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

Katherine Fox inside Council District 6 September 22, 2017, 4:19 PM

I believe that while well-intentioned and trying to address a shortage of affordable housing within city limits, the proposal as written, has some significant problems. At a minimum, a more careful and tailored approach would better serve the Avenues District and District 6 with some of their unique characteristics as opposed to the somewhat draconian and sweeping proposal to "eliminate all single family zoning" In District 6 where I reside the yards are often postage stamp sized. Adding accessory buildings often negatively impacts what little green space we have - and need as the climate increasingly warms. Our streets are mostly very narrow and two sided parking is often a real problem, especially if an emergency vehicle whether an ambulance or a fire truck needs to navigate the street and then park. With the need for additional residential parking for increased ADU's , the safety issue will only be compounded. Public transportation where I live is extremely limited unlike larger urban areas either within SLC or other national cities so the need for more individual cars grows. Multi family housing works best where public transportation is readily available.

I am not opposed to the occasional mother-in-law type basement apartment or even a reasonably sized garage addition.(We have a number of illegal ones that exist already.) But there are ways to circumvent the "owner occupied" requirements easily which opens the flood gates for those property owners (often absentee and using a "sham arrangement" so that the residence merely appears to be owner occupied) looking to increase their incomes rather than provide a home for a loved one.

A more thoughtful proposed ordinance, at least for District 6 and District 3, accommodates some of the more unique characteristic that these two Districts share with each other and do not share with other city neighborhoods. It's not necessarily that those residing in Districts 6 & 3 are elitist or believe themselves as "special" but more that we are trying to avoid additional safety concerns (both traffic congestion and emergency vehicle access), curtailing limited greenspace, and other issues. Multi family housing should not be a "one size fits all" model for the entire city. Single family housing is a viable and stable option for a segment of the city's population. Eliminating it will not solve the entire affordable housing problems that exist.

Patrick Fleming inside Council District 5 September 20, 2017, 7:00 PM

I am emphatically opposed the allowing ADUs in any R1 zone. First, the city already has illegal apartments in R1 zones and does NOT have the manpower to enforce current zoning . Second, parking, especially near the UofU, is terrible because of illegal apartments in R1 zones. Even if you put some requirements in the ADU ordinance, it will not be enforceable. Third, I purchased my home in north Sugarhouse specifically because it was in an R1 zone, I am not happy that the city is considering a zone amendment to allow R2 use in this R! zone after my purchase - it impacts my property rights. Fourth, allowing ADUs in certain geographic areas of the city sharing the same zone is ripe for a law suit which will force the city to allow in in any similar zone (i.e. R1 zone west of 1300 East will be tested in court and the court will rule this is discriminatory by geography). Fifth, SLCi has done its share to increase housing in the SL Valley, SLCi is congested already and the increase in traffic and parking problems will be aggravated - regardless of the belief mass transit will alleviate congestion. Finally, for those that argue that rent from ADUs will increase their ability to afford to live in a neighborhood is simple hypocrisy. Ones economic advantage should not enter into this discussion - people should have thought about this before they purchased their home AND the cost of living in SLCi is still reasonable - even for seniors who are a less fixed income than many of their neighbors due to COLAs from SSA.

Name not shown inside Council District 7 September 20, 2017, 11:53 AM

What is your opinion of the proposed ordinance?
I am very concerned about this proposal. It is worded to provide too much authority to the City, and it sacrifices the voice, needs, and wishes of the Homeowners in any given neighborhood. This proposal is undemocratic and should be denied.



What are your main concerns about the HRCs?

That they will detract from the safety of our neighborhood.
That they will increase loitering in our neighborhood.
That they will increase both drug use and drug dealing in our neighborhood.
That they will negatively affect property values in our neighborhood.
That numerous alleyways will be exploited in our neighborhood.
That acquaintances, family, enemies, etc. of the chronically homeless will gravitate to and around our neighborhood.
That there will be a severe increase in fire-risk from campfires and/or warmth fires in the remote parts of the neighborhood.
That families with children will find that they can no longer feel safe or comfortable recreating in their own neighborhood on walks, bike rides, etc.
That the HRC's will attract homeless camping by people who know boarders, but are not living in the HRC's.
That covert defecation and other bodily functions will cause health hazards in our neighborhood and alleyways.
That the Standard Of Living will greatly diminish in our neighborhood.
All of these concerns are already realities most anywhere a homeless population exists in most any Country or city.


