Showing posts with label Survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Survey. Show all posts

Friday, October 20, 2006

The SURVEY says . . .

The Survey on the $60 million Wasatch High School was posted to try to gauge the pulse of the community and gather comments about the bond and the proposed High School. The proponents of the bond decided to use (abuse) the survey and turn it into propaganda promoting the YES vote.

They were successful! 78% now report being strongly in favor of the bond.

As promised, the results are now being made public . Reading thorough the comments will show the researcher the intent of the bias group. See the previous comments on the "packing issue below.

Enjoy the comments, some are quite good and could be helpful to those interested in EDUCATION at a conservative cost.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Latest Survey comments

14 responses today (10/9) - ALL in favor (5) One did say the price was too high and one was only "somewhat in favor," and 4 or 5 were through the Utah Educator Network IP; with the request for comments, many were posted - however the last one reverted to true from - "It's outdated"

"standard answer" = (generally) Strongly support, the price is just right, location is great, sell old school. It surprising how many do not know how much the taxes will be. Answers range from a high of $1,000/yr to "not a doesn't matter! Education does!" (comments added below)

Thanks for participating. ; - )

2006-10-09 04:52:01 5 (strongly support) ***price too high *** Get the school off Main Street. Build a new high school big enough for future growth. $50.00 (A lot of comments on growth, why not just manage growth?)

2006-10-09 07:53:14 standard answer

2006-10-09 07:59:47 UEN? 5 ***just right *** Students need a clean, up to date learning environment. Just the necessary work needed to update wiring for computers is overwhelming. Labs should be current with up to date materials. The size of the school also needs to be exapanded to support the growth in our valley. $ not a doesn't matter! Education does! (How much work to do the wiring and who is doing it? Students may have some hands on learning by doing. How much work or cost will wiring the new school be?)

2006-10-09 08:07:49 UEN standard answer Wasatch county is growing at a rapid rate. When new poeple move into a community it is necessary to provide new facilities for them,i.e. schools, roads annd even new stop lights ( and more roads, and schools and stoplights and . . . Who should pay for them? current residents or those creating the need?)

2006-10-09 08:22:26 UEN std answer My children will be attending the high school in this valley, and I would like a structurally sound building for them to attend. By the time my children attend, this high school will be severly over crowded. $250 My high school had a nursery that the students could work in; it helped me make my decision about going into education. *** A gym is necessary. *** This is a great district and a great place to be. As a community we need to support (in every way) the education of the future generation.

2006-10-09 09:18:52 std ans explosive population growth

2006-10-09 09:40:58 UEN std ans A new high school will allow the district to better educate our children. As an example, science labs and computer labs are virtually non-existant in the current high school. A new facility will help us stay competitive educationally. *** As I understand the current plan, I feel they have included all essential elements. *** The benefits of the new facility. They are emphasizing the educational benefits of a new school. (You may have a point on the labs, is it possible to provide without a $60 million school?)

2006-10-09 10:33:50 std ans Our children deserve facilities as good as other high schools. It is a very difficult job for the teachers to try to give comparable educational opportunities without the facilities necessary to do so. They need space to fully explore the arts, and music and sciences. *** Big cafeteria and commons area to keep students on campus during lunch! *** I think our teachers are doing a fabulous job despite the poor facilities. If we want to attract the best teachers we have to offer them great facilities also. ("as good as" or better than all others?)

2006-10-09 10:43:38 UEN std ans The facilities and classrooms at the high school are inadequate for student needs (e.g. limited science labs, computer labs poor heating system, holes in the roof, etc), there are safety and evacuation concerns, the old school can't handle the growth the county is experiencing. *** Our biggest asset in this county is our children. We must invest in them now in order to get great returns later. (DUPLICATED - was it deemed that important, or simply trying to skew the poll, or merely an error?)

2006-10-09 11:15:54 4 A new high school is necessary due to the delapidated state of the old school and the growth occuring in Wasatch County. *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** $1,000 *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** Wasatch county is a fast growing community. We need to recognize this a be prepared for the future. Our kids are worth the $ to not only build a new high school but also include a rec / aquatic center , to encourage and support them! (hesitation is good, do a little more analysis)

2006-10-09 11:52:48 std ans Students working on sound or lighting are insturced not to touch the ceiling of the auditorium Why is that? well there are toxic things in that room. Things that are in the air that we breath. A new school would be for the best health of all who enter there. $I don't know *** I think it is about time we are building a new school. You have my support (If there are toxic things, why aren't the corrected? Where is the maintenance budget?)

2006-10-09 11:53:53 std ans Wasatch County has a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to education. This is driving talented people away from the community, in search of easily attainable and much better options for their kids. Improving the county starts with a committment to education, which is lacking today. *** Public opinion of the county's commitment to education is that there is none. This reflects on the community as a whole, leaving the perception that our government and citizens are shortsighted and unsophisticated. Changing thisperception will benefit the county greatly over the long-term. (And you truly believe a new school is the answer to all edcucation problems?)

2006-10-09 14:11:51 std ans We need new facilities. Curent one is far out dated. $800.00 *** (A familar litany
! Shouldn't an $800 cost give cause for concern? That's high, by the way)

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Building vs. Salary

Some people have commented that education would be far better served by focusing on the educators (and students, of course) rather than the BUILDING.

I heartlily agree with that sentiment. By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets.

But some say a new school will draw "better" educators.

