Letters to the editor: Embrace co-ownership model in Park City | ParkRecord.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Letters to the editor: Embrace co-ownership model in Park City

Co-ownership a solution for family, Park City

Our family loves Park City and searched for our dream second home here for some time. We couldn’t decide between a big house on the hill, or a ski-in, ski-out close to Old Town, so we decided to purchase a 1⁄8 ownership share in each! Now we own a portion of two beautiful homes that meet all of our family’s needs thanks to Pacaso.

We offer a good example of how Pacaso can benefit the community. Without Pacaso, we would have sought a median priced home and used it just part of the year. The other co-owners would have done the same, all buying up homes that could be used by full time residents. With Pacaso, the other owners and our family share fewer, high end homes and make year round use of them.



Limiting the accessibility of co-owned homes to certain zones would mean that we would have to buy a single home in one of the more median-priced neighborhoods instead. Ultimately, that would be a detriment to the city.

We love exploring all that Park City has to offer and being a part of the local community. We believe co-ownership is the best way to incorporate people who care about Park City instead of folks who just pass through on short-term rentals or buy traditional second homes and barely use them.



I hope the City Council decides to regulate, but not over regulate, co-ownership and embrace all of the benefits it brings to Park City.

Sincerely,

Jill and Bill Vantine

Norfolk, Connecticut

Embrace co-ownership model

My family and I are avid skiers and have been coming to Park City for over eight years because of the wonderful conditions. We are a family of five who previously rented homes when visiting, but saw an opportunity through Pacaso’s co-ownership model to become a part of this community we have come to love.

We have found Pacaso’s team to be extremely caring in how they run their business and manage the homes including encouraging us to meet our neighbors. When we first stayed in our new home on Rothwell Road, our property manager gave us recommendations on restaurants, local activities and suggestions for other services like ski butlers. As our children go off to college, my wife and I are excited to be able to spend more time in Park City and go to our first Sundance Film Festival next January. We feel we are members of the community rather than tourists.

I urge the City Council to take my experience into consideration and to embrace, rather than restrict, the co-ownership model. The alternatives to Pacaso are short term rentals and traditional second homes. Pacaso allows people like my family and I, who really love this town, to share high-end homes with other families rather than staying in a patchwork of Airbnbs or purchasing a single family home that will sit empty most of the time. I prefer it as a co-owner and strongly believe it’s a better model for the community as well.

Warm regards,

Joe Chernesky 

San Carlos, California

Voters can change School Board

Whoever truly first uttered the words, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, that “nothing is certain, except death and taxes”, they can be forgiven for omitting the ethically-challenged intransigence of the Park City School Board. This past week we discovered the Board had, predictably, voted to renew the contract of the Superintendent (unanimously, of course). The public – for whom the Board appears to have forgotten they work – will never know what deliberations and discussions went into that decision because, as always, it all happened in the secretive backroom shadows where the Board operates. Transparency be damned.

Did the Board consider the criminal charges leveled against the District because of instutional failure to report multiple counts of sexual abuse and rape of children, on the Superintendent’s watch? Did they consider the rejection of health mandates during a pandemic that put children, staff, and the wider community at risk? Did they consider the low morale of many teachers, the ongoing hemorrhaging of experienced educators from the District, and associated concerns about class sizes? Did they consider the bloated and highly-paid “cabinet” the Superintendent has surrounded herself with while being unable to properly compensate teachers and other staff? Did they consider the repeated inability to come close to balancing the District’s budget? (What was that about taxes being certain again?)

According to the Board President, they considered it all. This is, evidently, exactly how the Board wants the District to be run. Indeed, the Board President confirmed in a statement they are “thrilled” with the Superintendent’s performance. So thrilled they’re giving her a nice raise too. A word on that – can we please stop with the facile nonsense that her inflated compensation package is necessary because of the high cost of living in Park City? The comparatively high cost of living here is due to housing costs, and she’s provided with a house, and car, separate from her already swollen financial compensation.

Count me among those who find this all somewhat troubling. Fortunately, while this School Board is clearly not going to change itself, through the electoral process this November we can at least change 40% of it.

Nick Hill

Candidate for Park City School Board, District 5


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Park City and Summit County make the Park Record's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.