Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215
I also find the "suburbs drain resources" argument a little bit baffling, too. If I a person chooses to live 2 miles from their suburban job (as I do for one of mine) and uses responsible landscaping (I only have a 5-foot-by-5 patch of lawn), how do suburbs use any more resources than cities?... .
|
You are completely contradicting yourself with that statement and supporting the bridge. Yes there is nothing wrong with those living in the burbs driving two miles to work, also in the burbs. But those wanting the bridge across Utah lake aren't doing it because they live 2 miles from their job, THEY DON'T. They, by choice, moved dozens and dozens of miles from their jobs in order to move to Saratoga Springs and now are frustrated with their commute to SLC.
The bridge is basically one mans pipe dream in order to increase the value and development potential of his parcels of land, conveniently he owns parcels on both sides of the lake where the bridge would connect. Don't even attempt to say that this bridge will help relieve the traffic concerns of those living in Eagle Mtn. the bridge will begin south of where Pioneer Crossing enters Saratoga Springs and will head NE across the lake, so it will help the small population of Saratoga Springs and that is it. If the bridge headed SE towards Provo, serving the Provo CBD than I can see that it would benefit many more people, NOBODY from Eagle Mtn will use it, and the southern portion of Sartoga Springs doesn't have the growth capacity to warrant a 4 lane toll bridge across the lake.
And please don't lump yourself in with all Planners, saying that if the world was run by planners it would be a horrible place and that half the state would be paved over. I am a planner and often times many politicians are the worst thing that can happen to planning, and I for one do not support the Utah Lake Bridge and would not pave over half the state.
In regards to the fertile farm land discussion a few posts up. Very few may know that the soil in most of Orem rivals that of the soil in Fruit Heights and was once home of a very large number of Orchards, but due to growth and a lack of TDR options to land owners at the time, Orem no longer has orchards. The only other ideal orchard soil in the state remaining is in Fruit Heights and in southern Utah County, the Payson and Santaquin area. If we want to support locally grown foods, reducing transportation impacts and costs, we must come up with better development plans and ways to preserve these lands into the future. I am not simply being dramatic, the nearest comparable soil to Fruit Heights, Orem and Payson/Santaquin is in Idaho. Do we want to pave over all these lands with 1/4 acre lots and no longer have those resources available? Luckily there are programs such as Transfer of Development Rights that can at least provide and option to preserve these valuable resources in perpetuity. Planning staff are the ones responsible for mapping out these TDR areas and implementing the legislation for Council adoption, Planner actually knowing how the hell TDR's work and have the knowledge to explain that to the orchard farmers. Then an idiot politician comes along that has a vendetta against Planning and Zoning, because they won't allow a metal skin building to be built in a historic downtown district, and just so happens that said politician owns a sheet metal business, and attempts to eliminate and entire P&Z department through legal and illegal means, thus eliminating the efforts to preserve what few fertile areas we have left in our desert.