Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Page 278

Viperlord · #**5541** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 4:03 AM**

UTA makes a push for economic development around its hubs

I like rod deckers vision... lol

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3498432

http://www.kutv.com/

http://www.rideuta.com/files/TODconference.pdf

btw, I would not look too deeply into those renderings that were shown.... they are just generic renderings provided from an architecture firm in Dallas.... lol

delts145 · #**5542** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

Yeah I totally agree that having the liqour store so close to the shelter and the park doesn't help the area. I drink myself, and don't think that alcohol is evil or anything like that, but I think the location is a little corrupt. ... Now in reply to your question. Don't we already show valid I.D.? Im confused? I think the database would be a good idea for the DT liqour store.

Yeah, I was thinking that downtown location seems like something of a cash cow for certain agencies. It just seems very strange that a demoralized police force exclaims that alcoholism is the largest problem at Pioneer Park, yet a liquor store is allowed to flourish there. As far as I.D., I guess I mean particularly downtown. I just don't think that a lot of these particular repeat offenders are showing a drivers license at the liquor store. I imagine they are paying in cash, and is someone really checking I.D. closely? There has to be some kind of database system to prevent the sale of alcohol to addicted, repeat offenders.

RFPCME · #**5543** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 4:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I remember last year during the mayoral primary listening to a debate between Nancy Saxton and Jenny Wilson. They were talking about Pioneer Park and I don't remember who, but one of them said this: "A scoundrel in a new suit is still a scoundrel" Basically, that new playground equipment isn't enough to fix the area's problems. Until the homeless are gone, that area is always going to have problems.

Arkhitektor: Yup! You're right. Pioneer Park will be a mess until something is done about the homeless situation. But I don't think the solution is moving the homeless shelter or the 4th Street Free Clinic, which is diagonally across the street from Pioneer Park.

The problem isn't new. I remember as a kid 50 years ago not being able to play in that park because of all the drunks, many passed out on under the trees, which made chasing fly balls difficult because you were liable to step on someone. So what do you do?

This isn't a forum to debate all the social evils of society and their solutions. But development always requires solving some social problems.

Radical as it may seem, I think the solution lies in finding another area, not far from the homeless shelters and the clinic, where drunks and junkies can congregate. I don't believe you can eradicate the problem. But I do think there are better areas, much more policeable than Pioneer Park. I also like the idea of moving the heavy drug-use area away from 4th So. It's too easy for casual users to score drugs and get out of the area quickly because of easy freeway access.

Am I going to say where the new, more acceptable place for drunks and junkies should be? Absolutely not! Won't even speculate on it because if this idea were ever to happen, the last thing anyone would want to admit was that there was anywhere within SLC where drug use was more acceptable. The drunks and junkies will figure out quickly where the "better" place was, once local authorities made the decision. No one else needs to know.

RFPCME · #**5544** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 4:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by delts145

Yeah, I was thinking that downtown location seems like something of a cash cow for certain agencies. It just seems very strange that a demoralized police force exclaims that alcoholism is the largest problem at Pioneer Park, yet a liquor store is allowed to flourish there. As far as I.D., I guess I mean particularly downtown. I just don't think that a lot of these particular repeat offenders are showing a drivers license at the liquor store. I imagine they are paying in cash, and is someone really checking I.D. closely? There has to be some kind of database system to prevent the sale of alcohol to addicted, repeat offenders.

Delts: I wish alcoholism were the biggest problem in Pioneer Park. It's heroin. The locals call it "Needle Park." Even during the farmers market on Saturday mornings, you don't have to look very hard to see syringes every where. My kids, when they were in high school in SL County, way up on the eastside, used to tell me how kids they knew would score heroin at the Park just about anytime. The doc's in the 4th St. Clinic have told me the same thing.

Regardless, that liquor store between 4th and 5th So. is a joke. It should never be there. Trouble is if that store is closed, the drunks and junkies will just move to a different one. Where the store is currently located keeps the problem there, less out of sight than in other locations. But there has to be a better location for the store, away from easy freeway access, as I alluded to in another post I wrote this evening.

I used to drink, a lot, and have no compunction about anyone who does. People should be allowed to buy alcohol without anyone tracking their purchases. Too much a violation of privacy. That's the deal in a free country--we are free to make bad choices. But even if we policed purchases, it would not solve the problem of alcoholics and junkies and their corresponding issues.

