They left out that the area is a flood detention basin. It was formed by the US
army corp of engineers in response to the floods of 83. That was where the SSL
RDA got involved. Several of the properties abutting the ponds, regularly flood
during the spring and summer. The area is a flood plain, look at the FEMA flood
maps. The mean high water mark abuts several property lines. Boardwalks or
stepping stones allow access cross the clay mud shoreline from the properties
to the water. The area is a federal protected wetland and is a refuge for
several migratory birds and wildlife. Also, SSL PD spoke up at the meeting.
The area, prior to the fences, was crime-ridden. Camping, fires, dead animals,
trash, burglaries, robberies, getaways, etc. The lack of access, wetlands,
water, clay soil, and multiple parcels make policing difficult and dangerous.
The HOA not only pays, for the lease, but maintains, cleans and insures the
area, The area has been greatly improved since the gates went up and the area
locked. It was not designed to be a park. The flooding, wetland, access and
policing issues would need to be solved before the city could consider looking
into opening it back up.
Why is no one speaking to the terms of the lease? I would think a
lease provides an income to the owner (city, county, whatever) and provides
beneficial rights of occupancy to those paying the lease (the HOA). A lease also generally spells out responsibilities of both to the property
and to each other. There is also generally a time specified along
with extending options.
Sorry folks that is Public land and the Public Pays the Taxes for that land so
that the Public can have access to it. The use of my Tax money for Your Private
park and to build on to it is not what my Tax money is for.This area Needs
to be opened up with the Rightful access that to public land as it should be
since it is Also "Our" land.
@wall71121, who said "If you owned one of these homes, would you want people
wandering through your back yard?"No. I'll admit.
I'm human too and I can understand the advantages of the current
situation.However, my read of the current situation here is that
they want all the benefits of a gated private shoreline, without actually having
to purchase the land. They want it given to them. (Rather, they want it to be
continued to be given to them.) So, let's answer your
rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. Should the city give
these residents the advantage you've described, while you don't get
equal treatment under law, and have to help fund it? These residents
(and their HOA) should buy this property. And I find it insulting that they
have not offered to do so.
@Once was a Utahn wrote,"All you have to do is see the trash in
the water and on the grounds at Fitts Park to see what would happen."That's an argument for increased maintenance patrols and penalties
for littering at Fitts Park. It has nothing to do with Mill Creek. I'm
sure that if Fitts Park were fenced and locked, with keys given only only to a
dozen residents, that it would stay pristine, too.
This is only a pond because someone put up a dam and backed Mill Creek up a
bit.Why is this any different that any OTHER stretch of Mill Creek that
runs through people's yard?It's 100 feet wider than most of the
creek - that's about all that makes it different.If you look at the
map, there's NO point of public access, no path, no nothing. People's
yards (for which they pay property taxes) abut the pond. Only the WATER is
public. The rest is private.The HOA takes care of maintenance. The city
pretty much gave up control when they put in a gate and literally "gave away
the key."If you owned one of these homes, would you want people
wandering through your back yard?
I'm really bothered by people on here who have strong opinions about the
pond yet have never been there or experienced it in person. That's the
only way to make a sound judgment. There is hardly any shoreline back there to
accommodate the general public. We're talking slivers of usable land. We
lived on the pond before the 2013 agreement. Kids would come in there and
destroy duck and goose eggs at will, fences were vandalized, homeless people
camped there all year long and started dangerous fires, and our homes were
broken into frequently. Why? Because no one from the city can possibly police
the area back there properly 24/7. The HOA takes impeccable care of the area
and members put in dozens of hours EACH in the pond's upkeep every single
year. I guarantee that you can kiss that area goodbye as an inner-city wetlands
if public access is allowed. All you have to do is see the trash in the water
and on the grounds at Fitts Park to see what would happen. Sorry to say, but
with a large percentage of SSL residents "just passing through" on their
way to living somewhere else, many of them don't care about the messes they
Sell it to the HOA. Done
I was a past homeowner is this community. I wouldn't stay because it was
really no place to raise a family. Opening this up for public use would be a
HUGE mistake. Does the city want to spend more money on police patrols near the
creek? Personally, the city ought to buy up apartment buildings or fine the ever
living daylights out of the apartment owners who allow so many of their tenants
to be involved in criminal activity. South Salt Lake is already a mecca for
crime due to its high-density housing, and slum lord apartment owners. If they
want the homeowners association to buy the land near the creek and pay taxes on
it that would be best for both the city and the homeowners who currently live
there. If the city is in need of another money maker for the city coffers,
fine slumlords who bring in the criminal element into the community. Buy up the
scummy apartments near the creek on 3rd east, and sell those to a developer who
could make it into the beautiful piece of property it could be with small shops
and homes. What happened to all the money the city was supposedly going to make
for tearing down Granite High? What a waste!
