OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise, August 31, 1977 Page thirty Letters Editor: Editor: have read with interest and consternation, your front page article titled, Vacancies Up, Construction Down. The interest was created by the title of the article and the consternation comes from some of the reported data. For example: 1. In Salt Lake County, there have been 6,107 residential permits issued during the January through June period. Of these 6,107, 2,260 (37) are multi-familup 1,264 units over the same period in 1976 or a 126 increase. 2. The apartmentduplex construction rate is even higher up 1,251 units or a 130 increase. 3. Data accumulated by the HBA of Greater Salt Lake indicates that area vacancy rates are less than 4. Total construction during the first six months of 1977 is up considerably with all types of residential units showing a strong growth and sales ratio over 1976. The data collected and automated by the HBA is current, accurate and readily available for examintion. The articles inference that the decline in the percentage of multi unit family rentals over previous years may be a problem is incorrect. There is a demand base on which construction is accomplished. As the demand fills and changes, so also must the construction categories change. At present, the demand is again high for rental units and even higher for single family. If you desire, I would be most happy to prepare periodic reports based on the Home Builders Association automated data which is d monthly by our staff. 1 would like to see the data reported, isolated or separated to show what is happening in Salt Lake County which is the hub of the state in regards to total construction activities. 1 y, 2. up-date- Sincerely, Stephen E. Featherstone Executive Vice President Home Builders Association Open Account by Chuck Akerlow The Redevelopment Agency should stay out of Crossroads The day had to come when the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency would face the problem it now does in deciding what to do about the Crossroads development. When the Redevelopment Agency was organized, the idea was to provide a mechanism by which to buy run down property so that it might be cleared and readied for new The public purpose being development. served was to eradicate blight and to allow for the construction of new improvements which would add to the citys tax base. To most people, this seemed like a laudable objective. Everyone realized that the Redevelopment Agency would be able to condemn property, but condemnation proceedings could be tolerated if it were for the public purpose of removing blight and decay in the central business district. Because of the success of initial Redevelopment Agency activities, the target area and master plan for the agency were both expanded to include the block immediately south of Temple Square. In this block there were also some blighted buildings which were cleared and removed by a private landowner Zions Securities Corporation. This landowner controlled the majority of the land and, as a result, entered into an agreement with a developer who intends to build a commercial and office complex on the site. The problem was that eight small properties needed to be acquired first in order to make the large project go. Negotiations began and six of the eight landowners decided Your publications recent article entitled Vacancies Up, Construction Down (Aug. 17) was somewhat of a disappointment to me for several reasons, and since I was one of the persons quoted in the article, I wish to set the record straight. 1. The basic premise of your article is one a fact I clearly with which 1 cannot agree communicated to your reporter when she interviewed me over the phone. In Salt Lake County, the area of Utah in which we primarily building permits are operate, multi-famil- y substantially ahead of last year and our surveys indicate that vacancies are, in fact, down compared to a year ago. An article entitled, Vacancies Down, Construction Up seems to me to.be the more cortect one for your reporter to have written. 2. Your reporter quoted me as saying we . .figured how much it would cost to build apartments, and then figured what kind of amenities would have to be provided in order to charge that much rent. This is exactly the opposite of how we design, build and charge for our product. I am sorry that I did not make this point clear enough to your reporter. 3. 1 was also quoted as saying, Builders build on intuition, depending on the kind of 1 cannot recall financing they can get. making this statement, especially since I dont really agree with what it implies. Perhaps someone else your publication interviewed made these remarks. Again, let me communicate to you that I do not agree with the substance of your article, or with some of the specific points your reporter attributed to me. Your publication, however, is normally very informative and enjoyable to read and 1 congratulate you on it. Very truly yours, Lee H. Van Dam Property Manager Prows wood, Inc. to sell. At this point there was no conflict with the Redevelopment Agency since all transactions were handled in the private sector. Two properties, however, the Zinik Building and Utah Woolen Mills, could not reach So the agreement with Zions Securities. developer and Zions Securities petitioned the Redevelopment Agency to amend its plan and condemn those properties so they could be sold to the developer and included in the project. Suddenly