Granted teachers (and students) might love a NEW school as we all might like NEW cars, clothes, houses, etc. Fiscal conservative (private and public) try to follow the philosophy of "Use it up, wear it out; make it do, or do without." Rational financial advisors recommend avoiding debt. That, IMO, includes private AND PUBLIC debt. $60 million is a substantial debt - $3,000 (plus interest - about $37 million over 21 years) for every man, woman and child in the county.

Please do not be swayed by the "It's only a hamburger a day" type of argument. That's car salesmanship - "This car is only $299/month" (not $35,000) Don't fall for that appeal of the need to sacrifice: "in 1964, our people made a greater sacrifice" relative to property value. I think they may be comparing apples to oranges (see the next entry).

There is a well organized group promoting the "selling" of the bond (apparently, teachers and parents of students, who certainly have every right to do so) See "Vote Yes for a new High School" or the Wasatch School District, which even has a fancy presentation called "sellfolio" but regrettably little information about the new school.

These epistles are merely attempting to present a modicum of balance to the discussion. The school district and "Citizens for Better Education" do seem to have blinders on, IMO, and are simple selling the "car" by any gimmick possible and prefer to sell by emotion.

Most regurgitated poll responses follow the same emotional litany:

It's too old (Old is not bad, I'm considered old by some)
The roof leaks (Fix the roof - didn't we do that?)
crowded (not statistically, or that I could see)
no space (Why is a classroom being used for storage?)
outdated (Is Harvard outdated, Oxford is hundreds of years old - is it outdated? . . .)
need more computers (How many do they need, how many do they have?)
more science labs (that may be valid)
Costs too much to remodel (how does anyone know, no analysis was done?)
need "State of the art" (that changes daily, it seems)

Saturday, September 30, 2006

School Bond Survey

With a reasonable number of responses to the poll on Wasatch County growth, including many excellent comments; a poll was created concerning the proposed School Bond hoping to gain some more comments (pro and con) on the issue.

The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.

Lo and behold, the first IP ( was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.

On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.

The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.

Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?

Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it.

Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?

His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.

This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."

Shall we post the name of this poll taker???

While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.

The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Initial Survey Response

An online survey is being taken at Wasatch Growth Survey. It began on July 19, 2006. To date (Aug 6) the responses has been very consistent and the comments defining "rural" and benefits and problems with new developments and miscellaneous remarks have generally been quite insightful and apparently sincere.

The survey was 'promoted' through word of mouth, two letters to the Wave and comments on the local radio station KTMP 1340. Response was available to anyone willing to participate and, hopefully, self limited to Wasatch County residents. Individual responses indicate this to be successful. One apparently facetious comment was submitted yesterday in the "Too little" growth category with some humorous (?) comments.

1. How would you rank residential growth rate in Wasatch County?
Too much 58 - 81% Too little 1 - 1% About right 13 - 18% Total 72

2. Is Wasatch County government on the right track in managing growth?
Yes 10 - 14% No 61 - 86% Total 71

3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Total Number of Comments 62

4. What should be the smallest lot size in the unincorporated county?
1/3 acre (15,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% 1/2 acre (22,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% One acre 25 - 35% Five acres 27 - 38% Total 72

5. What housing density should be allowed in the RA-1 zone (RA = Residential Agricultural), that is how many houses would be allowed on, for example, 30 acres?
30 houses 19 - 27% 15 houses 8 - 11% 6 houses 30 - 43% 60 houses 10 - 14% 22 houses 3 - 4% Total 70

6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
Total Number of Comments 65

7. What problems do you foresee with new developments?
Total Number of Comments 66

8. Should "Open Space" be required in a development and, if so, how much?
No 3 - 4% Yes, 50% 25 = 34% Yes, 20% 7 = 9% Yes, depends on the area. 39 = 53% Total 74

9. How long have you lived in Wasatch County?
Generations 14 = 19% 25 to 50 years 19 = 26% 10 to 25 years 24 = 32% less than 10 years 17 = 23% Total 74

10. How much land do you currently own in Wasatch County?
Less than one acre 24 = 32% one to five acres 25 = 34% 5 to 20 acres 15 = 20% 20 to 100 acres 5 = 7% More than 100 acres 1 = 1% None 4 = 5% Total 74

11. Would you support a law that limited the property taxes (current level plus a small allowance for inflation) on your home for as long as you owned it but would allow new sales to be taxed at a higher, market rate?
Yes 52 = 75% No 17 = 25% Total 69

12. Please add any other comments.
Total Number of Comments 48

Land Use Survey - from Sep 2000

I'm certain there will be those that say the anonymous, open to anyone, survey is not "scientific" or does not really indicate what the Wasatch County residents REALLY want. However, it is quite consistent with other measured barometers of public opinion. Anyone remember the Asphalt Plant hearings or the Airport Expansion.

Prior to the 2001 General Plan a survey was done for the county by BYU.

The current survey is quite consistent with the BYU survey's results. Excerpts:
"72% . . favor slow to negative population growth. Economically there is greater sentiment in favor of slow to moderate growth. There is little sentiment in favor of rapid growth on either population or economic dimensions."

When residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their community - 45% highly and 28% satisfied. When asked for "Preference for Community Change" 61.6% said it was "absolutely essential" to keep "The Way It Is." (76.5 % serious+)

Other serious "Preference for Community Change" were 89% Protect Air and Water quality, 82% Enforce Zoning & Land Use, 82% protect wetlands, 72% agricultural community,

"In general, the majority of respondents favor keeping at least 75% of the unincorporated areas of the county as open space." "There is very little sentiment favoring large scale developments of any of the areas." (defined as County, North Fields, South Fields, Provo River, Snake Creek, Round Valley, Woodland, Lake Creek)

In 2000, respondents were asked about "Problem Areas Five Years From Now." The number one problem - "Excessive Residential Development" 80% said it would be a serious problem; 80% also listed Traffic. Over 60% were concerned about excessive COMMERCIAL development. Have we solved those problem or fulfilled the prediction?

