Save Sugar House Business District

Signatures 328 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 4, 5, 6, 7

1. 301
   Name: Megan Nelson on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments: The Sugarhouse area has a unique atmosphere that will quickly be lost with entirely commercial driven development a la The Gateway. All ages, types of people, and backgrounds have gathered here and that was appreciated by my friends, my school (Westminster College), and myself.

   Flag
2. 302
   Name: Claudine Eckenfelder on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 303
   Name: Brian Harward on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 304
   Name: Andrea Deming on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments: I feel that sugarhouse has become such an amazing city due to it's small town feel. Everyone wants to be there because it is such a gem. England has amazing streets with old houses, same with Italy. Why can't we restore and perserve the personality of Sugarhouse. If you want new buildings move to daybreak!

   Flag
5. 305
   Name: Russell Short on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 306
   Name: Bim Oliver on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments: Thanks for putting this together.

   Flag
7. 307
   Name: Lacie Taylor on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 308
   Name: Nicholas Bielaczyc on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 309
   Name: Lucy Jordan on Dec 5, 2007

   Comments: I love the mix of new and old businesses and buildings in Sugarhouse. I support the redevelopment of the Granite block with some new and some old businesses. Please, please don't tear down all the old ones! If I want to shop at a zillion chain stores, I can go to Sandy or Draper. I chose to live here in Sugarhouse because of its unique character and mix of options. Thank you. Lucy Jordan 1154 Laird Ave SLC, UT 84105

   Flag
10. 310
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 311
    Name: Todd Eckenfelder on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments: I would be sick to lose the old feel to a homoginized, one feel, commercial feel void of personality and architectural jazz.

    Flag
12. 312
    Name: Mehul Asher on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments: Build it and I will not come. I hope others will also make a committment to not patronize the development or the biz that move in. I think that will be the only tactic that may change this developer's mind.

    Flag
13. 313
    Name: Jennifer Northington on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 314
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments: the people who did this website are idiots

    Flag
15. 315
    Name: Jeff S on Dec 5, 2007

    Comments: It'd be such a shame if sugar house was ruined just for some hideous office buildings.

    Flag
16. 316
    Name: Cynthia Oliver on Dec 6, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 317
    Name: Thomas Cohen on Dec 6, 2007

    Comments: Don't turn sugarhouse into another gateway.

    Flag
18. 318
    Name: Sarah Jensen on Dec 8, 2007

    Comments: When is this final public input session of the Planning Commission that you mention in the petition I want to actively protest this but it's hard to keep up!

    Flag
19. 319
    Name: Lisa Jensen on Dec 8, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 320
    Name: Trent Call on Dec 9, 2007

    Comments: for the love of god, we mustn't let it happen

    Flag
21. 321
    Name: Melissa Martinez on Dec 10, 2007

    Comments: I believe the Red Mountain Retail Group has done a better job listening to the Sugar House Community and Following the Sugar House Master Plan in comparison to Mecham Management. I am signing this petition to share my opinion that the demolition of Mecham's buildings in the Granite block is historically, culturally and environmentally disruptive and can be avoided. This teardown and rebuild method is especially hard on local business. Along with old buildings, local businesses are huge contributors to the uniqueness of a community. Local independent businesses give three times as much money back to the community versus their chain store competitors. I urge Mecham to seriously consider other alternatives to his proposed development plan.

    Flag
22. 322
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 323
    Name: Patricia DeYoung on Dec 26, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 324
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 29, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 325
    Name: Justin Clifford on Jan 2, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 326
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 27, 2008

    Comments: I think Craig Mecham owns the property, therefore he should be able to do what he wants with the property. Besides, the buildings were getting old and needed replacing. I look forward to seeing Craig's new development rise in the coming years.

    Flag
27. 327
    Name: Armando Espinosa on May 23, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 328
    Name: Gvgusaovi on Feb 4, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 4, 5, 6, 7