Discussion Group Report

Recently Utahns were asked by the Envision Utah project to think and express their views about what kind of growth pattern they would like to see the state follow in future years. Governor Mike Leavitt said citizens had an "obligation" to make their views known by sending in questionnaires published in the newspapers, or by responses on the Internet. The responses, we have been told, will be used by leaders to help them make planning decisions.

Four scenarios are presented as planning alternatives:

1. Low density development: This is best liked by those who like large lots, creating a rural atmosphere. Problems: It creates sprawl and a high price tag and consumes the most miles and money, primarily for roads and other infrastructure.
2. Current growth trends: It continues existing community master plans and development trends; and creates more low density housing, more separation of homes and stores, more limits on apartments and more roads--in short, more sprawl, but less than under scenario 1.
3. Walkable neighborhood: This Is a more pedestrian-friendly development. It combines stores, offices, homes, and apartments in "villages" with higher densities and more mass transit.
4. High-infill development: Building new subdivisions is out; filling empty lots is in. It promotes more mixed-use and neighborhood-scale development than scenario 3, produces the most compact development, gobbles up the least land and is the most walkable and most viable for mass transit.

The discussion group felt it was commendable that planning leaders have provided this opportunity for the public to make its views known about the future course of development in our state. However, the group expressed some concerns about the limited scope of the study. For example, it seems to assume the desirability of continued population growth; it does not consider the alternative of limiting population growth, a scenario that could be realized if people were to limit family size. The recent announcement by the Mormon Church of a change in its position on family planning to a more liberal approach should help with this problem. Planners in Utah apparently assume that continued rapid growth is necessary to maintain prosperity. Is this necessarily the case?

Envision Utah doesn't take into account worldwide macro-problems like the depletion of our natural resources, especially our oil reserves. Petroleum in the ground is rapidly becoming more and more in short supply and much of what is left is less readily accessible than in the past. Work on the development of alternative fuels for motor vehicles is not progressing rapidly enough. The development of alternative modes of transportation is going ahead, but it may not be enough. Many people will still probably continue preferring the automobile because it is so enormously convenient. Add in the problem of global warming, which nearly all scientists who are informed on the problem except those who work for the oil and coal companies say is already upon us. Perhaps Utah could do more to promote awareness of these problems. There is no more important planning activity. However, the prevalent assumption in Utah, as elsewhere, seems to be that we will somehow come up with the answers when disaster is near, but this assumption could prove to be unfortunate. We seem to be headed toward a collision with a brick wall. Are our long-range planning problems outrunning our vision?