Mr. Councilman Doug Cortney
(Public reply to your public petition response)

We very much appreciate your awareness and care enough to respond to this petition. Thank you for taking the time, energy and thought to share your views.

Compliments to you and to the many over the years who have helped make Highland a place that is recognized as having, what could be, the highest park acres-to-population ratio in Utah County. Naturally, green space access in addition to parks is also something that is a high priority and seems to have also been a consideration over the years. 

Cities are large spaces. While new construction may require newly created green space and parks, older neighborhoods must rely on whatever space has been available through city planning over many years. 

This specific area of the city does not have green space available. If the landowner sells to a developer to build, this oasis of nature is diminished. This is the plea to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to sell this unique space. This should also cause you concern for the health and wellbeing of the community members.  

All landowners are part of a community. It is the land of the owner, and I agree that the rights of the land are theirs to do with as they please. (As stipulated by the city).

It is valuable for the rest of the community to share their perspective on a potential transition of land, if they feel it has some effect on them. If the land may soon be sold, there is an opportunity for the community to share their perspective with a) the landowner (seller) and b) the decision maker on the land’s use into the future (Highland City). While your language may sound like advocacy for property rights, it is well established that the city has all too swiftly facilitated land-use regulations (zoning) to align with their vision of Highland’s future.  
 
The petition to the city is in hopes they can see the benefit of this particular green space to the community in this part of the city. As is well recognized, land rights are only as powerful as granted according to the right regulator – and the city regulates those rights already through zoning stipulations. The owner complies.

Because of the city's 1) ability to quickly change the land zoning and 2) align that with the city’s desired future state, it is imperative that these types of petitions be made.

The decision to build or use that land in whatsoever zone-approved manner is of course the owner’s right – such examples you’ve delineated well. Yet, with such a financial outlay as you’ve expressed, a purchaser would be sure to converse with the city prior to making the purchase. Instances abound where a city agrees to change zoning contingent to a sale. 

And perhaps that is what has already occurred, as noted with signals outlined below.

This petition is not general in timing and the land discussed is not general in location. What we’re discussing is a specific green space parcel, at a specific point in time - now. We’re not discussing a nuclear facility at some future date. 

A few of these currently-applicable specificities pointing to a concerning green space takeover, include what appears to be the city’s desired future use of the green space being the driver. (The city driving the land use, not the land owner driving the land use):

• Adjacent property is currently under construction, bringing two, two-story commercial buildings (65,000+ SF and 31,000+ SF) into close proximity to this natural haven. On site comments have confirmed a forthcoming expansion into the green space.
• There are several signs that a potential deal may be solidifying, that the landowner may sell part of this land. This is even referenced by the mayor in the video noted below. Yesterday, workers were taking measurements in the green space. 
• A Highland City Planning Commission/City Council Workshop on August 13th (HERE) included a “Future Land Use Check-In” and showed a map titled “Future Land Use” wherin the area that is the topic of the petition was labeled Mixed Use and eclosed in the Town Center label. Among others, available labels on the map included Existing Residential to Remain, Residential Infill, Open Space and Public Park. Yet, the label used was not the current zoning. (Image included in petition).
  • Two notable verbal comments were made regarding this specific area.
    • 1) “Existing use that will remain in perpetuity for some time, but allowing for that mixed use to come into the Town Center is an underlying land use regulation.” This comment is interesting in comparison to the comments immediately following about Infill Residential areas that were described as – if there are future developments there will then be specific discussions about their residential use.
    • 2) As the discussion referenced signaling to developers, the town center area – including the land discussed in this petition – was not discussed as part of the Infill Residential discussion (as current residential that will be built out residential) but rather, addressed as “If the church sold some of the baseball diamond, there might be some residential we’d be looking at there. But there is a church still there.”
      • a.    It makes one wonder what conversations drove the creation of the map and then were back peddled in public?
      • b.    This discussion, the overlay map, the correcting to make sure signaling is on track, all speaks to both knowledge of potential selling activities AND the City’s potential actions in light of that sale to be very willing to assign whatever zoning they choose.

These aspects point to why this discussion should not be put off. It is important to have now so that both the current landowner and the city understand the perspective of the community. Decisions of the future of this area are being decided now. This is not a theoretical discussion on landowner rights and nuclear power plants. 

Of course, we all are for landowner rights. Regarding your involvement, the concern here is the land right regulator (the city) and the driving effort to meet the city’s agenda.

This petition from the community is to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to sell and to Highland City as a land right regulator to represent the immediate community around this land when communicating with buyers what to allow on this land. It is naïve and patronizing to not identify the city as a regulator on the rights of landowners to use the land in whichever way they please – knowing that zoning, defined by the city – restricts and allows land owners uses. 

As was expressed verbally of the Highland City “Future Land Use” map –  it is created to show what is hoped to be built. The hope as described by the map is not the hope of the community. 

This is why the petition is to both The Church as a community member, and to Highland City, as the organization with regulatory powers – so each can make the. choice to align with the community desires.