They are putting this on the wrong block. IF it is to be built, it should be on the same block as the Capitol Theater and closer to the Salt Palace Convention Center. The Convention Center "needs" more meeting room space. Hello?
I watched Les Miserables at a London theater smaller than what the Capitol Theater is. The Palace Theater holds 1400.
The Gershwin Theater in New York, one of the few "large" Broadway Theaters, that has Wicked playing, where I saw it, holds 1933. The Capitol Theater holds 1876.
OK, they aren't exactly the same shape and size, and I attended over 20 years of season opera at the Capitol Theater dealing with the tight legroom at row E upstairs. It is fine. .
Wicked has performed here and we don't need a larger theater.
How many bucks for the extra seats? There is a new theater opening up in West Valley. Not as big, but well used.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55953694-90/arts-center-contracts-council.html.csp
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Salt Lake Convention Hotel
A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the
Grand America and others to go under. I have read the past reports sent to
the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty
obvious that this connection doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole
think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotels and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
There are at least 2 adjacent Hotels to the Salt Palace. The 381 room Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown recently spent about $7 Million upgrading their hotel.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54557826-79/salt-lake-radisson-hotel.html.csp
There is also the Salt Lake Marriott Downtown at City Creek across the street. I believe it has at least 510 rooms with a complete renovation in the last 5 years.
One could easily be the "Convention Hotel", and create the ability for someone to check off that box on their decision sheet on where to have their next event.
For the few days a couple of times a year where the hotels are too full, why don't we do what we did for the Olympics? We have brand new condos right next door. How many would rent them out for a few days twice a year? That would have to be coordinated, but could help.
For those that really want the 5 Star Hotel, we already have one of the best, The Grand America, within a free TRAX ride, or coordinated private transport from the Convention Center.
We don't need to pump $100 Million (or even $33 M) of tax payer money into a new Hotel to compete with the private sector, or provide that kind of funding for a private hotel competing unfairly.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotels and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
There are at least 2 adjacent Hotels to the Salt Palace. The 381 room Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown recently spent about $7 Million upgrading their hotel.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54557826-79/salt-lake-radisson-hotel.html.csp
There is also the Salt Lake Marriott Downtown at City Creek across the street. I believe it has at least 510 rooms with a complete renovation in the last 5 years.
One could easily be the "Convention Hotel", and create the ability for someone to check off that box on their decision sheet on where to have their next event.
For the few days a couple of times a year where the hotels are too full, why don't we do what we did for the Olympics? We have brand new condos right next door. How many would rent them out for a few days twice a year? That would have to be coordinated, but could help.
For those that really want the 5 Star Hotel, we already have one of the best, The Grand America, within a free TRAX ride, or coordinated private transport from the Convention Center.
We don't need to pump $100 Million (or even $33 M) of tax payer money into a new Hotel to compete with the private sector, or provide that kind of funding for a private hotel competing unfairly.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Wasatch Canyons Wilderness vs Watershed Protection
[update. 2013 HB 36 passed with a new amendment proposal. It works]
I have been fighting for a year to pass a bill, now 2013 HB 36 , (See the link for more information and videos) to make it easier to reuse rain water and SLC has been blocking it, I believe, because they want to keep control of private property up all of the east side canyons of Salt Lake valley. They seem to be afraid they don't have enough jurisdictional power and want more. They have the League of Cities and Towns to help them.
Initially I thought this added line was to protect Salt Lake City to avoid lawsuits from people wanting to use their own property. Then I thought is was that they really wanted to protect the watershed, the drinking water used by 60% of Salt Lake Valley. With their rejection of my last suggestion, it appears they don't feel they have enough jurisdictional power over all the private property up the canyons.
The fight is over a few words, shown below as 143a:
139 (6) Beneficial use of water under Subsection (2)(b) does not
constitute a water right
140 and may not be:
141 (a) changed under Section 73-3-3;
142 (b) assigned;
143 (c) consolidated with a water right ; or
143a (d) used as a basis to establish the availability of water for land use development.
My latest compromise used this for line 143a
143a (d) used to bypass watershed protection jurisdiction as provided by
Section 10-8-15
I feel like their version of 143a is a Utah State-wide Zoning Ordinance.
