A Reasonable Decision Leading to a Better Code?

There was only one item of major note in this 2 hour, 43 minute meeting (which preceded a closed session where they would be having a “Strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.”) They certainly cannot be accused of lacking stamina.

I make mention of the discussion regarding the zone change to allow (more) transient lodging to 975 Zion Park Blvd. I had thought this was a done deal and though it was approved, thoughtful discussion revealed some inherent Springdale community dissonance.

It hasn’t been that long since many locals said, repeatedly, that it was time for Springdale to put a halt to transient lodging. It was, indeed, vastly limited by only taking applications for it in March of even numbered years, but not nixed completely. At the time, it seemed some council members felt that to completely say no to more transient lodging might result in backlash from the state.

I had said in The Springdale Sun, when this request came before the Planning Commission that the request was well thought out and should probably pass. Commission seemed to feel the same way. I even urged those whose “knee-jerk reaction to transient lodging was no” to read the application.

Well, sir, at the discussion at the town council meeting last Wednesday, June 10, Jack Burns made such good points, he convinced me.

One argument in favor of the transient lodging was the applicant was also providing 2 long-term housing units. (One more than required by code.) But Jack pointed out that, “I hope that we don’t continue to use transient housing as a pathway to employment housing.”

Well, sadly, we do. That was included in the requirements for transient housing when the application for such was made more difficult a couple of years ago. Randy Aton reiterated his thinking that one piece at a time, everything and anything to get workforce housing. That is THE priority for him.

It came up that the owner wasn’t willing to put a restaurant on her property unless it was on SR 9. (Meme’s is on the property of discussion.) To which Jack said, “How much do we sacrifice Springdale for what an owner isn’t willing to do?”

For any business owner, including those who live in and cherish Springdale, profitability is a prerequisite for investment. They will not build a business unless they believe it can succeed financially. Jack again, “It’s not our job to make sure someone profits from their property.” He went on to say it was their job to protect Springdale. Period.

Kyla noted—and Mayor Bruno agreed, as would most people—that it is fundamentally unfair to maintain an application process for transient lodging if there is no realistic possibility of approving any applications. Requiring business owners to invest time, effort, and money navigating an approval process is difficult to justify if the outcome has effectively been predetermined.

I believe it was that reasoning that carried the day. And that is absolutely spot on. The town should have the courage to just say no to increased transient lodging or deal with having an increase now and then. Had it not been for that reasoning, I think all would have voted against it as they also expressed some distaste for more transient lodging.

All also expressed gratitude for the thoughtful application — its design, greater open space than mandated, more long-term housing than mandated. Ultimately, it passed, with Jack the courageous “no.”

I hope this is the beginning of a discussion to stop further transient lodging in Springdale. AT LEAST, there should be a moratorium on more transient loading units until the 300+ units already approved (years ago) have been built or those who have the approval agree to not do so (don’t hold your breath. Developers are, after all, developers.)

Kudos to Town Council for a great discussion, probably the right decision, but, hopefully, a springboard to a brave elimination of more transient lodging.

Bring it home, Jack.