I "discovered" the pond a year ago. First I was upset, but I learned
some facts about the pond. 1. It is a flood controlling device. The
pond cannot be sold and probably cannot have a boardwalk.2. As you can see
on the map, it is not a contiguous property. Some of the residents have access
to the pond. So, we cannot have a shoreline trail. During the spring the water
comes up to the property lines of the residents property lines. No room for a
trail.3. The pond is small. Any construction can endanger the ecosystem
(and scare away the birds).4. The HOA is paying annual rent to SSL. 5. This is not a unique situation. There are a lot of public properties
completely enclosed by private property in SLC along the creeks. The difference
is that here the property owners are paying a rent...
i can see both sides of this divisive issue. Residents have a legitimate
concern of allowing yet another area to be opened up to criminals and
homeless. Yet, if it is public land, it shouldn't be reserved to a
handful of people. I live in a typical neighbor hood where
"anyone" can walk into my backyard. But my HOA doesn't allow
fences. I think this is another "not in my backyard" situations,
where people simply want to keep outsiders out, and keep it for
themselves.. I find it disturbing that some have even felt entitled to build
decks etc. on land that doesn't belong to them. The solution??
Not easy to find a balance. I think the suggestion of allowing the HOA to
purchase the land, and pay taxes on it, is a good one. carte blanche
access is a bad idea. Going back to pre 2013 conditions seems like the only
Everyone commenting one way or the other about how this land should be opened up
since it is supposed to be public or that it should be privatized completely
should stop for a moment and look at the comments they have made on stories
about federally owned public lands (such as monuments) and their development
and/or access to them. Are we for the people closest to the land getting to
determine what happens to it? Do we want to see development on public land? Is
broader public access important to preserve? If you would treat this pond
differently than slot canyons in Escalante or Native American ruins in Bears
Ears, why are they different (aside from a hyper-technical reading of the
Shades of Clive Bundy.When public property is used as private
property there should be justifiable and fair taxes to be paid. For
the most part, people pay property taxes according to the assessed retail value.
The property tax for residential property should reflect the extra value of its
environment. It's only when the owner refuses to pay the proper tax or
fees that a crime is committed.
Stuck up selfish snobs. It's not your private park. Get over it.
Let them keep it private. People ALWAYS ruin things anyway, because they
don't care or are careless. Let them keep it private. It has always been
kept nice because they work hard and take care of it. Outsiders won't care
to take care of it.
Siwik said. "But it's also important to recognize the entire community
pays (taxes) for that, and there needs to be some equity that is fair to
everybody."Just curious what exactly the entire community is
paying for with taxes. The article makes it appear that the HOA is responsible
for maintenance/upkeep. What other costs would there be specific to the
property in question?
"fenced with a locking gate"Fence built on whose land? Homeowners
or the Landowners? Sounds like the Homeowners Association paid for an illegal
fence. Tear it down.
This is public and should be considered and used as such. I see no difference
of this and those who live by city parks, and or county ball parks.
The city should not sell them the land. They should have to lease it at current
rates. If they want it they should have to pay for it.