I tried limiting that line143a to just Cities of the 1st Class (Salt Lake City and West Valley City) so it wouldn't effect all of Utah, especially the smaller areas of the state, some of which have developments with no running water.
Then I found out they wanted it to also cover the entire canyons in the Watershed. That includes areas outside of Salt Lake City and includes:
City Creek Canyon
My last suggestion above, should make the bill neutral as it doesn't take away any of SLC's current watershed protection jurisdiction, but doesn't provide any new restrictions to develop property.
http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Salt_Lake_City_Watershed_Management_Plan_-_1999_final.pdf
If you look on pages 29 and 30 from the above plan, the section 10-8-15
from state law is used a lot in the watershed management plan. (pages 39 and 40 from the .pdf file)
The document does also reference the state constitution, which gives SLC a lot of power over watersheds since it appears they have locked up the water rights and 2013 HB 36 doesn't give anyone any water rights.
As a city of the 1st class, the current state law gives SLC and SL County Health Department watershed protection jurisdiction for entire canyons, not just the first 15 miles, with a few exceptions.
The limited rain water capture is likely to be used just for watering gardens and landscape. Since 2013 HB 36 requires anyone using over the (2) 100 gal. drums to let the state water engineer know what they are doing and also to meet building code, someone would need to go through quite a filtering and treatment process to use the water in a home or cabin and would need to meet plumbing code.
2500 Gallons of water might be enough for a week of water for a small cabin, perhaps more, but it could give someone in the middle of Utah an option to use their land. I believe one of the main reasons the Federal Government couldn't Homestead or sell the land in Utah was the lack of water, then in 1976 they violated their agreement at our Statehood and decided to keep the land.
The Federal Government now controls about 2/3 of Utah.
Salt Lake City, using 10-8-15 and other similar laws controls the canyons even private property outside the city boundary.
Whether or not they are abusing 10-8-15 now is not the question. Should Salt Lake City have a new law to make it more apparent they can block any and all development in the canyons on private property even if the owner can design something that also protects the watershed and doesn't take away someone's water rights?
I have been fighting for a year to pass a bill, now 2013 HB 36 , (See the link for more information and videos) to make it easier to reuse rain water and SLC has been blocking it, I believe, because they want to keep control of private property up all of the east side canyons of Salt Lake valley. They seem to be afraid they don't have enough jurisdictional power and want more. They have the League of Cities and Towns to help them.
Initially I thought this added line was to protect Salt Lake City to avoid lawsuits from people wanting to use their own property. Then I thought is was that they really wanted to protect the watershed, the drinking water used by 60% of Salt Lake Valley. With their rejection of my last suggestion, it appears they don't feel they have enough jurisdictional power over all the private property up the canyons.
The fight is over a few words, shown below as 143a:
139 (6) Beneficial use of water under Subsection (2)(b) does not
constitute a water right
140 and may not be:
141 (a) changed under Section 73-3-3;
142 (b) assigned;
143 (c) consolidated with a water right ; or
143a (d) used as a basis to establish the availability of water for land use development.
My latest compromise used this for line 143a
143a (d) used to bypass watershed protection jurisdiction as provided by
Section 10-8-15
I feel like their version of 143a is a Utah State-wide Zoning Ordinance.
I tried limiting that line143a to just Cities of the 1st Class (Salt Lake City and West Valley City) so it wouldn't effect all of Utah, especially the smaller areas of the state, some of which have developments with no running water.
Then I found out they wanted it to also cover the entire canyons in the Watershed. That includes areas outside of Salt Lake City and includes:
City Creek Canyon
Emigration Canyon (above Burrs Fork)
Parleys Canyon
Dell Canyon
Lambs Canyon
Big Cottonwood Canyon
Little Cottonwood Canyon
Including any City in those Canyons.
So I proposed to limit line 143a to Counties of the First Class. That wasn't accepted.
My last suggestion above, should make the bill neutral as it doesn't take away any of SLC's current watershed protection jurisdiction, but doesn't provide any new restrictions to develop property.
