Print this article
ARTICLES
CASE STUDY: VILLAGE AT EMPIRE PASS SKI RESORT, PARK CITY, UTAHBreaking the Development Logjam (ULI) – January 2006
by Debra Stein and Frank Noto
The developer of a ski resort organized a citizens’ support group and a public information campaign to rebuff a petition drive against the development.
With the local press hostile to a proposed ski resort expansion, moneyed opponents threatening referendum petitions to stop the project, and the appearance of overwhelming public opposition, the United Park City Mines Company initiated a community outreach effort that successfully combined an opinion survey with grassroots organizing to win approval for their project.
The Setting
Park City, Utah, situated in the foothills of the Wasatch Range outside Salt Lake City, is becoming a notable destination for skiers. Deer Valley, Alta, and several other ski resorts have been developed in mountains around Park City, and others are on the drawing boards. The Unity Park City Mining Company, which owns vast amounts of land from the area’s mining days, proposed to build a top-quality, 1,800-acre ski resort on the lower slopes of Flagstaff Mountain, a 10,530-foot peak in Summit County adjoining the Park City municipal boundary. The plan for development included ski slopes and a golf course, a hotel with retail shops and restaurants, mountain biking and hiking trails, a gondola linking downtown Park City with the resort, 54 single-family houses, and 470 multifamily apartments.
The company was pursuing annexation to gain the use of city services. Prevention of annexation would have required the company to initiate entitlement proceedings with the county, with a consequent setback of months or years in initiation of the project. The company believed that city annexation would generate substantial increases in the city’s tax base and allow the city to control the development quality of the project.
CARG—Citizens Allied for Reasonable Growth—a well-organized citizens group with a track record of stopping growth and winning elections in Park City, staked out a strong position against the resort plan. CARG presented a real threat to the ski resort because, in a town of just 5,000 voters, CARG needed a mere 1,002 signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to stop the annexation of the resort property into Park City. The United Park City Mining Company turned to GCA Strategies, Inc., a community relations firm based in San Francisco, for advice on ways to counter the petition drive.
The Community Outreach Campaign
In this charged political environment, GCA proposed a different route to community agreement than the design-oriented processes described in the other case studies. This was a community conflict over whether the development should be allowed in the community or not. Opposition to the project hinged on CARG’s belief that Park City citizens were overwhelmingly against the annexation. As a firm specializing in providing services to shape citizen attitudes and obtain positive actions on proposed projects, GCA saw a need for demonstrating that a considerable proportion of informed citizens would support the development and the annexation. GCA’s strategy was to change the perception of who had “the clout” from project opponents to project supporters.
GCA began with a telephone survey of 401 Park City residents to determine just what aspects of the proposed development were worrying local citizens. The survey revealed significant misperceptions about the project, including the misperception that most Park City residents opposed it. The survey also highlighted several positive messages about economic benefits, open space easements, and local control over development that could spark support for the project.
Armed with the survey results and findings from face-to-face interviews with community opinion leaders, GCA advised the United Park City Mountain Company to undertake a four-point strategic plan: obtain a positive messenger; focus on persuasive messages; spread the word; and emphasize the reality of community support. Overall, the strategy was to create an opportunity to educate local citizens about the project and become advocates for it.
GCA recommended the formation of a citizens’ group to demonstrate the extent of community support for the proposed development. Thanks to the mining company’s century-old history of community involvement, it was able to quickly mobilize friends and allies to organize a supportive coalition, Park City Citizens for Local Control. This group helped local citizens become familiar with the project, and its leaders became the key spokespeople advocating for the resort. Eventually the group numbered almost 200, more than twice as many as the core group in CARG.
The survey revealed many opposition messages that were popular but not persuasive. While many people believed the project would create traffic problems, rebutting that belief would not materially change attitudes about annexation. On the other hand, several messages were quite persuasive if they would be viewed as credible. Therefore, in spreading the word, pro-annexation advocates focused on several highly persuasive benefits of the proposed resort development for Park City:
- Annexation would allow Park City rather than the county to control the quality of the development;
- The project would generate new jobs and tax revenues that would flow to the city to help pay for police, fire, and other public services;
- The company was willing to place 88 percent of the land in a conservation easement rather than the 60 percent required by the county.
To provide more information about the project, GCA recommended opening a public outreach office in the center of the business district most likely to benefit from the ski resort. The mining company also hosted a series of open houses and ski tours to allow citizens to view the site and learn more about the project. These events showcased the open space to be preserved, highlighted future project benefits and, as a special enticement, included highly prized tours of the historic mine on the property.
Pro-annexation advocates were given the support they needed to send letters to the editor, telephone their elected officials, testify at public hearings, and recruit their friends and neighbors to attend hearings. The supporter coalition also launched its own petition drive, collecting the names of hundreds of new supporters who not only would be unlikely to sign the CARG petition but who could then be mobilized for other support activities. For example, the coalition went on to stage public rallies that garnered additional press attention about popular support for the resort project.
The Outcome
In a few short weeks of grassroots organizing, Park City Citizens for Local Control and the mining company were able to demonstrate impressive citizen support for the ski resort annexation, despite the protests of slow-growth opponents. The strong citizen support both strengthened the resolve of the city council to support annexation and weakened the influence of CARG. As a result, CARG indicated a new willingness to negotiate modifications of project design and densities rather than deny annexation. At the end of the day, after some alterations in the locations and sizes of some sign-family home lots, the city council approved the use permit and annexation.
References:
Author’s telephone interviews with Frank Noto of GCA Strategies, Inc., February 4 and 8, 2005, and comments by Noto and GCA president Debra Stein on the draft case study.
Debra Stein and Frank Noto are the president and vice president of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm, GCA Strategies. Debra is the author of several books on NIMBYism and her firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail Stein, call her at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.