Do you think the proposed rules help address those concerns?

Absolutely not!


What design elements do you think will make the HRC compatible in your neighborhood?
None. I do not believe a HRC is in any way compatible with my residential neighborhood.



Do these proposed rules accurately address the concerns of neighborhoods?

Absolutely Not!



Do you think the rules will successfully encourage communication between HRC operators and the neighborhood?

No. As stated above, I believe the City is attempting to amend it's ordinance to give itself more authority, while relinquishing the authority, input, and wishes of the neighborhood homeowners. The Homeowners have the Highest Vested Interest in the preservation and live-ability of their neighborhoods.



Are there additional landscaping requirements that could help an HRC fit in a neighborhood? If so, what would you recommend?

No.


Are there any changes to the surrounding neighborhood needed that will help make the HRC successful?
I firmly believe neighborhood HRC's will NOT be successful. HRC's would be best suited an districts of daytime commercial prominence.


Are there additional requirements the City should adopt to regulate homeless resource centers and homeless shelters?


Yes. The City should conduct and require a vote by all Homeowners within 1/3 mile of any proposed HRC site to see if their proposal is aligned with the needs and rights of the affected Homeowners.
The City should require alleyless neighborhoods to be the only neighborhoods considered or proposed for HRC's, for reasons stated above.


Any other comments?
Our neighborhood consists of predominantly hard-working, lower middle-class citizens whose one major financial asset is their home. Most of us consistently work hard to improve the neighborhood and our sense of community, not destroy or compromise it. The City should not be given the right to unilaterally put the geographical needs of the Homeless before the needs of the taxpaying Homeowners. There are other options and much better suited commercial zones. When property values go down due to homeless realities and concerns, that will negate the financial ability of a homeowner to be able to sell the property and use the proceeds to move his/her family to a safer, more wholesome community.

Joey Hanna inside Council District 7 September 20, 2017, 11:22 AM

What is your opinion of the proposed ordinance?
I have no problem with ordinance or the HRC's I do have concerns with the services being offered at the centers and the planning.



What are your main concerns about the HRCs?

In reviewing the Mayors Collective Impact Steering Committee I was shocked to learn that there is NO representation from the disabilities community. It doesn't take a statistician to understand that a significant number of people experiencing homelessness are also affected by a disability.


Do you think the proposed rules help address those concerns?

I think the entire projects are pointless without the proper services and planning.


What design elements do you think will make the HRC compatible in your neighborhood?
I believe in inclusion on all levels. People experiencing homelessness who are interested in making changes should be fully integrated in the communities in which they will reside, regardless of whether or not they are permanently or temporarily housed.



Do these proposed rules accurately address the concerns of neighborhoods?

yes



Do you think the rules will successfully encourage communication between HRC operators and the neighborhood?

Possibly, so long as they are carried out.



Are there additional landscaping requirements that could help an HRC fit in a neighborhood? If so, what would you recommend?

I have no concerns about this.


Are there any changes to the surrounding neighborhood needed that will help make the HRC successful?
I have no concerns about this.


Are there additional requirements the City should adopt to regulate homeless resource centers and homeless shelters?


no

Name not shown inside Council District 7 September 20, 2017, 11:18 AM

I support the proposed changes to the ADU issue. With rapidly rising property taxes and utilities, many older homeowners have a hard time keeping up with inflation. Utilizing ADU's can offer some financial relief to those who need it.

Name not shown inside Council District 7 September 20, 2017, 7:19 AM

I oppose the ADU position, since I believe the addition of affordable housing can be addressed with other methods that do not disrupt the single family neighborhoods. Too many rentals with absentee or poor landlords already exist, properties start to decay in appearance and we lose the long term relationship within the neighborhood that keeps our areas safe.