They say that isn't enough and are insistent that that the law be changed so captured storm water cannot be used as the basis for land use development approval.
So how much watershed protection jurisdiction power do they already have?
http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Salt_Lake_City_Watershed_Management_Plan_-_1999_final.pdf
If you look on pages 29 and 30 from the above plan, the section 10-8-15
from state law is used a lot in the watershed management plan. (pages 39 and 40 from the .pdf file)
The document does also reference the state constitution, which gives SLC a lot of power over watersheds since it appears they have locked up the water rights and 2013 HB 36 doesn't give anyone any water rights.
As a city of the 1st class, the current state law gives SLC and SL County Health Department watershed protection jurisdiction for entire canyons, not just the first 15 miles, with a few exceptions.
The limited rain water capture is likely to be used just for watering gardens and landscape. Since 2013 HB 36 requires anyone using over the (2) 100 gal. drums to let the state water engineer know what they are doing and also to meet building code, someone would need to go through quite a filtering and treatment process to use the water in a home or cabin and would need to meet plumbing code.
2500 Gallons of water might be enough for a week of water for a small cabin, perhaps more, but it could give someone in the middle of Utah an option to use their land. I believe one of the main reasons the Federal Government couldn't Homestead or sell the land in Utah was the lack of water, then in 1976 they violated their agreement at our Statehood and decided to keep the land.
The Federal Government now controls about 2/3 of Utah.
Salt Lake City, using 10-8-15 and other similar laws controls the canyons even private property outside the city boundary.
Whether or not they are abusing 10-8-15 now is not the question. Should Salt Lake City have a new law to make it more apparent they can block any and all development in the canyons on private property even if the owner can design something that also protects the watershed and doesn't take away someone's water rights?
2013 HB 36 Stormwater Capture Amendments
2013 HB 36 Stormwater Capture Amendments
The bill makes sure the state water engineer does not enforce water rights laws for doing basic required storm water protection using retention and detention.
It also allows greater flexibility for home owners and businesses to capture rainwater for reuse. It keeps the 2500 gal max but allows more than (2) 100 gal containers to be used above ground if someone will notify the state through their website.
It has been reviewed by the state engineer and mosquito abatement groups as well as farmers.
It had 3 standing committee buildings last year, and passed committee, house, but ran out of time to pass the senate. This bill the bill did pass and was recommended by an interim committee for this session and has passed the house for 2013 with no votes against it.
As was proposed the end of the 2012 session the bill adds some verbiage to make sure water rights were not created by the bill.
Additional information:
Retention (holding rainwater) and Detention (slowing down rainwater) act like shock absorbers to avoid flooding businesses and homes and are required by many cities and counties.
The most obvious design to many people are the small parks in urban subdivisions that fill with water during a heavy rain storm, but drain and are relatively dry most of the time.
In Utah, when the rain drop or snow flake hits the ground, the water is the State's Water. Water Rights protects individuals who have been using this water. Several years ago, it was agreed that a person could capture and use for beneficial use up to 200 gallons above ground (in 2 containers only) and up to 2500 gallons below ground (in one container only). The controversy was due to a car wash in Salt Lake City reusing large amounts of rainwater to decrease their culinary water use. Attempts to change the overall 2500 limit have failed, due to concerns by farmers and others.
Water tanks are required to be covered to avoid mosquito problems.
By adding additional flexibility to whether or not the tanks are above ground or below ground, the bill increases the likelihood of more recycling of storm water.
We live in one of the driest states in the US. Perhaps it we reused more rainwater we could decrease some of the cost of providing more water as the population grows.
Some video's that might help explain. The 2nd one is the best.
Small storage
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/video/0,,20045365,00.html
1200 Gallons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH16e-1RwE8
play 8:30 min. into the video until about 11:30 min. after the ad.
Current law in Utah allows the 1st option, the 2nd option would now have to be an underground tank. That is being proposed to change, allowing what is being shown on the video.
Update:The bill passed with a new amendment that works.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wrong Amendment to the State Fire Code
I am very concerned about the amendment placed on the
fire code, 2013 HB 217, this morning in the House. I have dealt with building
codes for 35 years and fire codes much of that time.
