OCR Text |
Show r-v iff '$H-H A i ? "7 Varsity cheerleader Kristin Swenson could be cheering for a white Christmas in this scene, as the snow fell at Kamas. by Randy Ilanskat No sympathy here A few weeks back I advocated the building of an ice arena in Park City, stating that an ice arena would indeed make this area a "world class" winter resort. I said an ice arena was needed to give Park City kids something else to do other than skiing. I wondered just how many options there are in this town for kids who do not enjoy skiing. To finance such an arena I proposed that developers be asked to shoulder some of the burden. I asked why it is that developers are rarely required to give anything back to the city (in the form of partially financing an ice arena, or some other community project) in return for being allowed to build their projects? To that column I received two responses from developers: Malcolm S. MacQuoid, "developer and involved citizen;" and L Swaner. I want to correct some of the misconceptions forwarded in those two letters. The basic point of my pushing for an ice arena is to give the kids of Park City another alternative to fill their after-school time. Both developers seemed to miss that point. Both instead said I would be the one to benefit from the building of an ice arena. It is true that I like to skate and play hockey, but long after I am gone I can foresee the entire Park City community heavily involved in figure skating and hockey playing, especially the kids. I questioned the extent to which many developers care about the city's kids, questioned the extent of community involvement. Mr. MacQuoid responded by saying, "Ask KPCW, Park City Performances, the Kimball Art Center, Special Olympics, Park City Ski Team, Historical Society and all other great non-profit organizations that make Park City so special, just who heads their lists of major donors?" But how many of those organizations serve the youth of Park City? Only one, the Park City Ski Team, and involvement in that organization is only available to those who can aford it. Also, once again, it is not an alternative to skiing. Mr. MacQuoid hasn't convinced me that area developers care much about local kids. In that first column I said I found it hard to believe that kids in the Salt Lake valley have access to ice arenas, some high schools even have hockey teams; while Park City, where winters last over six months, has nothing. Mr. Swaner said most Utah schools do not have hockey programs. True, but most Utah schools are not located in places which claim the distinction of being winter wonderlands. Mr. Swaner' s next bit of logic was hard to follow: "And if we must have hockey, why not polo, rugby, surfing, etc.," he wrote. I think ice hockey is a natural extension of the local high school sports curricula. After all, snow is on the ground from November through May. References to polo, rugby, and surfing have no relevance. Both developers felt it necessary to take time to boast of the accomplishments of their profession. MacQuoid wrote, "W here would Park City be without Deer Valley, the Resort Center, Main Street, the homes and condominiums, and the developers who built them?" Swaner added, "The reason that Park City exists in its present condition is entirely due to the investments of developers." Sure there are good developments in Park City, but I wonder why MacQuoid didn't add to his general boast eyesores such as the Treasure Mountain Inn, Silver Mill, and the Aerie. Why didn't he mention such blights as the old Cornice project, which sat unfinished for years at the Resort Plaza, or the long empty hole next to the Silver King Bank, when detailing the deeds of developers? As to Swaner's statement that developers have made Park City what it is today, I wonder what kind of monster they've created when it takes hours to make your way through detour after detour, or when dumptrucks rumble by one after another. I wonder what they've created-when created-when it takes two hours to get into any restaurant in town in the winter months, while many are closed during the summer. But back to the ice arena. When I proposed in that earlier column that developers be asked to do their part to finance an ice arena, I was asked by Mr. MacQuoid if I knew anything of finance. To which he added, "Does he have any idea what it costs just to meet city requirements for open space, parking and other amenities?" I guess Mr. MacQuoid wants me to shed a tear because the city forces him to pay for parking spaces and open space. It seems to me if he had the community interest in mind, Mr. MacQuoid would include such project features in his original plans, iiiid not be forced to include them later by the city. Further, I was not moved by Mr. MacQuoid's insistence that developers don't have a dime to spare for such projects as an ice arena. MacQuoid wrote, "He appears to assume developers are all rich and have money to burn." Earlier he wrote abut the extreme risks faced by all developers. To all of the I would recommend that Mr. MacQuoid find another line of work, as it seems from his letter that he is not making any money at all in the development business. At least that is what he would like me to believe. Mr. Swaner was equally tight. He implied that it would be larceny to force developers to give money to build an ice rink, or other such community-oriented projects. I think rather that it is simply wise to ask concessions from developers who want to locate their developments in ' Park City. This summer's heavy construction shows this town certainly has more than enough developers who want to locate their projects here. Ah, but Mr. Swaner threatened that, "The more the city can be persuaded to use building permit extortion, the less likely ft becomes that any developer will build anything, including your ice arena." It is my belief that development-laden Park City is now in a position where any developer not willing to help out with a community addition such as an ice rink should stay out anyway. Park City needs an ice arena, both for the kids, and for those who want to claim this is a "world class" resort area. The time for such a project has come. I think it is my job, as a member of the press, to stimulate discussion of such a need. I would like to hear opinions, both pro and con, on the idea. What I don't want to bother with are developers not interested in local kids, but interested in defending their pro-development philosophy. , |