"The majority prefer that both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance be changed in minor way to refine them. A large majority (over 30%) would like to have them both revised extensively to make the more restrictive."

How have we done in abiding by the desires of the residents? For any wishing to read the entire report, I'm sure you can find it on some dusty shelf or archive in a government office.

Survey Comments - Define Rural

These are VERBATIM comments submitted be survey participants:

3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Property used for livestock or crops.
Generally Farms and ranches intermixed with low density housing. With recognition that some very limited areas will need to be set aside for affordable housing.
open space
the areas surrounding provo River that has not been developed but is now in horse farms and meadows. Use the hillsides and East of Heber for development but keep the areas between Heber and Midway green.
low housing density, large open spaces
Robust agriculture thrives on a siginficant portion of the county's inhabited land. Large tracks of open, virgin, untouched forest and brush land where wild life florishes.
Agricultural land interspersed with residentual. Limited (be careful of the big box business) although I enjoy shopping at them, "rural" is the opposite of their nature.
Wasatch County has already defined it----it is one home per acre in a subdivision and one for every five acres outside of a subdivision. Does the public keep having to remind you in the face of the barrage of developer pressure?
you can see and smell the cows
small town feel. Knowing that big stores, some services will not be available. Slow growth, open spaces, animal rights on some property. Lack of big developments. Government that assists us in keeping the small town feel, a government that does not feel like they need to provide all the services of a big city. Keeps costs in check.
Wasatch County up to 5-7 years ago
Definable communities with open space seperating them so they don't all run together. A community where their is a sense of belonging and knowing your neighbors.
Even if hard to define, we know it when we see it - and where we are going is not rural!
Use a formula of present developable acreage in the county divided by the present population = persons per acre, and do not allow future development to increase this factor and to only allow new developments to sustain growth to a predetermined build out date.
Homes that have more than 5 acres or farming area for either food or animals
Open Fields, such as a farming comunity, along with areas that might have small 5 acre homesteads.
We need to keep the open field/space feeling. Keep some breathing room, and recreation and horse property.
Designated open space that the taxpayers have to bond for to purchase from the farmers. Keep North Fields WETLANDS regardless of a new septic system being approved. Cluster lots to allow open space. No one wants to water and maintain a 1 acre lot that's not horse property.
To many fields disappearing into subdivisions. I can't go four wheeling anywhere we used to just a few short years ago.
Open space in neighborhoods and in areas throughout the community. Clustering is probab;y a good idea.
People in rural areas live on farms and in other isolated houses
Rural is being able to sit on your back porch with an unobstructed view of the country-side be it mountains or fields instead of an ocean of homes. Rural is not being able to see what your neighbors are having for dinner. I have been there and done that.
Many open fields, many containing animals
Out side of the city limits, usually with a small farm, cows, chickens, etc.
slow responsible growth based on needs and not on money. Rural is open spaces, homes on large lots. People with animals. Small businesses. views from the hillsides and views of the hillsides that are open and uncluttered.
Websters defines "rural" as "sparsely settled or agricultural country". To apply that to planning and zoning regularions in the County, some portion of space, i.e., 35%, 40%, perhaps even 50%, within the County needs to be reserved or designated as "sparsely populated agricultural" space. A portion of this "rural" space could, and should, be the hills sides, but a major portion should also be the flatlands, that could feasibly be considered agricultural.
more open space in developments- not so condensed
rural to me means open space used for agriculture and animals such as horse pastures. It can mean large 5 acre lots or if smaller, open space for parks, etc.
Rural in respect to growth in Wasatch County appears to include building construction on any site in the county that has a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Rural=pasture land or farming land with a home or two on a minimum of 5 acre parcels.
Maintain the horse/pasture land as you enter from the North. This really sets up a "rural" feel for the valley.
a country lifestyle (this includes open space, right to have animals/livestock, room for large gardens or farmland). Wife says "wildlife habitat" should be included here; husband disagrees; he feels open space covers "wildlife."
No stop lights anywhere but main, no shopping on 12th S. east of Heber, or on Center East of Heber. At least half of the existing farms east and west of 40 remain in agrucultural use or open space.
Lots of pasture land, open fields. Few ammenities such as sidewalks and Wal-Mart.
rural signifies property not immediately bordering a major housing development
Rural is a small town or small farming community.
Rural was when it was farm land. We are no longer rural in the sense of agricultrural dependency but rather gentlemen farmers or back yard farmers. Our land is used to house families and recreational animals tho ride on trails rather than pl;ow the fields. Times have changed and we are that change.
There no longer is "rural" in the unincorporation areas of Wasatch County.
Wasatch county is rural in the sense that the streets do not have side walks and the road ways are narrower than Salt Lake. We are rural in the fact that people own horses and cows and you can hear a rooster crow. We are rural that we know the difference between a rooster and a hen.
For a metropolitan dweller Wasatch County is frightening and way too far removed from civilization. It is all in the eye of the beholder. We are rural because we board our own animals.
Rural means you can't see or smell what your neighbor is having for dinner
Being rural means you are from a small school and have to go to town to get a bigger selection of goods and services.
Houses on farms or ranches. Not PUDs.
My definition of rural is the way this town was before Lynn Adams sold us down the river.
There is no rural any more. Not the same place I grew up in.
Homes with 5 + acres.
Where farmland, houses, and animals coexist. Not where farm land gets filled in with huge homes with big driveways.
Rural is going to no more at the rate of growth Im seeing. Small town businesses that are unique to our area. Specialty shops, we dont need big box stores!
where ther are no subdivisions, and there are at least 5 acre lots for each house.
Farmland/ space in between homes / livestock
Rural to me means that there is more land in agriculture than in residential areas and that people are more concerned about their natural resources than shopping and eating out and driving fast.
open space,large building lots,trees,streams,
WE all ahave to know and understand we are growing planing is MOST inportant and staying wirh the plan after it is made we can not have a plan with out a vision and we did that in 2001 and then it was changed. So lets all get on the some page.
To maintain its rural character, Wasatch County MUST preserve the open spaces between municipalities. This includes both the North and South Fields as well as the traditional agricultural activities connected to them. This must be based on something more tangible than a "gentelman's agreement." If we value the rural character of the valley, we must do what we can to preserve it. If growth is inevitable, we should not assume that well-managed growth comes along with it automatically. I'd rather end up looking like Jackson Hole (managed growth)than Park City (overdeveloped); or Ogden Valley (still essentially rural) rather than Star Valley (haphazard planning).
We need to keep the wetlands and some open spaces, that is why many of live here and/or have choosen to move here.
"rural" should mean larger parcels, and less density
Open space--Farm land and ect..
can't see neighbors or hear traffic
You can see wife next door taking a shower
the sound of crowing roosters in the morning
Have balance between endless, cluttered subdivisions and pastures, agriculture and openess.
Rural means agriculture and open space are apparent