As an architect, it is important that I know what the building and fire codes are when designing a building. Currently, there is a process for a local amendment through the Utah Building Code Commission and their recommendations to the Business and Labor Committee. Today's floor amendment allows changes to go around this system and, effectively eliminates a state wide fire code. I am concerned similar attacks will be made on the Building Code and Energy Code.
I believe the solution to the various complaints should be in Chapter 1 of the Fire Code as well as the Building Code, 2012 IBC 104.10.
The House Floor amendment today I consider a disaster for life safety in the state. We can solve the concerns with a simple change and then the amendment made this morning can be deleted in the Senate. We don't need a new process.
This is from the 2012 IFC
[A] 104.8 Modifications.
Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of fire prevention.
[A] 104.9 Alternative materials and methods.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. The fire code official is authorized to approve an alternative material or method of construction where the fire code official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
The words "special individual reason" in the first paragraph I believe are the problem. The words also appear 2012 IBC 104.10.
They should be changed. We want the building and fire departments to use common sense. If we allow them to do so, we don't need to create new building and fire codes for each county.
Delete the words "special individual" from both the IFC and the IBC in these sections of chapter 1 and allow the building officials to use "reason" and keep the state amendment process we have with the codes.
[Update: The amendment was removed in the Senate Committee. ]
As an architect, it is important that I know what the building and fire codes are when designing a building. Currently, there is a process for a local amendment through the Utah Building Code Commission and their recommendations to the Business and Labor Committee. Today's floor amendment allows changes to go around this system and, effectively eliminates a state wide fire code. I am concerned similar attacks will be made on the Building Code and Energy Code.
I believe the solution to the various complaints should be in Chapter 1 of the Fire Code as well as the Building Code, 2012 IBC 104.10.
The House Floor amendment today I consider a disaster for life safety in the state. We can solve the concerns with a simple change and then the amendment made this morning can be deleted in the Senate. We don't need a new process.
This is from the 2012 IFC
[A] 104.8 Modifications.
Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of fire prevention.
[A] 104.9 Alternative materials and methods.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. The fire code official is authorized to approve an alternative material or method of construction where the fire code official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
The words "special individual reason" in the first paragraph I believe are the problem. The words also appear 2012 IBC 104.10.
They should be changed. We want the building and fire departments to use common sense. If we allow them to do so, we don't need to create new building and fire codes for each county.
Delete the words "special individual" from both the IFC and the IBC in these sections of chapter 1 and allow the building officials to use "reason" and keep the state amendment process we have with the codes.
[Update: The amendment was removed in the Senate Committee. ]
Friday, February 22, 2013
Could John Swallow be Impeached
What about the actions of John Swallow? I have ignored the statements of Mr. Johnson. I have not ignored the statements from John Swallow and the documents and recording already released. From the recording, I have focused on just John Swallows statements.
Do I believe that I believe that John Swallow was part of a plot to bribe Sen. Reid? No.
Do I have concerns? Yes. (The following is my opinion. I am not a judge or an attorney, nor currently serving in the legislature.)
What about the apparent intentional hiding of a potential required disclosure of a conflict of interest, P Solutions LLC, (3) times, which has ties to Richard Rawle, and whose only revenue initially came from the same account that Johnson paid Rawle from? OK, I could believe that John Swallow just missed on March 9, 2012, but how do you explain the March 15, 2012 and January 10, 2013 forms with them not showing up, even under his wife? How do you explain the money being refunded by P Solutions LLC and being repaid by a different account less than 1 year from the filings?
As I stated before, 76-8-109 (4) doesn't have a penalty, as it is a protection from violating other subsections. I don't know if it could be proved he intentionally lied on the form. I have personally filled out that form several times and could give him a pass for missing something on the March 9, 2012 version, but I have not heard a defense on the other two versions.
Since that appears in this case not to have worked, (the incentive to fill out on the form all items required by 76-8-109 (4) ) IF I were still in the Utah Legislature, I would have pulled a bill file already to add the same coordinating clauses and penalty as the other required financial disclosure forms, and I would have requested the House Judiciary Standing Committee to put John Swallow on the witness stand, and depending on his answers to questions on the committee, decide if this, or the House Boat, 67-16-5 . or the reported Pay to Play Campaign Fundraising for Mark Shurtleff , 76-8-105 , reach to the point of impeachment. IF warranted, I would have a committee report read to the House recommending the Speaker poll the members to see if they have the required 2/3 to impeach. If not, John would be clear of the threat of impeachment.
