restrict them and it increases segregation based on income and race when ADUs are not an option.
Name not shown inside Council District 7 October 29, 2017, 6:18 AM
I would like to see more thought given about the council's stand on the traditional single family house model and more clarity on just what the term equitable really means. Change for the sake of being politically correct also means top-down transformation, another way to socially engineer somebody's ideal society--not realistic. Would appreciate more organic decision making please and more transparency showing what the commitment to the traditional family model is!
Brian Garner inside Council District 7 October 28, 2017, 5:53 PM
like some of the other respondents, I think this is a vague plan filled with politically correct buzzwords. It does not give you any idea what its changes will do to our communities. I for one do not think the the city should be in the housing business. I certainly do not want our communities taken over by these mega housing complexes. I live in sugar house and these big monstrosities have totally changed the nature of the area, and not for the better.