Comments - Benefits of Developments

6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
increasing propety values for existing landowners
Added tax base and continued increase in value of property in county for benefit of all. Need to be sure the new developments fully pay for themselves in relation to initial and ongoing costs of support and infrastructure.
none for me
tax base increased
More excellent people with talent, energy, and resources reside as our neighbors and help build this county as the best place to live in the nation.
Development has the potential of creating fresh ideas and creativity. HOWEVER. . . see 7.
There are none unless they bring with them plenty of capital to modernize access to and egress from the subdivision.
new property to be taxed
at the present time, as a developer, plenty. as a ciitzen not much. history has shown new developments do not pay their way. I an tired of picking up the pieces.
Land owners get fair value. Community gets fresh faces with new ideas, talents, and varied interests. Steady growth keeps the whole area vibrant.
some new and interesting people
Slow sustained growth of population will eventually attract more and varied services
More taxes
Not much if anything.
I can't think of any. It seems there are always many existing homes for sale, so why do people feel they have to build new homes and take up rural land, while others are available.
from (#5) question- 30 houses clustered with open space. The benefits of new developments are CCR's so there are no dead cars in the front yard, underground utilities to eliminate power poles. They are inevitable, we have to make the best of them.
To provide housing for the growing demand in the valley. To upgrade the housing supply. New housing provides the type of product that the current buyers are looking for using the current building codes and requirements.
To line the developers pockets.
More tax dollars spent to improve existing areas in the valley.
nothing but income from taxes
there are no benefits, unless developers pay their full way. Projects must be small and must bring something to the community besides people.
If planned correctly, with proposer lot sizes, open space, restrictive covenants on size and quality of homes, these new developments within the county could be a real asset. Improved/expanded services, increased retail options, and a more diverse culture.
affordable housing for families to remain in the valley if they can
Rapid economic growth for the county, fortunes for the landowners and developers.
Nice, beautiful homes in a well managed area. Parks and recreation facilities available. The increase in population will probably force businesses to improve their outward appearance and will, for certain, bring additional businesses into town.
PUD's tend to bring in development in a more orderly way with more attractive homes. Otherwise there is a tendancy to have a really nice home next to a broken down shack.
1. More diverse social, cultural, and economic base. 2. Increased tax base.
Economic benefits to home construction and vendors who sell to that industry. Additional economic benefits to merchants who have more customers.
None, really.
Bringing more diversity to the valley
A larger tax base for the community.
We have already set the standard. One can not say to one you can have more and to another you are limited. The rules were broken too long ago to allow anything else. By allowing 5 acre limits and such we are setting the county up for litigation as there are too many examples of homes long in exisitance on smaller parcels by having a name or paying for the favor.
There are no benefits of growth in the County. The Cities should be allowed to grow into the county. This reduces the cost of growth. Water, sewer, police, etc. are real expences the could be saved. Wasatch County wants to be a city at the expence of the tax payer of the incorporated areas of the county. The benefits of letting the cities grow in the the county whould certainly keep the unincorpated area RURAL.
It is the trend for our area. Too many places are under development to limit growth of those who have not sold out yet. Maybe all the impact fees will help build better roads and services we don't get living rural.
New growth will help to broaden the ideas of those who have only seen one way.
development brings change and change is good. It makes you appreciate what you have so you stand for theose things that mean the most to you.
I don't think that it is a benefit it just means that people found a new place to develop.
Developers monetary gain. The wealthy move into their dream homes and the less fortunate are on waiting lists to apply for housing assistance.
Not any benefits.
More tax dollars
I don't see benefits. The more houses that are built, the less our house is worth and the more saturated the housing market is
none, we have enough.
increased property tax revenue for the county/ The are benifits if the developor puts in parks, trails open to everyone
More property taxes for the county.
large one acre lots often become unkept and cluttered, half acres are large, but can be kept looking nice. New developments benefit housing needs.
none Big box forces businesses out..
Lower Tax
New talent to the vally people with life experance that can give us insigned adds some tax base maybe some new bussness.
Increased tax base to be used on community projects, improvements, etc. Higher standard for property aesthetics. New people and new businesses to add to local diversity.
New poeple moving into the area
gives and option for the people that grew up here to find a home to start of their own.
add to tax base
Very little
economic growth, new people with new ideas
Easier to buy drugs with more people, more people would speak spanish
tax revenue
Very little.
Hopefully more diversity a few better services. Small businesses are more likely to stay in business. Hopefully enough people to improve the High School