The area in the yellow border certainly didn’t look usable as a public
area. Especially not school kids. I would love to see a teacher drop 30 kids
down on the little yellow triangle and keep them there while they ate their sack
lunches. Set an equitable price sell it or update the current lease with fair
market value. Not a lot of energy should be expended here.
The HOA is renting the land. If the city doesn’t like it, don’t
renew the rental contract. But it sounds like it is County land. If people
built structures on the are owned by the landowner not the renters, if the
contact doesn’t allow the structures then do something about that.
I own a house 1 house away from this wetland. It was always open to the public
and I enjoyed walking there. They closed it off and wouldn't give us a key
even if we paid annual HOA dues [we were not in the HOA]. It was a a slap in the
face. I pay taxes to support this area but it's become the HOA
neighbor's private playground. People who bought houses prior to 2013 [the
majority in the neighborhood], knew this area was open to the public. It's
a scam that it's their own private area now. Some of the neighbors were
quite rude about it as well. Open it back up or make the HOA pay for all of the
upkeep, rather than having the City do it on the taxpayer's dime.
I guess some people just can't sleep at night knowing there is someone out
there that has something they don't. Seems nice enough from the pictures.
I wonder what it looked like when the city was "maintaining" it?
Oh this is funny! We were looking at renting in that same area a few years ago,
and asked the landlord why it was so expensive compared to surrounding areas.
She replied, “these are our personal, private wetlands. You can’t
pay enough for what it’s worth to be near nature in the city, without the
criminal element”. We agreed about the natural beauty, but eventually
moved up in the mountains to be in a cheaper rental away from the air pollution.
OK, which was there first, the park, or the neighborhood? If people bought those
houses after the park was already there, they don't have any complaints
coming.If, the city came in and developed the park after the area was
developed, then the homeowners and HOA have a good argument.
Simple solution since the land has no development potential sell it to the
homeowners bordering the property for the same price the city paid with a
provision for school access plus prohibition on any building or further
development The sale price plus necessary maintenance and tax fees devided
between homeowners using or bordering it
I guess it's no longer a secret!Get ready for an onslaught of
It is public land, but from the information given, it appears the HOA members
have maintained the area without cost to the city. If it is sold, the HOA should
be compensated for their services.
Classic case of certain people getting more than their fair share. If I has
exclusive access to public land without having to own it or pay taxes for it I
would want to keep that going too. But the fact remains that this
land does NOT belong to these people. It cannot continue to be their use
exclusively by them. Either they buy at fair market value (and someone better
make sure they get fair market) or they unlock the gates and allow the public
access to the public's land.
i don't have a dog in this fight so to speak, but it doesn't look like
this small pond can be managed for the benefit of the public or handle a good
deal of traffic. Just sell it to the HOA or property owners so the government
doesn't need to worry about it.many homeowners have particular
benefits with their property such as views etc.
This is on instance that the government, i.e. the city should just plain butt
out. Personally, the city council members should be voted out of office next
Both sides of this issue have valid points. This area should be a protected
wetland area and homeowners should have protection from campers and criminal
activity. I love the idea of making it available for school visits. I think that
meets the needs and concerns of all.
I have owned property along an intimate public waterway (Utah County). Those of
us along the waterway spent many hours of every year maintaining the area. City
and county budgets, being what they are, could not possibly have maintained the
area as well as the local landowners. Open access to the general public does
present many problems for the landowners. Increased use will surely reduce safe
habitat for wildlife.One possible solution might be for the city/county to sell
the pond and adjacent land to the HOA. This land would be taxed as any other
land, thus giving a little more money for maintenance of other more public
The word "lease" suggests a monetary arrangement, which modifies the
taxation and public access issues. They article is absent any dollar amount,
making it hard to determine fair value.There are water rights and
environmental issues as well.This delicate dilemma clearly exceeds
the ability of government to solve.
It is public land paid for by public funds. If they want to treat it as private
by restricting access and building private decks on it, the HOA needs to
purchase the property from the public owners at reasonable market rates.