Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[asies1981]

Post on the mixed-use project planned for the old (and new) Bicycle Center site on 700 East.

[Boz]

Thought some of you might enjoy this video from NWSL. They welcome Utah into the league. It has some views of downtown, the valley and Rio Tinto stadium.

https://www.nwslsoccer.com/videos/24087777

Cheers.

[asies1981]

Council voted to reinstate the ADU boundary but remove any proposed cap.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Council voted to reinstate the ADU boundary but remove any proposed cap.

Lame.

[Old&New]

Trump expected to announce decision to shrink two national monuments in Utah

...Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will shrink two national monuments [unprecedented] in Utah on Monday, his final decision as a result of a federal review of monuments that began earlier this year.

Trump has been considering whether to reduce the size of several national monuments as part of a review started earlier this year. He is expected to announce his decision to change the boundaries of two monuments in Utah, Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Trump is expected to announce that Bears Ears will be reduced to around 180,000 acres from 1.35 million and that Grand Escalante, which is about 1.9 million acres, could be trimmed by half, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=51462273

[bob rulz]

Has anybody talked about whether he even has the ability to do that?

Not sure it matters though, the next administration is going to spend a LOT of time cleaning up the mess this administration has created, and I'm sure this will be one of those things.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Lame.

I agree, but this is better than nothing. I especially like removing the cap. This gives it a real chance to be successful.

Maybe after 3 years, when it's revisited, residents will realize that ADUs are no big deal and they'll be expanded to the whole city.

It's disappointing that it wasn't expanded to the whole city, but this is still a HUGE step forward for urbanizing SLC.

[asies1981]

The PC approved the Violin School Commons project yesterday.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Has anybody talked about whether he even has the ability to do that?

Not sure it matters though, the next administration is going to spend a LOT of time cleaning up the mess this administration has created, and I'm sure this will be one of those things.

He very much has the right to do it since the act to make the monument was an executive order. He has a right to undo that order or change it and the next president has the right to do the same. This might end up going to the supreme court to make it clear what can and can't be done.

Bishop was on the radio today saying it would be better to just have congress do this so that presidents aren't upstaging each other.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by AllOutOfBubbleGum

He very much has the right to do it since the act to make the monument was an executive order. He has a right to undo that order or change it and the next president has the right to do the same. This might end up going to the supreme court to make it clear what can and can't be done.

Bishop was on the radio today saying it would be better to just have congress do this so that presidents aren't upstaging each other.

"While there is no judicial decision on the issue, several opinions by attorneys general and solicitors 'strongly suggest the president doesn’t have this authority to rescind' a national monument designation, says Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah and director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment. 'Most legal scholars that have looked at it have concluded the same.' —www.csmonitor.com

[jubguy3]

Time to go moon trump

[Utah_Dave]

I believe the public would be best serve if these national monuments were proposed at the state level and approved by Congress at the National level, or vice versa.

On another level I would prefer to see 1-3 smaller national parks as opposed to one massive, more restrictive national monument. I also think that in general the national parks should be somewhat large areas of and land and monuments should be relatively small.

Problem solved

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I believe the public would be best serve if these national monuments were proposed at the state level and approved by Congress at the National level, or vice versa.

On another level I would prefer to see 1-3 smaller national parks as opposed to one massive, more restrictive national monument. I also think that in general the national parks should be somewhat large areas of and land and monuments should be relatively small.

Problem solved

"Monument" and "Park" create the false impression that the word has anything to do with a size. It refers to the mode of creation - National Parks are created by the NPS (part of the Department of the Interior), and must be signed as an Act by Congress. National Monuments are created by proclamation of the president of any federal land. National Parks can only be overseen by the NPS, but a variety of federal agencies can oversee a national monument, namely: the NPS, the forest service, the fish and wildlife service, or the BLM.

The largest ecologically protected monument, for example, is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai'i and encompasses ~540k square miles of marine waters and 10 islands / atolls and is one of the largest protected areas in the world. Many larger monuments exist in Alaska and Utah but don't have the same ecological protections as Papahanaumokuakea.