Comments - Problems with developments

7. What problems do you foresee with new developments?
pollution, increased txes, urban sprawl, loss of smal town feel, traffic congestion, noise, loss of public safety.
Destruction of a once beautiful valley
Added drain on infrastructure resources if they don't pay for it fully in taxes.
tax increase/more traffic
congestion ,crowded schools and increased traffic. Valley would lose its charm and pollution would be increased. Increased garbage in landfills which might make it necessry for mandatory recycling.
crowds traffic higher taxes air pollution noise pollution light pollution
Congestion, loss of rural environment, polution, tax increases.
Large numbers of people in concentrated geographical areas tend toward crime and failure to know your neighbors. Los Angeles was my last location. Please have enough foresight to avoid creating their problems. "More money for the county" is an extremely high price to pay for all of the big city problems which suck that money away from more vital needs.
Devlopers don't fund them properly and should be forced to landscape them before they are sold. Some homes go ten years before they are landscaped leaving dust bowls throughout the county.
more demands for a City-like business base
Water. Sewer and the lack of a careful process by our government. They seem more interested in pleasing the developer at the expense of common sense.
Crime, Infrastucture impact (sewer, water, roads), traffic. Are we really wanting to become another Park City?
Increased infrastructure and support service costs. Danger of losing the thing that makes everyone want to come here in the first place.
crowding, traffic, pollution, loss of community, crime, increased taxes, rising costs, crime, graffitti, gangs, citification,etc.
In the past, the County has maintained a fast track of growth, without regards to the consequences of their actions. They are supposed to represent the interests of the population instead of a few people and developers who will profit at the populations expense. New developments are not problems, too many develoments are going to be the problem.
More taxes
The cost of land and housing is outrageous. Our children can not afford to get into a small place let alone purchase 5 acres. Then all of the charges on top of that before they can even begin to build a home. Then there are the $ hungry land owners who are holding out to sell their property as one big chunk to a developer.
More traffic, sidewalks, lights,more schools-which we are already paying alot for the ones we have now,more demand on county services. The county seems to discourage many big businesses in, and they are needed with more people. Many residents already leave the county to shop.
Having them pay for themselves. The developer just forwards the costs to the buyer. Then people complain about their children affording a home here. Aspen, Vail, Telluride, Jackson Hole, Sun Valley etc, have not been able to fight it either. Roads need to be widened, and more stop lights on Main Street! More kids in school- we can't just build more schools, we have to pay teachers more to attract QUALITY teachers. That's what the new arrivals are expecting from our education system.
To many to fast, not enough infrastructure to maintain so many new people, main street is a death trap for our children, you can't cross main street unless you are at a light anymore.
The cost is out of control! New developments need to provide funds for truly affordable housing.
Increased traffic in rural areas with drivers not obeying speed limits. It was nice to go for a leisure drive in rural areas, now becoming not an option. Law enforcement rarely enforces speed limits, probably too busy with other issues brought on by increased population density. Developers expect water to be supplied to them, just because they want to develope.
Crowded streets, crime, pollution, greed.
Increase taxes,traffic congestion, pollution, over crowding,loss of rural feel
too much traffic, pollution, and overload on fire protection, and schools...I am old and I am sick of bonds
over running of water, sewer. pollution in the valley that we can not control. traffic, school impacts that are not now paid for by the developer. destroying of open space. destroying the watershed. And new developments seem to bring the need for more services that we neither need or want. New developments allow for our government to get larger and larger with no controls but plenty of spending. We need some wisdom from those involved and not deal making.
If poorly controlled and planned, the only benefit to would be increase retail options, but the quality and quantity of services available would decrease due to an overtaxed governmental system, crime rates would increase, damage to the environment would be greatly increased, and the quality of life would generally be degraded.
Higher taxes to cover increased needs like sewer, water, roads, law enforcement. Housing prices are too high for regular incomes. Restrictions in associations are expensive, limiting and unconstitutional.
too much density and not enough open space, trails, overall planning that is not changed by whims of those whose friends want to sell their property to developers for high density housing. Housing follow the guidelines of a plan that is secure.
1. What appears to be wide spread, haphazard development without sensible planning. 2. Spread of noxious weeds throughout the county with no enforcement of weed control required by developers and land owners. 3. Absentee landowners who take no interest at all in maintaining desirable vegetation such as range grass species to compete with undesirable vegetation. 4. Transportation of noxious weed seeds along with fill dirt and top soil from one site to another. 5. Loss of quality rural life style in Heber Valley. 6. Influx of drugs, gangs, and other undesirable elements into the Valley.
