OCR Text |
Show Guest editorial It's time for this area to accept it's role in Utah County's growth Single famiry ("for-sale" type housing) building permits in Salt Lake County for the first quarter of this year increased by 49.7 over first quarter 1985, from 656 to 982. First quarter building permits historically represents about 22 percent of the total year's production. Consequently, building lots are . currently absorbing at an annualized an-nualized rate of about 4,463. Based on this absorption rate, our current inventory of about 5,000 lots will run out in 1.1 years, and could lead to a major housing crisis if current trends are not reversed. There is no question that Traverse Ridge will bring problems and challenges to our community (many of which are impossible to even identify at this point). However, I have never witnessed growth without them. While the fate of one project obviously may not determine the economic fate of our community, the attitudes we have towards growth and progress will. While I appreciate the concerns of my mayor and city council regarding the project's impact on our city, those within our community who oppose Traverse Ridge because they are not willing to deal with the problems of growth must prepare to deal with the problems of negative growth. ..problems that I assure you far outweigh questions regarding school construction and road expansion. By ROLAND ROBISON I am a Highland City resident, and as it happens I am also a housing market analyst specializing in Utah's housing markets. In my work I conduct extensive research on an ongoing basis, and my clients include virtually every major developer, lender and municipal bond agency within the state of Utah. I have followed the Traverse Ridge proposal very closely and have some strong feelings about the proposal. Most of my comments will address ad-dress conditions in Salt Lake County since most of the residents of northern Utah County depend on Salt Lake County for their subsistence, sub-sistence, and since most of the demand for Traverse Ridge would obviously emanate from Salt Lake County. I am extremely concerned about two concurrent trends that are developing unbeknownst to many of the people involved in this decision. The first of these trends has to do with the lackluster performance of our local economy. Recently, an alarming "net out-migration" trend has developed along the Wasatch Front. In fact, net out-migration has been experienced for the last three years in a row, and as I speak with the economists from the University of Utah and the state Planning Coordinator's Office, they fear the trend will occur again this year because "there is nothing to turn it around." We cannot hold our economy still without strangling the life out of it, and those who think we can are simply not living in the real world. Most of Highland City's residents (myself included) moved to this area because of its rural, detached atmosphere. In the past we have been very content to allow other municipalities along the Wasatch Front to take the brunt of the responsibility for growth. This is a luxury I fear we can no longer afford. af-ford. Though it may be painful to say, those who cannot live with growth should now seek new frontiers, because the time for us to make our contribution has arrived at a critical time, and if we refuse it we are taking the risk of inflicting serious damage to the area's economic welfare. Besides, the sacrifice is not so great. I must admit that my initial reaction to Traverse Ridge was negative, and even though I have not been retained by the Estes Company to analyze the project, the closer I look at it the more sense it makes. It is the best kind of project we could hope for, it is extremely well planned (a rarety in Utah's housing markets), it is proposed by an extremely reputable developer, and even though most of the residences will be located on the Utah County side of the mountain, most of the socio-economic impact will be felt on the Salt Lake County side. In addition, it offers the potential for significant economic development develop-ment on the site itself, which could be of tremendous economic benefit to northern Utah County residents in providing business opportunities and jobs. For these reasons I vigorously support the Traverse Ridge project and encourage the Utah County Commission to approve the project zoning. After studying our nation's economy for several years, John Naisbitt (the author of "Mega Trends"), identified Salt Lake County as having the potential for one of the 10 most vibrant economies in the country. Yet, we are currently not even experiencing enough growth to maintain employment em-ployment for our natural growth. Opponents to the project who attempt to minimize its economic benefits by relegating them only to the housing industry are missing the whole point. It is a simple fact that national businesses considering the geographical expansion look very closely at housing availability and local attitudes regarding growth and progress before making locational decisions. The comment was made in a Planning Commission Hearing that the industry brought to the Tucson area by the Estes Company was a "fluke." I submit to you that it was not, and that these types of activities ac-tivities are indeed commonplace in a progressive community. The other trend has to do with building lot inventories. While Highland unquestionably has the highest building lot inventory of any Wasatch Front community, the market demand from Salt Lake County for housing in this location is extremely limited due to geographical barriers and unacceptable unac-ceptable commute distances. On the other hand, inventories in Salt Lake County have depleted dramatically over the last five years from a level of over 20,000 building lots in 1981, to a current inventory of about 5,000. Meanwhile, Mean-while, many lenders and municipalities continue to resist additional development due to the high inventory problems they had during the past recessionary period. Absorption of these inventories is on a collision course with this trend. |