OCR Text |
Show Mayor Speaks Up, Park Controversy Misleading by Mayor Cornell Haynie In last week's Pleasant Grove Review, Daryl Huish had printed his views on the proposed Anderson Park. In his article he made several accusations against the city council concerning the pour-chase pour-chase and development of the Anderson property. I feel it important that these charges be answered so that the true facts can be presented to the public. I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Huish concerning the development of the Anderson Park and I thought he understood under-stood the facts, but it is evident from his article that he does not have this understanding. under-standing. About four years ago the Anderson property, located at about 900 East and between bet-ween 2300 South and Center Street became available to the city. Like all other developments in the city, it was necessary to plan the area for development for the, best advantage of the citizens of Pleasant Grove. Of major concern in this planning was for access into the park, and overall park development. Proper sewer and water service ser-vice for this entire area had to be planned which resulted in planning for future roadways. road-ways. This road planning was part of the original plan for the development of the park, which was done at the time the property was purchased. Scouts to Help Officials of the Tim panogos Scouting District received approval from the City Council to utilize the park property for their use and needs as well as to help develop the park. As a future park, proper planning is very important and the Boy Scout District can plan a very important im-portant role in helping to determine the needs of the residents of the city and we appreciate this input. Mr. Huish did also have input in-put into the planning of streets in the area of the park. He was very anxious to have 100 South Street contin ued through from 700 East past the park property. This would allow him to subdivide his property into building lots with planned roads and ater and sewer lines. Mr. luish was very willing to deed to the city the proposed roads in his development, but by so doing he was very insistent in-sistent that the city (taxpayers) (tax-payers) pay for all of his improvements im-provements which included water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt. Mr. Huish would then be able to sell his property as improved lots and these improvements would be paid for by the city. In Pleasant Grove City, as well as practically every other city in the state, the property owner or developer is required to provide these improvements. im-provements. My question is: Why should Pleasant Grove City pay for Mr. Huish's improvements? im-provements? Mr. Huish has related to me that he is not willing to develop his property like other developers are required to do and that he no longer wishes to subdivide his land. He has stated to me that as Mayor I am obligated to condemn con-demn his property if the city wishes to obtain it. During my terms of office on the Pleasant Grove City Council the city has never condemned any property and it is not my intent to do so unless it becomes absolutely necessary due to the health and safety factors which might develop. As for the development of the Anderson Park, the council coun-cil is very anxious that this park be developed. This type of park is badly needed in the community in addition to the proposed large central park by the high school. The Anderson An-derson Park will be a beautiful park addition, but the cooperation of citizens in the immediate area will be necessary before much can be accomplished in the park. City officials have discussed before with the area residents the park development and proposed roads and I feel it important since this will be a neighborhood neigh-borhood park, that the residents in the area give most of the input. As property proper-ty problems work out, I feel that a neighborhood committee commit-tee should be organized to give final input to the Anderson Ander-son Park development. I do not mean to discredit Mr. Huish in any way, but his comments in last week's paper have prompted me to nrovide this clarification. |