Too much growth for Heber City as it is now built. Overcrowded streets. Downtown Heber has too many cars/trucks/semis as it is.
Totally crowding out the farmland so that the area becomes too "metropolitan".
1. traffic congestion 2. conflicts between gricultural and residential users 3. increased demand for public services 4. increased air pollution
School crowding, rising property taxes, traffic congestion, noise and light polution, increases in crime and stress on county services.
Increased population. Increase demand for services. Increased taxes.
infrastructure not keeping up
More crime.
We have issues to face in the future with the ability to service all the homes. Where will all the trash go? The costs to haul and fill other counties landfill will one day leave us holding our own trash in a place we have not planned to do so! We will then charge the residents more for the services we can not provide as we did not prepare! The same is true of sewer. And with all the deveoplment that is under way let along upon the tables more trash and waste are coming! It appears as if one thought this area was going to be like timberlakes an area where people would build, pay taxes and leave for the rest of the year. People love it here and are willing to llive here no matter the cost. Ten years from now you will look in the phone book and names of the founders will no longer dominate the book it will be new people as the third generation after the founders sold out.
As the growsth accures in the unincorporated areas of Wasatch County there is a burden placed upon the Citizens in the cities in Wasatch County. Everyone shares for expences for say snow removal, Sheriff Dept., road repair, etc. Even though YOU pay for the expences incurred, you don't received the the same treatment if you live in the cities. Midway residents are charged for the Sheriff patroling the streets of Midway. When the snowplows reach the city limits the blades go up. I hope the citizens in the cities wake up soon before they are taxed to death subsidising the the people the live in the unicorporated ares of the county.
Taxes shouldn't go up but they will. We will have more employees and we already are heavy on that end of the scale. We are lacking the infrastructures talked about for years and yet nothing has been done about the talk. We need traffic off Main Street so it is a town rather than a freeway. This means the county and the city have to work as a team rather than two separate cities as they have done for years. We need to work with Daniel, Charleston and Midway. The plan needs to be for the betterment of all of the area rather than benefiting those in office with land or those in office working on borads for a pay check rather than serving. It has been like that for years. The number of new people hopefully won't put up with the networkings that have controlled things from schools to cops it will be a change but one for the better.
Development needs to include low lighting and planned areas for open space. The open space should have a purpose ratehr than just being left as weeds or liability to land owners and County as fire hazard.
The biggest problems will be those of transportation and services to the new developments. We will need more postal delivery people, water and sewer containment and treatment pants. Schools, parks, shopping and churches will be added to the mix. More people living here will demmand more areas for businesses. A palce should be planned for this. Get the city of Heber and Midway together with the County and plan where the shops will be and where the roads will be. Plan the traffic flow and build accordingly. Don't do what happened down at the new area where the two schools are in an industrial park - that was planning without a plan! Kids and trucks are not a good mix.
We see things that were traditions change because size changes the atmosphere of being small. Celebrations become events and the crowds get bigger with fewer faces that you recognize.
No water! Urban sprawl. Muirfield,Timpmeadows etc...........Cottage Homes.........Zermot......
No water, more crime.
Water issues, health issues, safety issues.
Force infrastructural changes. Increase our property taxes, and decrease the rural way of life we have i this valley
More traffic. No more small town atmosphere. More crime.
rising taxes and over crowded schools.
loss of farmland/
Traffic, loss of character of the valley, profits going to people from outside this valley and outside the state, pollution, noise, light pollution.
The lots sizes larger and more expensive. It will allow only higher income people moving here to be able to afford the cost.
They cost existing homeowners, higher values, higher taxes, etc. There must be an impact fee for preserving open space and paying for impacts.
Forcing small family owned businesses out,Too much traffic,not enough WATER!
Crowding,Schools, Water, Power, Road Use
Sewer, Water, Ifrastructure, grabage, crime, and schools finding the balance wil be the hardest part. once a grain it all comes to planing and vision.
Loss of open space; traffic; rising property taxes; need for other businesses and services that again drive further growth. Limited but growing pollution due to traffic and construction industries. Increased crime both in terms of population demographics and new "targets." Effects of economic disparity on community relations.
Too much growth, large beautiful fields being turned into housing developments
Brings in so many people and raises the prices of the homes already here.
cost of infrastructure, policing, water and sewer
No more a nice place to live. Just take a look at Salt Lake.
smog, traffic, noise
drug lord competition
over burden of schools
More governmental services, necessary educational infrastructure, increased traffic demanding expanded roads, traffic lights, drive times; decreased air quality, WATER PROBLEMS, and more.
More traffic, smog. Less open space, privacy

