Letters to the Editor, Sept. 20-22
Submissions from Park Record readers
Resident questions impact of proposed care facility
My letter is for the attention of all Summit County residents including Park City and Pinebrook in particular. The Park Record headline of September 12, “Assisted living home is proposed near Pinebrook,” is accurate in one respect and erroneous in another. Based on what was said at the public hearing, the phrase “assisted living” is accurate, but the institution would not be “near” Pinebrook but rather ‘in’ Pinebrook well beyond the stone portal and electric sign announcing this residential neighborhood.
The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission announcement for the public hearing on September 12 respecting the proposed structure identified “an adult independent living facility:” That is just obfuscating gobbledgook since caretakers will be needed 24/7. Nowhere in the announcement did it mention autistic adults, or that this might well be a commercial enterprise.
The salient questions I would ask of Pinebrook residents are: Do you think such an asylum within your neighborhood would diminish your property value? Do you think such a structure (see the architectural drawings) would aid or detract from the Pinebrook ambiance? For the rest of you, do you ever wonder about the clarity of pronouncements by local governmental bureaucrats?
Paul T. Meyers, Ph.D.
* * *
Group wants to help ease wildlife vs. human conflicts
I have read many of The Park Record’s reports on wildlife sightings and encounters in the Park City area and only a few mention safety tips or what to do if a reader encounters wildlife. Although the articles are informative about the recent wildlife activity, reports of wildlife roaming in cities, especially predators like cougars, can spark fear in many people. Adding safety tips can help people feel empowered and less fearful.
The Park Record has always been good about sharing wildlife safety tips in the past. We hope they will continue to do so. Please empower readers with knowledge.
The Wild Aware Utah program is designed to be a resource for Utah communities and media to help residents learn more about the wildlife found here and how to avoid conflicts. The collaborative wildlife awareness and safety program is part of Utah’s Hogle Zoo, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and USU Cooperative Extension educational and community efforts.
The Wild Aware Utah program is not an organization and we are not asking you to promote it, only to utilize our free wildlife safety information. Our program is proactive, not strictly reactive to wildlife conflict situations. The key is to prevent issues from arising in the first place.
Park City is a wonderful area surrounded by natural space and wildlife. Residents and visitors can benefit from having easy access to wildlife safety tips via the city website. A link would be helpful on your site, to inform folks about the wildlife they may encounter.
Our website, wildawareutah.org, offers easy access to free wildlife awareness and safety information. Having easy access provides more opportunities for residents and visitors to easily find out about Utah’s wildlife and learn coexistence tips.
* * *
Electric bike progam success is overstated
In your September 6-8, 2017 edition there was an article that referred to, “The overwhelming success of Summit County’s electric bike program over the summer.” Then the following statistics as proof of the success were given. Seven thousand total trips and 24,199 total miles ridden in six weeks.
I’m not sure how you determined these figures to be an overwhelming success. If you consider the 7,000 trips produced 24,199 total miles ridden, that is only 3.46 miles per trip on average. You might as well walk –b etter exercise without the expense. Then if you consider the stated 80 bikes in the program compiled these 24,199 total miles in six weeks that is only 302 miles per bike or 7.20 miles put on each bike per day, if averaged out over the 80 bikes in service. I’m not sure what use I would consider overwhelming but probably not the figures presented in your article.
That being said if the cost burden is on the user and not the taxpayer I think it’s pretty cool. If the cost is on the taxpayer, that would be another story.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
A reader says elected officials’ rejection of UDOT’s plan to widen S.R. 248 is “nothing short of irresponsible leadership.”