there looms the great constitutional question that everyone had hoped to avoid when the Redevelopment Agency was first organized: Can the Redevelopment take Agency private property away from one individual and give it to another private individual on the theory that some higher public purpose is to be served? I hope not. That is, I hope a precedent is not established to permit the Redevelopment Agency to take one private partys property, which is in good condition and not the subject of blight, and give it to another private person simply because the latter has decided on a higher and better use. I recognize that the Crossroads development will be a great asset to the community. But my view is that there is sufficient property available to the developers to either construct the project without the two properties affected or pay whatever is necessary to the two property owners in order to reach an agreement. Things of this sort must be negotiated in the private sector. The Redevelopment Agency should not be a party to arrangements between private landowners. I think the Salt Lake City commission should refuse to condemn the properties in question and leave it to the developers to work out their land problems in the same manner as every other developer has had to do. Not a great week, but we made some gains. For example, reports now suggest one to four beers a day are good for us. Not simply not bad but actually good for us! It can drinker has about half as many seems that the one-to-fo- ur heart attacks. This all comes right on the heels of a report that suggests red wine is also good for us in moderation. And yet another study saying that coffee doesnt cause heart attacks. After years of bad news about all the things we love to eat and drink, this is a rather dramatic reversal. It is especially fun for those of us living in Utah. The evils of drink have long been known in this highly religious area. Those of us representing the minority opinion have conceded beer and wine are bad for our bodies but often add a certain zest to life. But now we want to take that all back. We can go for the gusto with clear conscience. I have occasionally been asked to speak at various dinner or luncheon meetings. I have rather consistently declined on the grounds that I really didnt have anything of great value to say. Its an opinion that seems to be shared by a great many of the readers of the Enterprise. Here, as with beer and wine, it might be time to ne my conclusions. Having something of value to say ought to in some way be related to the number of speeches a person accepts. Dont bet on it however. Last Thursday Sen. Jake Gam spoke to five different groups. Some examples of his scholarly analysis of world affairs: I could care less if the Russians like us. This is not a popularity contest. It's time we say to to hell if they dont like us and we cant give them any more. I get so proud when I hear Jake play the tough guy act for the folks back home. He even slips in the word hell just to show how upset he really is. And then as he does every time, he tells us please dont quote that because my mother gets upset. Sometime during the day he is reported to have said, The only thing good we have got out of relations with mainland China is a couple of Panda bears that dont like each other. Now that is just simply a stupid statement. Some of us believe it works to our advantage to be on better terms with both the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China than either are with the other. Doesnt it just make sense to keep both of them worried about the possibility of our making a deal of some sorts with the other? Why do Senators from Utah who say so many great things economically so often say embarrassing things politically? Its the statements regarding the Panama Canal that give me the most trouble. What both Garn and Hatch are saying about the proposed treaty is well known. But before you go too far down the path with them, just be sure you are prepared for the consequences. If we dont sign a new treaty, there will be war of some type down there. Some of our sons will die, so lets be sure we are right this time. If you will simply step to your encyclopedia you will discover that we leased (not purchased) the right of way with a somewhat heavy handed approach. Also, I cant imagine a lease that goes on in perpetuity. Someone on the radio the other day said, "we controlled the Panama Canal in pituitary. He no doubt thought it would be a gland idea to continue to do so. In short, your encyclopedia will tell you that we acquired something resembling a title in a way that we cant be overly proud of. But the real question of 1977 is how many boys do we want to lose and for what? Less than 3 percent of our trade went through there last year. We dont need it for military reasons. Our deal with Panama was less than an arms length transaction. And, we will probably have more uninterrupted use of the thing if we come to some sort of agreement. I know everyone believes we are backing down to the Communists, but this is a much more simple issue. The poor people down there want control of their only big time asset. To deny it to them forever would be another one of our bad public relations moves. Lets not be stupid on this one. Didnt we learn anything from Vietnam? There are plenty of things worth fighting and even dying for. But like Vietnam, this isnt one of them. Anyway, its time for me to go have my first beer of the evening. |