Comments - Misc.

12. Please add any other comments.
we should have the best planners available to face he enormous problem facing wasatch county. It would be a good investment, Perhaps the coun ty and other muncipalities should have a unified planning gommision so developers can not use annexation and other threats to force the county to concede to their wishes.
Respoinsible groth need to continue. Key word here is "responsible". We need to curtail the "high density" development that all the developers want so they can maximize their instant profit and leave residents holding the bag. How come we don't push for more 1+ acre developments and even some 5+ acre ones. The county seems to cave in eventually to every developer that wants high density. There is plenty of financial incentive for 1-5 acre developments.Lets not turn into Snyderville!
I think there should be tax relief for those who moved here to retire and have no children.I moved here because I thought I could live on my social security and limited retirement funds and the taxed were affordable but they keep escalating.Tax children
When a new structure is planned an architectural drawing is usually created so those financing the project have a reasonably good idea of how it will look. It would be helpful if the various parties would likewise lay out verbally and graphically what the county should look like if their ideas were supported by the majority. What we seem to be getting are extreme views with disjointed pieces emphasized and no integrated, holistic picture of our county as it should be when the needs of all are considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to give input
Howard Jarvis sponosored the bill in question #11 in California in the 1970s and it was a boon to the state, not a bane. Mill levys need to drop when excess revenue comes in.
I have great concern, that our elected leaders are taking us down the wrong paths when it comes to growth. their problem solving abilities are based on emotion and the desire to please developers, more than looking at facts and long term solutions. citizens seem to be the last on their list of concerns.
Growth happens! How we manage it determines what our County will be. We moved here 35 years ago to get away from the city, now we are on the verge of becomming the city we moved to ger away from. Be wise!
I am in favor of growth but we need to be cautious that we don't lose the home town feeling. Need to make sure that we are controlling growth and growth is not controlling us.
Wasn't this decided in the bib box survey - A survey may be a good tool, if elected leaders listens.
Please bring in a Big Box so that school bonds can be paid by them. We are growing so quickly that we are not able to keep up with the demand for bringing money into our county. Let's not be pigheaded about what stores comes in. Look at our demographics, do we really need another gas station, tire place or bank? If we can get it into their contracts to be responsible for putting money into a school bond to build and or improve our schools would be best. If open space was a much as a park within the development would be great. We need to keep the kids off the streets and give them places to play and hang out instead of on the street. We need to get out of this small town mentality and start acting like Park City and letting our growth equal the amount of business we could be bringing in, instead of handing it off to other counties.
Is that constitutional to have old residents pay less than new ones??? We need to come to grips with our taxpayers traveling to other counties to shop at Costco, Target, etc. That is sales tax that would ofset property taxes! We can't be a bedroom community for Park City forever...We have to have a diverse economy that will sustain ourselves. Wake Up.
I am not happy about any of the decisions made in regard to developments by our County government. I thought the asphalt plant had been shut down and the next thing I knew there was smoke billowing across the valley. Way to go guys!! That was a good move. NOT
We could learn from our neighbor, Summit County. Everything we are going through they have already experienced. Our leaders need to seek advice and not ignore the help Summit County could provide. The two counties are becoming "The Wasatch Back" with similar issues throughout. With the development around the Jordanelle the Heber Valley, Park City and the Snyderville Basin are beginning to become one seamless community.
Wasatch county should take a lesson from Park City on Open Space preservation.
We moved here one year ago because of the country feel of the valley. Let's not turn it into another Park City, where the people are too snooty to even talk to you.
Is there ever going to be a tax exempt on seniors that are on a very limited income?
over the years, we have seen more govenment with fatter budgets, but it seems to be doing less and less. Our leaders seem to be making sweetheart deals with developers to get more money. all in all, we seem to be in trouble, but no one seems to be coming to our aid. There is a local program on our radio station, they raise the issues and talk with our leaders, but the problems remain the same. Everything our leaders seem to be doing, is always somehow tied to money. we are building things, but few people use what is built. Our leaders seem to spend money, even when it is in short supply and they are willing to raise our taxes to support their habits. I would think, in a few years, we will connect to park city and look like orem or someother place. The view from our mountains will be ugly, since all we will see is the roof tops of 100's of homes, that have brought nothing to our community except high taxes, more crime, traffic problems, and impacts on schools and other services we have.
Include conservation easements, open space, and orderly development in Land Use Planning.
Please, don't let our county turn into wall-to-wall homes as I have seen in other areas. We want to keep the rural, country feel. That's why we are here.
I don't want to be one of those who say: "Now that I'm here, everyone else 'stay out'." However, we have a chance to encourage development in such a way to preserve what makes this valley great; which is NOT "wall to wall" housing.
Question 4 and 5 are confusing. RA-1 seems to require specific land be set aside for agricultural usage. If land must be set aside for agricultural, this value must be subtracted from the total amount before dividing the amount of housing available.
There are too many small developments of relatively tasteless, suburban homes in the county. It creates a checkerboard effect with clusters of homes interspersed with agricultural land that will later be developed absent of a plan to consider any continuity of style or lot size.
All should share the burden of taxes fairly and old timers should never be favored or given preferential treatment unless they are on an income that would prohibit them from being able to pay their inflated taxes. In such cases a petition should be allowed and a review committee could adjust the taxes accordingly.
After talking with people that have moved into the valley, the predominant attitude that has been conveyed to me is that the "newcomers" want to stop the growth. It's almost as if they are saying, "I have mine, so let's close the doors so noone else can come in." An example of this is the big stores that have attempted to establish business in the valley. Almost all long term residents that I have talked to, want these stores. The "newcomers" express their concern about losing the small town "charm." I feel the small town "charm" was lost 30 years ago. Let's live in the now, not in the past. I feel all new structures should be taxed adequately to pay for all of the costs and the existing residents should not have to help cover the costs of sewer, water, road and other costs associated with the new developement. Make all new growth pay for itself! Then and only then will it be fair for the current residents who have lived here all their lives.
