Issues

 We have a history of zoning, planning, and historic districts that have protected the character of the city we love. With unprecedented growth, there is a feeling of putting developers first and neighborhoods second.  The desires of the residents and community councils must come first, not development and developers.  If developers are asking for extras like more density, more height, less parking, etc. we must have an equal concessions from developers.  

We must have buy in from residents and community councils before proceeding with any development that is asking for something more than what is currently allowed.  We can't lose what we have on hopes that what we are doing will make things better, we have to protect what we have and make careful, measured, transparent, and supported choices as our city changes.

 We have spent decades attempting to solve homelessness and it seems to have only gotten worse. We need to reevaluate the costs of what we are doing against the cost to simply provide housing.  When I lived in Seattle, they did that very comparison, and they found that the costs to build and house people who need it was far less than the cost of first responders, emergency room care, etc. 

We need to ensure that those suffering from homelessness have every opportunity for the basics of living. A place to clean their clothes, a place to use the restroom, a place to bathe, a place to sleep, food to eat, and opportunity to find housing and work. I don’t claim to know how to solve this problem, but I do know we have to solve it and it must be a priority. 

 We're told that more housing density will solve our housing crisis, but it's not a simple equation of supply and demand when the demand is endless. We need to have conversations about what we mean by affordable housing. The city and developers tell us that less than market-rate housing is affordable, but a single parent raising two kids working a full-time minimum wage job knows better. Less than market-rate housing is part of the answer, but less than market-rate housing is not the same as affordable housing.

We must stop rotten deals like the one giving away the Utah Pantages Theater for zero dollars to developers in return for a small number of less than market-rate units. This deal gives millions away at taxpayers' expense, dollars that can be used for truly affordable housing. We must reform the RDA to address affordable housing more directly. We need to protect places we cannot afford to lose like the theater, the Fisher Mansion, Warm Springs, and others. We need to downzone historic districts so the risk of development is low for the properties we are trying to protect. These are just some of the ways I think we can work to provide affordable housing and protect the character of our city.

A police officer shortage, extreme response times, the triage of priority one 911 calls, and city leadership seemingly unwilling to talk about what our expectations are for our police force and the public.  Many of the people I talk to aren't just worried, they are scared.  I have talked to numerable people who are considering carrying a weapon like a knife or mace because they don't know when the police will come, or if they will even come at all.  

Some of those people are considering obtaining their conceal carry permit so they can carry a gun for those same reasons.  Our city leadership seems to be ignorant about what is really happening on the street.  This isn't simply a problem, it is a dangerous place to be in our city, and this needs to change.

Starting in the 1960's development pressure in our city gained momentum and as a result the residents of the city pushed back.  There was widespread downzoning in neighborhoods like 9th & 9th and Central City.  Large portions of the city received National Historic District recognition and city Historic District zoning protection.  The city we have today with all the historic fabric that we have is in large part a result of those efforts.  

But we have new development pressures attacking the results of those efforts and me and others I talk to see the city leadership doing very little to protect anything.  We all see developers demolishing so much regardless of protections, regardless of significance, regardless of what the residents want or don't want, regardless of master plans or community input.  We can't loose what makes our city original from every other city and something needs to change.  We need to expand protections and do everything we can as a city to encourage historic preservation.

My work on saving the historic Utah Pantages Theater and our groups research into the workings of city leadership and the RDA has been alarming.  RDA staff at best are telling half-truths to make projects with developers, bust at worst telling outright lies to us and the City Council all to make these project work.  We are finding the rotten theater deal is just the tip of the iceberg.  

In a real-estate and development market that doesn't look like it needs any help from the city for money to be made, we are still giving away tens of millions of dollars away to the benefit of developers and private interests.  These are our tax dollars that could be spent on all the problems we are facing in the city.  People being able to make money developments in our city is not a problem.  We need to stop giving away tax dollars to developers and start using the RDA to use those dollars to address the what needs to attention.  Public safety, homelessness, par space, etc.  This needs to change.

While on the city council, Mayor Mendenhall accepted a campaign donation from a developer who was working with the RDA on a deal to demolish the historic Utah Pantages Theater and replace it with a high end condo tower.  The Mayor voted to approve that project and when it came to light she took that money before the vote to approve the project, she simply said she didn't do anything illegal or unethical.  Me and others looked into the city code and it looks like she didn't do anything illegal.  However, what exactly does it mean to be unethical?  

I argue that one way we assure we are acting in the most ethical way is to not do things that raise questions about who has influence on us as elected officials.  When this issue was raised, why didn't the mayor simply refund the money and apologize for having raised a question?  Whey didn't she recuse herself from the vote to approve that development so there wouldn't be any questions?  It seemed so easy to to be accountable for it all, but she wasn't, and continues to not be.  I believe being ethical as your elected representative means I only take money from my constituents in a campaign.  To take money from anyone else raised too many questions about who I serve.  I serve you, not special interests.  I believe that is being accountable.

My conversations with people are far too often about not enough public process, no opportunity to make public comments, not feeling like anyone at the city is listening or wants to hear what they have to say.  We must give every opportunity for public comment that we can.  We should have in person and remote ways to participate in public meetings.  

You may hear the city leadership and others say that you can email or leave them a message and make your public comment.  But we all know that seeing and hearing people in person is the most significant and meaningful way to be heard at a public city meeting.

 Air quality, water quality, and water consumption will be more and more challenging as booming growth brings the environmental costs of more people, more cars, more water consumption, and on and on. On top of that, we are being force-fed the inland port with all its environmental consequences. 

We must challenge the inland port and if the state won’t negotiate with us, we must be prepared to take them to court. We must encourage, incentivize, and collaborate with businesses from small to large to find ways to have less impact on the environment.  Having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink can never be taken for granted and must always be a priority.