WASDEN · #**5545** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 5:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I remember last year during the mayoral primary listening to a debate between Nancy Saxton and Jenny Wilson. They were talking about Pioneer Park and I don't remember who, but one of them said this: "A scoundrel in a new suit is still a scoundrel" Basically, that new playground equipment isn't enough to fix the area's problems. Until the homeless are gone, that area is always going to have problems.

I agree Ark. Really I find the idea of playground equipment at Pioneer Park laughable. The residents of that area have more use for a hip farmers market than playground equipment. Plus I don't know too many folks who would be keen on bringing their kids in from neighborhoods where kids actually live to play at Pioneer Park.

Speaking of the debates I did feel like Nancy Saxton had a good idea for the park. She often mentioned the possibility of having an officer on horseback designated to patroling the area. I thought that sounded kind of cool, and had some big city flare to it. Plus if it turned out that a mounted officer wasn't having that much affect on crime, it would be an easy program to discontinue. Much easier than say- big brother type cameras which was another proposal.

delts145 · #**5546** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Delts:
I used to drink, a lot, and have no compunction about anyone who does. People should be allowed to buy alcohol without anyone tracking their purchases. Too much a violation of privacy. That's the deal in a free country--we are free to make bad choices. But even if we policed purchases, it would not solve the problem of alcoholics and junkies and their corresponding issues.

Database does sound like big brother is keeping track doesn't it. I was thinking more along the line of not keeping track, but some kind of red-light barrier for those who have repeat offenses for alcohol related disturbance. Something that would give the vendor a warning that the customer is not allowed to purchase liquor. Kind of like a check-rite system. Of course, the offender would probably figure some other covert way to get the liquor. Ohhhh Well

Future Mayor · #**5547** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

UTA makes a push for economic development around its hubs

I like rod deckers vision... lol

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3498432

http://www.kutv.com/

http://www.rideuta.com/files/TODconference.pdf

btw, I would not look too deeply into those renderings that were shown.... they are just generic renderings provided from an architecture firm in Dallas.... lol

I agree, I think the focus on development is going to substantially change. Unlike some forumers I am not totally against the automobile and against additional freeways. The simple law of supply and demand will create more need for TOD, people have traditionally wanted to live in the burbs and that is what they have been supplied with. As demand shift to wanting to live in the city or in a more urban type atmosphere TOD will provide that opportunity. There will be those that will want to live right in downtown but there will still be those that want easy access to downtown but not the hustle and bustle 24/7, these are the individuals that will demand housing at such places like fireclay and any other TOD along all the transit lines.

arkhitektor · #**5548** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

UTA makes a push for economic development around its hubs

I like rod deckers vision... lol

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3498432

http://www.kutv.com/

http://www.rideuta.com/files/TODconference.pdf

btw, I would not look too deeply into those renderings that were shown.... they are just generic renderings provided from an architecture firm in Dallas.... lol

Rod Decker is so obnoxious!! Anyway, good story. By the way, did anyone attend the TOD conference yesterday?

i-215 · #**5549** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 3:21 PM**

Oh! My! Gosh!

I've never seen Rod Decker go crazy like that! It was worth making a YTMND out of it ...

http://psychoreporter.ytmnd.com/

SLC Projects · #**5550** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

Oh! My! Gosh!

I've never seen Rod Decker go crazy like that! It was worth making a YTMND out of it ...

http://psychoreporter.ytmnd.com/

LOL. I like Rod Decker. He's really into his job. Who knows maybe he like skyscrapers and urban development like the rest of us.

UTPlanner · #**5551** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 5:05 PM**

I have to be honest, I cannot stand listening to Rod Decker rant. If I wanted to be yelled at I would just sit and watch FoxNews for a while.

Concerning, the location of the state liquor store, I think it is a bit naive to attempt to claim that all of the problems at Pioneer Park stem from the location of that store. These guys have real problems and I don't dispute that fact, but an alcoholic will continue to get his alcohol.

If any of you have been to the downtown liquor store the vast majority of the customers are just regular people looking to purchase some booze. I live downtown and have been known to make a purchase or two at the store. It is not as if this store is some Chuck-a-Rama style liquor store for the homeless.

