| OCR Text |
Show Olympic bid gets thymmbs up in local hearing by DAVID HAMPSHIRE Record editor If last week's public hearing is any indication, Park ity residents are ready to support Utah's bid for the 1992 or 1996 Winter Olympics. In an informal poll of the 50 people who attended Thursday's hearing in the Marsac Municipal Building, the overwhelming majority expressed support for the bid, favoring an approach that would minimize the impact on Big and Little Cottonwood canyons. Area residents generally favored proposals for holding the alpine skiing events in Park City, although See related story, PageA7 there was some concern about a plan to build a bobsled-luge run on Quarry Mountain near ParkWest. "I'm nervous about building anything on Quarry Mountain," said Snyderville resident Amanda Peterson. "But I think the ski resorts could competently handle the slalom and giant slalom." Park City resident Bob Anderson, who has visited several Olympic host cities, said the bobsled runs were seldom used once the games were over. "What it leaves you is a long-time scar on the mountain, and that is not good for us." However, most of the concerns about possible environmental damage were focused on Big and Little Cottonwood canyons which, noted Salt Lake resident Walter Katzenberger, are protected watersheds. "How can we possibly take a chance with the delicate balance in those canyons by putting all those people in there?" he asked. "There's no way to avoid the kind of debris that would be embedded in the dirt and would come down in the spring." Those at the hearing also had questions about the possible impact of a tunnel connecting the two canyons. And they wondered about a plan to upgrade the Guardsman Pass Road between Park City and Brighton. However, consultant Richard Siegel, with the Salt Lake planning firm of Eckhoff, Watson and Preator, told the group that the Guardsman Pass Road would be modified only slightly. "The road would go back to its present use after the games are over." The hearing followed a 20-minute slide presentation on the proposal to Vt, i bid for the Olympics. The presentation summarized the research done during the past year by a 25-member feasibility committee which includes four Park City-area residents. Two of the four, Bill Coleman and Dave Hanscom, answered questions following the slide show. Coleman said few observers expect a North American city to win the bid for the 1992 games since the 1988 games have been awarded to Calgary, Alberta. However, he argued that Utah should bid for the 1992 games to be considered a serious contender for the 1996 games. To meet a May 1, 1985 deadline imposed by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), Salt Lake City has already submitted an application for the 1992 games, Coleman said. Other contenders for the U.S. nomination are Lake Tahoe and Anchorage, Alaska. The U.S. committe is scheduled to make its decision and submit it to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) before Aug. 15. For the 19 games, the timetable Olympic to A5 Continued from Olympic from A1 calls for the USOC to make its choice by January 1989 and submit a bid to the IOC in 1990. Although the wheels are already turning, Coleman said they could be stopped if Utah residents do not support the bid. He indicated a referendum may be held in conjunction with the November general election. With the help of consultants, the feasibility committee has drawn up three different scenarios for hosting the alpine events. The red scenario would have the downhill events at Snowbird, the giant slalom and slalom at Park City, and the super giant slalom at Solitude. This scenario, the only one of the three which does not involve digging a tunnel, received the most support at the Park City hearing. , The blue scenario would have all the alpine events divided between Solitude and Snowbird. The green scenario would have the events in the same locations as the red scenario. However, athletes would be housed at Snowbird rather than at the University of Utah. Thursday's hearing included a discussion on whether to use a public or a private entity to administer the games. A straw vote indicated those present favored a public organization by a 2-1 margin. However, consultant Richard Siegel said there would be criticism whichever route was taken. He noted that voters would be wary about having to underwrite losses after the games. "But if there is a lot of money made, there would be criticism that people were lining their pockets." More hearings are planned later this month, including one at the Parley's Park Elementary School May 22 at 7 p.m. See related story, page A7. |