I have not asked for John to step down, as I don't know all the answers to the above items.
I have seen the March 9, 2012 , March 15, 2012 , and January 10, 2013 forms and have discussed the state law section I have quoted with individuals that know more about it than I do. I thought someone, a member of the legislature, was going to run the bill, but I haven't see it yet, which means it would be more apt to be done during interim.
Depending on how the above possible scenario plays out, and the results of the answers provided John could be impeached before the end of the year or that threat would be extinguished. I have no clue what the senate would decide with those charges if they decided them to be valid.
Do I believe that I believe that John Swallow was part of a plot to bribe Sen. Reid? No.
Do I have concerns? Yes. (The following is my opinion. I am not a judge or an attorney, nor currently serving in the legislature.)
What about the apparent intentional hiding of a potential required disclosure of a conflict of interest, P Solutions LLC, (3) times, which has ties to Richard Rawle, and whose only revenue initially came from the same account that Johnson paid Rawle from? OK, I could believe that John Swallow just missed on March 9, 2012, but how do you explain the March 15, 2012 and January 10, 2013 forms with them not showing up, even under his wife? How do you explain the money being refunded by P Solutions LLC and being repaid by a different account less than 1 year from the filings?
As I stated before, 76-8-109 (4) doesn't have a penalty, as it is a protection from violating other subsections. I don't know if it could be proved he intentionally lied on the form. I have personally filled out that form several times and could give him a pass for missing something on the March 9, 2012 version, but I have not heard a defense on the other two versions.
Since that appears in this case not to have worked, (the incentive to fill out on the form all items required by 76-8-109 (4) ) IF I were still in the Utah Legislature, I would have pulled a bill file already to add the same coordinating clauses and penalty as the other required financial disclosure forms, and I would have requested the House Judiciary Standing Committee to put John Swallow on the witness stand, and depending on his answers to questions on the committee, decide if this, or the House Boat, 67-16-5 . or the reported Pay to Play Campaign Fundraising for Mark Shurtleff , 76-8-105 , reach to the point of impeachment. IF warranted, I would have a committee report read to the House recommending the Speaker poll the members to see if they have the required 2/3 to impeach. If not, John would be clear of the threat of impeachment.
I have not asked for John to step down, as I don't know all the answers to the above items.
I have seen the March 9, 2012 , March 15, 2012 , and January 10, 2013 forms and have discussed the state law section I have quoted with individuals that know more about it than I do. I thought someone, a member of the legislature, was going to run the bill, but I haven't see it yet, which means it would be more apt to be done during interim.
Depending on how the above possible scenario plays out, and the results of the answers provided John could be impeached before the end of the year or that threat would be extinguished. I have no clue what the senate would decide with those charges if they decided them to be valid.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Utah State Republican Party Constitutional Amendments, v2
Utah State Republican Party Constitutional Amendments, v2
(If passed, to be effective at the 2014 Nominating
Convention.)
ARTICLE XII
CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES
Section 1. Precinct Caucuses
C. No subsequent election or ratification shall be required by county conventions for state delegates elected at the precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention. All state delegates shall be elected at a precinct caucus or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention.
CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES
Section 1. Precinct Caucuses
C. No subsequent election or ratification shall be required by county conventions for state delegates elected at the precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention. All state delegates shall be elected at a precinct caucus or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention.
ARTICLE XII
CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES
Section 2. State and County Nominating Conventions
C. Delegates shall be apportioned based upon relative Republican strength of each county. Relative Republican strength shall be calculated by aggregating the total combined Republican votes cast at the previous election for governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, and state treasurer, excluding the vote for any
candidate who had no opposition. Each county's portion of the aggregate vote shall next be calculated on a strict percentage basis, without rounding.
Submitted by Fred C. Cox, Salt
Lake County
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)