Name not shown inside Council District 6 September 19, 2017, 8:39 PM

I support the proposal to expand ADUs in Salt Lake City. The price of rent is soaring in our city and we need more units and more density to build a sustainable, affordable city.

Name not shown inside Council District 6 September 19, 2017, 6:11 PM

I do not support recently City Council-revision to expand the ADU Ordinance citywide. "City Wide Zoning is zoning for no one". "One size does not fit all". The over arching language of the modified ordinance does not respond, respect or recognize unique aspects of various neighborhoods to minimize negative impacts on established neighborhoods as the approved East Bench Master Plan supports. District 3 and 6 were eliminated from the ADU Ordinance for important reasons: 1) lack of public transportation service (fixed or bus service), 2) Fire Safety at the Urban/Wildlife interface, 3) steep slopes, narrow streets, limited on-street and on-site vehicle parking, automobile congestion, 4) lack of City design review and enforcement and 5) availability of many existing housing types in these Districts (duplexes, townhouses, condos, rentals, and single family housing).

Expanding the ADU Ordinance boundaries to Citywide is premature. It will compound the traffic congestion on the East Bench, which is in direct conflict with the City's Initiative to Clean Air, without any funded resolution to handle the already overburdened commuter traffic ways on the East Bench.

Further, not all ADU types are appropriate for all neighborhoods; attached ADUs (internal basements and additions) may be more appropriate in some areas (historic) than detached ADUs. Yet there is no differentiation in language about their use, placement in neighborhoods nor design review provided, thus all ADU types will be allowed without neighborhood input to the detriment of surrounding property owners.

Ironically, Methods of Creation (D.3,and 5) will unintentionally increase Citywide demolitions of viable, affordable housing with New Construction replacement of more expensive principal dwellings with more expensive attached/detached ADUs. This is in conflict with City Sustainability standards. Instead, we need to encourage and maintain the stability, viability and prosperity of affordable single family house neighborhoods within Salt Lake City. Single Family homes are just "another housing option". Availability of single family housing neighborhoods is what makes SLC unique among mid-size cities in the US-the ability to "live, work and play" in an urban setting.

The ADU Ordinance will change City Zoning in a permanent way. Let's have an honest discussion about the need and value of single family house zoning in our City and then approach this ADU ordinance carefully, fully analyzing the type, design, size, scale, and placement of ADUs in our existing neighborhoods with limited boundaries where multi-modal public transportation is available. That's where dwelling density is truly most effective.

Brad Bartholomew inside Council District 1 September 19, 2017, 12:34 PM

This is long overdue. I never understood why SLC would limit themselves in becoming a city. ADU's should be allowed City wide with no restriction on number of permits given a year. The height and set backs should also be reconsidered as they are proposed, they will leave many homeowners out of the opportunity to add an ADU and will limit those who can. The fact that only 1 ADU has been built since the original ordinance was created shows the restrictions are too burdensome and restrictive for no apparent reason.

We live in a City and we should act like it, if you are worried about parking and density, you should move to the suburbs. ADU's is a great step forward a providing affordable housing, though at only 25 a year, it is a small addition. Higher density is better for transportation, city services, city revenue and the planet. We can address all of these issues by creating more housing in our city.

Please change the restrictions that will allow more homeowners to build ADU's and pass this ordinance.

Thank you

Alexa McCallum inside Council District 4 September 19, 2017, 9:39 AM

What is your opinion of the proposed ordinance?
I support the proposed ordinance, particularly the provisions providing for security standards and a population cap of 200.



What are your main concerns about the HRCs?

My biggest concern is that the new HRCs & and surrounding area will slowly turn into a Road Home situation. My understanding is that the Road Home once started as a 300 person facility, but the population grew over time to its current state. I don't want the population of my neighborhood facility to "creep" up.

I am also concerned about safety in my neighborhood, particularly after this summer of violence in the Rio Grande area.