Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[ski_steve]

Salt Lake County to Legislature: Keep townships - even Millcreek

By Jeremiah Stettler
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake County will lobby hardest this legislative session to keep its unincorporated townships as townships.
The County Council voted unanimously Tuesday to make the preservation of its six townships - Magna, Kearns, Copperton, White City, Millcreek and Emigration Canyon - the paramount priority on its legislative agenda.
"It seems absolutely clear that residents would like the option to stay within the county," GOP Councilman Mark Crockett said, adding that the county should push to make townships "possible forever, or at least for a lot longer," instead of expiring in two years.
What the council didn't mention Tuesday was the battle brewing between the county and several cities over the fate of Millcreek, where pollsters found a 40-plus percent plurality of residents (but not a majority) favoring a township for the east-side community.
The Utah League of Cities and Towns has promised a fight if the county tries to extend the township law for Millcreek. The league wants Millcreek to vote on its future in the 2010 general election.
Not if the county gets its way. Said Democratic Councilman Joe Hatch: "I don't see this compromise as anything we should entertain - period."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10601518?source=rss

[TANGELD_SLC]

well DRR they want the townships to remain. They get most of their TAXES from the townships! If the incorporated into Salt Lake City, they wouldn't pay taxes directly to SL county.

I say INCORPORATE INCORPORATE!

[TANGELD_SLC]

Double posting

[delts145]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

well DRR they want the townships to remain. They get most of their TAXES from the townships! If the incorporated into Salt Lake City, they wouldn't pay taxes directly to SL county.

I say INCORPORATE INCORPORATE!

Agreed!!

[cololi]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

well DRR they want the townships to remain. They get most of their TAXES from the townships! If the incorporated into Salt Lake City, they wouldn't pay taxes directly to SL county.

I say INCORPORATE INCORPORATE!

Actually, they would. All property taxes are paid directly to the County, who then disperses the revenue to cities based on their municipal tax rates. Even if you live in an incorporated area, a portion of your property taxes go directly to the county for county wide services. For those that are in unincorporated areas, they pay additional property taxes to the county for specific services, just like those in cities pay to their own city. If the county no longer provided the services normally provided by the cities, they could cut the size of the county government and there would not be much of difference in property taxes.

I personally could care less if the townships incorporate.

[UTPlanner]

As cololi stated earlier, make sure you check your property tax notice all county residents pay taxes to the county. This is to pay for countywide services such as the sheriff's department, the county jail, county recreation programs, etc.

Most township residents are hesitant to annex into Salt Lake City because the tax rate in the capital is much higher than other cities in the county and much higher than remaining unincorporated. Unless, SLC can prove to those residents that they will receive a higher level of service I would be surprised to see those areas annex into the city.

FYI an area annexes into a city. If it incorporates it becomes its own distinct city as Cottonwood Heights did recently.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by delts145

What's that on the north side of Daynes, I can't remember? Looks like we need to get rid of that too.





I hope the decorative top is still in place behind the faux front

Based on the two photos, I don't think so. It looks like the decorative cornice stuck out a little farther than the front of the Daynes building and now that building is flush, so I don't see how it would still be intact under there.

[delts145]

Ugh, You're probably right Dev.

[urbanboy]

The brickwork is likely still there, the cornice however doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to replace; all you need is a good mason. Anything would be more interesting than that ugly facade. I say take it off!!!!

[delts145]

Ditto to that Urbanboy... Guiottine...Guiottine!!!!

[rmarkosian]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

With our luck we'll end up with a single story Walgreens or gas station on that corner.

What I find hard to believe is that one year ago Mecham was bent to have the place torn down because he was eluding that he wanted the project completed in two years. He used the landscaping provision to demolish quickly. Now he doesn't have the funding, and what was the heart of Sugar House is a gaping hole. Which wont be filled any time soon. Is it a common practice to demolish before funding is secured? This is a common theme in two stories I've recently covered.

SLC courthouse expansion

Sugar House Update

The price tag due to loss of economic activity must be huge.