Crime will proliferate in any area that it is tolerated. SLC has made it a priority and must continue to do so. You cannot just sweep through a park once or twice a year and think that real change will occur. I think the idea of placing cameras in the park to deter crime was a great idea. I agree that I do not want to live in a "Big Brother-esque" society but this is a public park.

On a more positive note I am looking forward to the beginning of another season at the Farmer's Market. If you have never been out you are missing out. I am there every Saturday morning. The park looks great and will continue to as long as SLC makes it a priority. It really is an urban gem and should be promoted and maintained as such.

Scraperdude801 · #**5552** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 7:02 PM**

RFCME - We live in a free society that has laws. Laws are in place to protect the public and its citizens. ... It is just like with a drivers license, if you abuse your freedom and harm other people you get it taken away for a time. ... I hate when people impose place laws that impose on a persons freedom, but sometimes a persons action imposes on a large # of people's freedom. In this case it is all of us who would like to use the park but can't because it is over run with crime. ... I realize that alcoholism is not the root of all the problems, but you are kidding yourself if you think it has nothing to do with it. ... Such a red light for offenders would make no impact on the responsible drinker.

UTPlanner - I live downtown and drink as well. I also have shopped at that liqour store. Granted most of the patrons are your average joe just trying to get some booze for a get together. However, I have been in their a couple times with outrageously obnoxious homeless people buying booze. It is true that a drunk will always find their fix, but does that mean we should be an enabling society and make it as easy as possible for them even when it hurts us?

I believe the park can make a turn around if the homeless shelter was moved to wherever police headqaurters end up moving to. ... Don't get me wrong, I have great compassion and sympathy for our homeless population. Especially the veterans and homeless teenagers, and I don't think the shelter should be moved around a million times, but one smart move is likely to be needed in the end for everyones benefit. Even the homeless. Not all homeless people are drug addicts and low lifes, their are good people who just came up on some serious bad luck, and having the shelter in the current location doesn't do them any justice. The shelter is infratrated and watched over by a couple gangs who run their drug operations there. That creates a very unsafe environment for those of the homeless population who are not druggies, or involved in any of that.

Personally I loathe the idea of having security cameras at the park. That would just make the park feel like a police state.

Scraperdude801 · #**5553** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

UTA makes a push for economic development around its hubs

I like rod deckers vision... lol

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3498432

http://www.kutv.com/

http://www.rideuta.com/files/TODconference.pdf

btw, I would not look too deeply into those renderings that were shown.... they are just generic renderings provided from an architecture firm in Dallas.... lol

That's awesome. I hope some developers hop on board and get some of these TOD's going. I'm very interested to see what happens near the intermodal hub.

urbanboy · #**5554** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

Oh! My! Gosh!

I've never seen Rod Decker go crazy like that! It was worth making a YTMND out of it ...

http://psychoreporter.ytmnd.com/

Why the hell does he say "trees and the parking?" You don't take out the trees! You put in more to create a pedestrian friendly environment! That statement probably did some damage as far as convincing many in our society that density is good!

Scraperdude801 · #**5555** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 7:22 PM**

Good point Urban Boy

arkhitektor · #**5556** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Why the hell does he say "trees and the parking?" You don't take out the trees! You put in more to create a pedestrian friendly environment! That statement probably did some damage as far as convincing many in our society that density is good!

Rod, nutty as he is, was referring to the specific trees between the TRAX and Frontrunner platforms at Salt Lake Central Station, not trees in general.
Long range plans for that site include development in the area between the platforms, which would require removing the trees that are currently there.

SLC Projects · #**5557** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Rod, nutty as he is, was referring to the specific trees between the TRAX and Frontrunner platforms at Salt Lake Central Station, not trees in general.
Long range plans for that site include development in the area between the platforms, which would require removing the trees that are currently there.

arkhitektor is right. I do remember seeing a rendering of UTA's futures plans to develop a building in the middle of where that platform is now between the Frontrunner and Trax. I think that's what Rod was talking about since that's where he was standing.

delts145 · #**5558** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

We live in a free society that has laws. Laws are in place to protect the public and its citizens. ... It is just like with a drivers license, if you abuse your freedom and harm other people you get it taken away for a time. ... I hate when people impose place laws that impose on a persons freedom, but sometimes a persons action imposes on a large # of people's freedom. In this case it is all of us who would like to use the park but can't because it is over run with crime. ... I realize that alcoholism is not the root of all the problems, but you are kidding yourself if you think it has nothing to do with it. ... Such a red light for offenders would make no impact on the responsible drinker.