We are the Orange County of UT. It would be wise to look at the history of that area to understand where we are and where we are headed. Limits do not limit it only allows those with deep pockets to dwell here. Last year land was valued at 40k to 80k per acre. This year 80k to 140k. It seems unreal to those who have lived here so long and average to those who have come from other places. The county needs to plan for roads, sewter and waste disposal. Schools and churches will come as they are the bi product of housing sprawl. It is far too late it this county to hold back the land owners and say you are limited. There have been too many holes shot in plans and re configured plans to ever hold water or weight in a court of law. The idea is the views are beautiful here. The atmosphere is recreational for horse lovers, skiers both land and water, four wheeler owners and walkers bikers and hikers. We are the bedroom community to Utah County and to Salt Lake County. As summit gathers more soft industry we will bedroom them as well. We should work on soft industry and on organized comminities as that is all we are! Gone are the days of tractors humming at 5:00 a.m. and pa coming in for the noon meal. The pa's that will live here will be on the golf course at 5:30 and be home way after the sun sets in order to pay taxes in this county. We will see flight of long time residents who on limited incomes can not afford to live here. And those who have made the rules will in a decade be in the same situation that they too will be un able to stay. We have sold ourselves out for dollars and are now in a clamour to get a foundation under the house of cards!
The most successful counties in the state of Utah do not allow growth in the unincorporated ares of the county. If Wasatch County wants to be a city then incorporated!!
As a senior citizen the tax rates in this county will limit my time residing here. We will be buried here as we own those lots but we might have to be driven laying on our backs as we just don't make the money it takes to live here. In the planning of things I would suggest assisted living homes or parks where seniors can live in the area they were born in a small place that has limited fees like they have set up for low income families. Our home will be sold to a minority family on a special grant and low interest rate while we move to a condo in a city and for the first time lock our doors. A plan needs to include those who are in kindergarten now will still be residents of this County when they are seniors or we have sold our posterity out!
By placing a hold on taxes and forcing open space the freedom of the landowner is removed. Older people are under the burden of holding on to a property too large for them to take care of as tehy are under the lower tax law. It creates division in a community. The old are safe the new are burdened. The law should be the same for everyone. That is why we are in this pickle is that the laws have not benn consistent in this area since the seventies. We need to build a place where generations can still reside without having to work three jobs to do so.
Let the law be to govern not control. The land owner should be able to do what he wants with his land since he bought it and pays the taxes. Plan and stick to the plan. If it says no horses in Daniel and there are horse there now you have shot yourself in the foot! Plan for a five years, a decade, and out to 2050. Review the plan with the public yearly and make sure the paln reflects the needs of those who live here. For example: If no one owns horses in Heber Valley in 2030; we need to be thinking now what other uses the building built last year can be used for to benefit the community in the future. Plan with a purpose and plan for growth! Mostly what I have seen is some people having to build overkill to meet code and others not appearing to have any code. We need to get consistent. If it works in Midway it can work anywhere. Why re-invent the wheel!
I came to this area just like those who are coming here now. It is pretty and it is peaceful. It will always be pretty. If the roads and paths are put in place now it will still be peaceful. No one can control growth it just has to be managed. This place is in a boom mode. It will grow until it can't and then people will be doing surveys on growth for Tabby!
Houses are being built to close,to many on a lot,and are not'affordable'.
We need a county planning department that can and will direct and control growth and development in a professional and well educated manner, not development by the old boy network where dollars changing hands seals a deal
Dont just think about the money, think about the quality of our lives. Once we bring it all here it will never go away! Been there and have seen it ruin the small town I came from.
we went to the 7 person counsel, but they are not doing any better than the old 3 person counsel. They are not listening to what the people want.
Please save our valley from ending up like all the other "popular" places to live. Help us to save the farm. I would love to have more farm land, but how can we compete with these developers prices. We need to find a benefactor who will buy some of the farms and preserve them.
I think the people moving to this beautiful valley want to stop anyone else from moving here. It isn't going to happen. We need businesses to come in and keep the shopping in our county and add tax income. I am tired of driving (with the high gas prices) to Park City, Provo and Salt Lake City for everything we need. Logan is an example of a small town feel, but there are stores, shopping malls, places to eat and a main street with small businesses. Why can't Heber City have that too? I want my children to be able to afford to buy a home and live here. If only 1 acre lots and larger are allowed, who can afford them?
Prices of land are driven by profits the developer expects to make. The developer need to know there will be impact fees to pay - so let's get them in place NOW, not later.
Building is way out of control in our small valley,with the amount of water we have available Maybe I am old fashioned,lived here my entire life & it is,of course not the same,but growth could be controlled & planned better.
I know it is hard to keep every one happy it is harder to keep us happy when you keep changing the rules it should be the same for john dow as it is for the the old timer's in the valley. be honest, upfront, and having integrity, is the best policy don't twek thing or have heart burn your not puting your best foot forward when you say those things and we all know it!
But to make the law in question in #11 "constitutional," wouldn't there have to be some kind of allowance for newer owners once they had resided in the valley long enough? One final issue that should fit in this survey somewhere: we need a bypass route around Heber City. I think we have enough growth on its own to sustain area businesses (assuming we stand strong against Big Box stores)--the time to acquire land for a Highway 40 bypass route is now. That way, we can work to preserve the character of the valley--in conjunction with the municipalities--and still take advantage of it as a crossroads. We are enough of a destination spot now to do this--and that will only increase in the years ahead.
Please save the beauty of Heber. The fields and animals are why I moved here and bring such joy whenever I drive into Heber from SLC or Provo.
put in the bypass,slow traffic on Main St,make signage appropriate to downtown as opposed to having large "highway" type signage,have ordinances addressing "light pollution" in the valley, I want to be able to see the stars at night.
Please look at California taxes--Prop 13-This is the way to set the taxes.
We need low income housing and tax breaks for small business and large business that would bring in more revenue and honest working families
Subdivisions should have a higher density with clustering and have at leat 50% open space
There seems to be thoughtless control in subdivision growth and understandable, but shortsighted "cashing" in on land for money. The Heber Valley cannot sustain current growth without destroying its character and quality of life.
I think the zoning in the county could use improvement. Businesses need to be clustered into walkable areas. The oil change station at the Holiday Inn Express is like a sore thumb on the property. If this business had to go in that spot there should have been an architectural requirement to make it fit in. The dentist's office on the corner of the library lot also fights the architecture of the new library and blocks the view of that wonderful building. What makes a lot of resort type areas different is that they don't allow this type of haphazard development. I would also like to see the remaining historical buildings preserved. It would also be wonderful to have some trails, especially ones that allow horses in areas where horses are already on the properties such as the trails weaving through the homes in the north end of Park City. Thanks for allowing input into the development of our county.