[urbanboy]

The simple answer to this question is that after post 9/11 considerations the Federal Marshall determined that the area needed an added level of protection against terrorist threats.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Scroll down and press play.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by rmarkosian

What I find hard to believe is that one year ago Mecham was bent to have the place torn down because he was eluding that he wanted the project completed in two years. He used the landscaping provision to demolish quickly. Now he doesn't have the funding, and what was the heart of Sugar House is a gaping hole. Which wont be filled any time soon. Is it a common practice to demolish before funding is secured? This is a common theme in two stories I've recently covered.
The price tag due to loss of economic activity must be huge.

It is not unusual for a land owner to demolish a project prior to having funding for a project. Most investors will not invest unless the project has development rights. There are also tax benefits: the buildings are typically assessed at a higher rate than the land. No building equals lower property taxes. It is rare, but in some cases, the tax breaks are more justifiable than paying taxes on a building that is not bringing in enough rent to cover the costs of having a building (maintance, insurance, taxes, etc). In other words, the rent does not cover the owners holding costs. Just a hunch, but I suspect that this is the case here. The other benefit is that the land is more marketable because it is vacant, which makes it easier to develop.

[Viperlord]

Drove past the site for the 200 West apartments today. It appears that they are cleaning up the site and demolishing the old run down home on site. All that remains is a dumpster full of trash/debris.

[delts145]

Downtown could be the place - Major growth projected for Wasatch Front urban areas

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700263438,00.html

One-third of Wasatch Front residents will want to live in a downtown setting or an area with urban amenities by 2040, according to the University of Utah's new director of metropolitan research.
To meet that projected demand, Arthur C. Nelson said, 60 percent of all new residential development from Logan to Provo needs to be in or near downtown areas, or contained in suburban centers such as Daybreak.

"I think I'm being conservative," Nelson told architects and local business leaders Wednesday while presenting the Wasatch Metropolitan Report at the Wells Fargo Center.

The findings indicate there's an urgent need for planners, developers and government officials to work together to prepare for a shift from suburban neighborhoods to urban-style living, where residents can walk or use transit to get around as easily as by car.

Nelson, who joined the University of Utah as a presidential professor July 1, is "one of the nation's foremost authorities on development patterns and trends," said Brenda Case Scheer, dean of the university's College of Architecture and Planning.

... Nelson projects that the population along the Wasatch Front will jump to nearly 4.2 million by 2040 — almost doubling the 2005 count.

.

[SLC Projects]

Projections show growth should target downtown
October 2nd, 2008 @ 8:53am
By Andrew Adams
KSL.COM

It looks like downtown will be the destination for many Utahns in the coming years.

The latest forecast shows 4.2 million people will live along the Wasatch Front by 2040, and one-third of them will want to live downtown or in an area that feels urban.

University of Utah Professor Arthur Nelson presented the Wasatch Front Metropolitan Report yesterday. He says the challenge will be accommodating the growth and demand. He says it means 60 percent of all new housing needs to be built in or close to downtown areas.

According to the Deseret News, Nelson said the housing shift stems from several factors including increased energy demands, revised financial realities and changing quality-of-life preferences.

When it comes to projected job growth, Nelson says a combined total of 1.8 billion square feet of commercial and office space will need to be built or rebuilt.

[SLC Projects]

Oh, I didn't see notice delts post there. LOL I should of known better.

[Viperlord]

I took a little drive today on lunch. The super 8 motel on 600 south is getting its facade updated. It looks like brick and stucco, nothing too fancy, but still its updating.

Also, I drove past the broadway park lofts. The North building appears to be just about topped out, and the crews are back working on it. Could we get a photo update, hint hint. lol

[delts145]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Oh, I didn't see notice delts post there. LOL I should of known better.

Great minds think alike Lee!

Hey Guys, We're just about to hit the big 7,000 reply anniversary. Viper, would you have thunk way back when, that you would have started all of this, by taking a little initiative to get this thread going?
.

[Viperlord]

wow, 7,000 replies in the past two years...