I live downtown and drink as well. I also have shopped at that liqour store. Granted most of the patrons are your average joe just trying to get some booze for a get together. However, I have been in their a couple times with outrageously obnoxious homeless people buying booze. It is true that a drunk will always find their fix, but does that mean we should be an enabling society and make it as easy as possible for them even when it hurts us?

I believe the park can make a turn around if the homeless shelter was moved to wherever police headqaurters end up moving to. ... Don't get me wrong, I have great compassion and sympathy for our homeless population. Especially the veterans and homeless teenagers, and I don't think the shelter should be moved around a million times, but one smart move is likely to be needed in the end for everyones benefit. Even the homeless. Not all homeless people are drug addicts and low lifes, their are good people who just came up on some serious bad luck, and having the shelter in the current location doesn't do them any justice. The shelter is infratrated and watched over by a couple gangs who run their drug operations there. That creates a very unsafe environment for those of the homeless population who are not druggies, or involved in any of that.

DITTO to that!

RFPCME · #**5559** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 2:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

RFCME - We live in a free society that has laws. Laws are in place to protect the public and its citizens. ... It is just like with a drivers license, if you abuse your freedom and harm other people you get it taken away for a time. ... I hate when people impose place laws that impose on a persons freedom, but sometimes a persons action imposes on a large # of people's freedom. In this case it is all of us who would like to use the park but can't because it is over run with crime. ... I realize that alcoholism is not the root of all the problems, but you are kidding yourself if you think it has nothing to do with it. ... Such a red light for offenders would make no impact on the responsible drinker.

UTPlanner - I live downtown and drink as well. I also have shopped at that liqour store. Granted most of the patrons are your average joe just trying to get some booze for a get together. However, I have been in their a couple times with outrageously obnoxious homeless people buying booze. It is true that a drunk will always find their fix, but does that mean we should be an enabling society and make it as easy as possible for them even when it hurts us?

I believe the park can make a turn around if the homeless shelter was moved to wherever police headqaurters end up moving to. ... Don't get me wrong, I have great compassion and sympathy for our homeless population. Especially the veterans and homeless teenagers, and I don't think the shelter should be moved around a million times, but one smart move is likely to be needed in the end for everyones benefit. Even the homeless. Not all homeless people are drug addicts and low lifes, their are good people who just came up on some serious bad luck, and having the shelter in the current location doesn't do them any justice. The shelter is infratrated and watched over by a couple gangs who run their drug operations there. That creates a very unsafe environment for those of the homeless population who are not druggies, or involved in any of that.

Personally I loathe the idea of having security cameras at the park. That would just make the park feel like a police state.

Scraperdude801:Talking about homeless shelters and addiction is difficult. There are no easy answers.

I am impressed at the level of the discussion. It has stayed at high level and remained rational, when it could have easily slipped into rantings and ravings, which I believe is a credit to the quality of the people who read and post on this forum. We may not agree on the resolution to the problem, but I respect the way the topics have been handled.

Viperlord · #**5560** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 3:07 AM**

ran into a small blurb about the providence place project....

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/120...idential_community_in_midvale/index.html

its old, but atleast it explains the hold up.....

This will be Wasatch Advantage's first new-construction project in Utah. Last year, the company purchased the former Jubilee Center at 309 E. 100 S. in downtown Salt Lake City from the Episcopal Church, with plans to develop 125 units of affordable rental housing on the site. The project was called Providence Place, but soon stalled.

"Providence Place is under contract to be sold," Nielson said. "But we may still develop it next year. We had some offers from people who wanted to develop the site as condos. The offers were attractive enough that it made us think twice about developing apartments. I think there's probably a 50-50 chance that we'll still develop the site as apartments if it doesn't sell as condos. If it doesn't sell as condos, then we'll definitely start construction on the apartments, probably as soon as next spring."

Copyright Enterprise Business Newspaper Inc. Nov 26, 2007