The term monument is a bit of a misnomer. The distinction between a monument and a park is entirely based on the administration and creation of the landmark. One of the most popular national parks, Hot Springs (AK), is only 22 square miles.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by Stenar

"While there is no judicial decision on the issue, several opinions by attorneys general and solicitors 'strongly suggest the president doesn’t have this authority to rescind' a national monument designation, says Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah and director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment. 'Most legal scholars that have looked at it have concluded the same.' —www.csmonitor.com

Downsizing a monument has never been challenged so that’s his opinion not legal fact. I’ve read many legal options that never come out the way the writer says. Like I said before, it will go to the Supreme Court or at the very least appeliat court.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by AllOutOfBubbleGum

Downsizing a monument has never been challenged so that’s his opinion not legal fact. I’ve read many legal options that never come out the way the writer says. Like I said before, it will go to the Supreme Court or at the very least appeliat court.

It will be interesting to watch how the courts apply the law and Constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court as currently constructed is fairly liberal regarding giving Presidents and Congress power to do things if it is reasonably in their realm. They cut President Obama a lot of slack on some of his more controversial and Constitutionally vague/questionable executive orders.

This is an issue I agree with the Trump administration on only if it comes with a call for Congress to take up the issue and make a longer lasting decision or as was said by having a new law that expects the states to submit the request. The way it is done now is quite literally the LEAST democratic process possible. You have presidents who wait until they are complete lame ducks and the election is over so no political repercussions are on the line, and then they issue an executive order without any due process in the public sphere. On the local level we freak out if any UTA decision is made without overwhelming public input, but some seem to be okay with these midnight decisions? At least the law should state that these monuments must be made before the presidential election so the process is a bit more democratic.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

"Monument" and "Park" create the false impression that the word has anything to do with a size. It refers to the mode of creation - National Parks are created by the NPS (part of the Department of the Interior), and must be signed as an Act by Congress. National Monuments are created by proclamation of the president of any federal land. National Parks can only be overseen by the NPS, but a variety of federal agencies can oversee a national monument, namely: the NPS, the forest service, the fish and wildlife service, or the BLM.

The largest ecologically protected monument, for example, is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai'i and encompasses ~540k square miles of marine waters and 10 islands / atolls and is one of the largest protected areas in the world. Many larger monuments exist in Alaska and Utah but don't have the same ecological protections as Papahanaumokuakea.

The term monument is a bit of a misnomer. The distinction between a monument and a park is entirely based on the administration and creation of the landmark. One of the most popular national parks, Hot Springs (AK), is only 22 square miles.

I was doing some reading on the subject and I did come across some info that outlines the creation of a monument. One item, and I hope this info is accurate, says the size of the monument should be as small as possible basically when creating the monument. I’ve heard this piece of info in discussions on the radio also and is sited as a reason to reduce the size of these monuments.

[stayinginformed]

An artificial intelligence-using drug company will assume former Dick’s storefront — and its climbing wall — at The Gateway

http://www.sltrib.com/news/business/...-drug-company/

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I was doing some reading on the subject and I did come across some info that outlines the creation of a monument. One item, and I hope this info is accurate, says the size of the monument should be as small as possible basically when creating the monument. I’ve heard this piece of info in discussions on the radio also and is sited as a reason to reduce the size of these monuments.

I'm not going to make a conclusive accusation but that sounds like a load of conservative misinformation. The difference between a national monument and a park is that national monuments are created by the president without approval by congress. All parks are almost always larger, but it would be entirely possible to designate a small national park. And tons of national monuments are expanded frequently. I'm sure that the government doesn't want to have to assume special designations for land that they don't want to have to spend more to manage, but even if this rule was an actual guideline, it wouldn't be a justification to shrink a national monument. If monuments had to be as small as possible, I dont think any would exist in the first place.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I'm not going to make a conclusive accusation but that sounds like a load of conservative misinformation.

Now I’m going to make a conclusive accusation that you don’t know a lot about this either. We can’t assume we know what’s going to happen because we don’t. I swore that Obamacare was going to get struck down and guess what, it wasn’t. I swore that Ammon Bundy was going to get convicted in Oregon and he wasn’t and I swore that this illiegal Immigrant in San Francisco was going to be convicted of murder and he wasn’t.

You and I do not know how the courts will see this so don’t go calling people misinformed when you are assuming like him.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Here is a map of the new boundaries of grand staircase (assumed)
http://www.danransom.com/2017/12/gra...ry-reductions/

This guy that made this is a lifer for this area. He knows more about this monument then probably the rangers that over see it.