Signatures 241 total
-
1
Name: Kurt Peterson on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Diane Packham on Jun 17, 2011Comments: It bears repeating: "We urge you to carefully consider the ratios of green space to paving and the resulting consequences. We urge you to consider whether this legislation is supportive of quality neighborhood creation. And we finally, urge you to consider the virtues of having a single individual propose legislation that can negatively affect the whole and derail progress. Legislation should not just benefit the landlords of the city at the expense of those who live here, invest in and work to create community.Flag
-
3
Name: Susan Krueger-Barber on Jun 17, 2011Comments: Please protect the pioneer neighborhoods and put its long term residents first! We want to protect our property values and encourage families to stay here long term We want tourists to come and remark on the beauty of this city. Please revitalize and beautify and change your vote!! Pavement only encourages parking, apartments, and transiency. We want permanency and a beautiful downtown!Flag
-
4
Name: Brad Barber on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Doug Crabb on Jun 17, 2011Comments: Provo sits atop a mountain of potential. It could be the most attractive, most family-friendly, and most opportunity-friendly city in the country. Rentals in Provo (and I'm unfortunate enough to live next to several) are often atrocious places owned by absentee investors who care little for our city.Flag
-
6
Name: Daniel Peel on Jun 17, 2011Comments: Grass and fresh air!! Save it. You pave areas they will never have green there again..... only BLACK!Flag
-
7
Name: Faye Parker on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Thomas F. Parker on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Cindy Richards on Jun 17, 2011Comments: This really isn't Rocket Science. The arguments of the absentee landlords are basically investment/profit driven, and the arguments of the owner occupants are basically community/quality of life/ long term well being driven. As far as the long term health of a city, the data is clear, the statistics are consistent, and in College towns especially, owner occupants and primary residents are the sustaining life blood of the community. Provo doesn't have to work at enticing rental interest in their City. They do have to be very proactive and wise, and conscious of primary, long term residents -- and, in my opinion, treat the owner occupants like endangered species. The absentee property owners main claim is "property rights" as their argument -- "we pay taxes and we have our rights". Their argument is fundamentally shallow. This argument actually has some people believing that the absentee owner has more rights, -- that the absentee owner's property rights over ride the owner occupants property rights -- that somehow "property rights" only apply to investment and business properties. I reject that notion. A Provo Planning commissioner once said to me: Here's what the absentee owner is really saying: "I have more property, therefore I have more rights". The owner occupant also pays taxes and has the very same property rights. The difference between these two taxpayers is that the owner occupant shoulders more "costs": 1) the owner occupant has to experience and live with the impacts of the absentee owner's management of both the physical property as well as the tenants, (which is generally a higher maintenance issue) 2) the absentee owner is just that, absentee, which creates more difficulties with contacting them and building a working relationship with them, 3) the tenants are transient, which, again, creates challenges with working relationships, 4) The owner's property as an owner occupied single family dwelling is devalued, 5) If the owner is in the "S", "A", "RC" or other neighborhoods of high market pressure for rentals; the owner occupant see's the economic draw to sell/move/keep as a potential income property. The negative impacts of the practical outcomes of this ordinance will be felt by Provo's primary residents. This vote devalued the property values of many single family homes. -- highness risks of single family foreclosures This vote diluted the economic or social incentive to remain owner occupants. This vote eroded the primary residents confidence: in their home's value, in their neighborhood's health, and in their City's priorities. This vote was offensive to all who have worked for community and contributed to the many Visioning efforts over the years. This vote told primary residents that they are less important to the Council than the profit oriented absentee owner. Council members and Mayor, the majority of the people who voted for you in your elections want the principles of healthy single family neighborhoods and promoting owner occupancy promoted and supported by you, -- they feel you made campaign promises to that goal. A reconsideration or a veto would go a long way in restoring some of their loss of confidence, in you, in the City's priorities, in their home value, in their future quality of life and health of Provo.Flag
-
10
Name: R. Paul Evans on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Sherrie Spencer on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Diona Wilson on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Stephen A. Hales on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Marian & Jim Monnahan on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Matthew D Beatty on Jun 17, 2011Comments: As a resident of the Joaquin neighborhood in Provo and a homeowner with a young family, I sign this petition with unhesitating support. The vote to allow a significant amount of more backyard (and side yard, and front yard) pavement is shortsighted, misdirected, and a completely opposite representation of what the real homeowners and residents (rather than renters and landlords) in Provo want. To maintain respect as our representatives in the City Council, you must hear our voices on this matter and consider what must be done, a reconsideration of the vote.Flag
-
16
Name: Sherry Wadham on Jun 17, 2011Comments: If Provo is to continue to be a great place to live and raise a family, the city must stop giving power to the greed of the few and instead, think of the welfare of ALL citizens, not just those who hope to make money by chopping up existing single family homes or building high occupancy buildings in otherwise stable neighborhoods. This has been going on for a long time and needs to stop. The infrastructure of our older neighborhoods cannot withstand the onslaught of so many added dwellings. Preserve our neighborhoods!Flag
-
17
Name: Scott Bingham on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Michael Winget on Jun 17, 2011Comments: Thank you for allowing the community to have a voice in this matter. As residents of Provo, we deserve the right to contribute to the direction we are taken.Flag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: David C. Keller on Jun 17, 2011Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Maria Winden on Jun 17, 2011Comments: I wrote a letter to the city council and specifically to my city council representative, Sterling Beck, with a few of my objections to this ordinance. I can make that letter available upon request.Flag
-
22
Name: M. Wayne Snow on Jun 18, 2011Comments: You are supposed to represent the people not individuals.Flag
-
23
Name: Darryl Mauck on Jun 18, 2011Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: John Rowe on Jun 18, 2011Comments: I fully support any effort resulting in the predominance of single family owner occupied homes in downtown Provo. By this means the City will be assured of having stable, economically viable, family friendly, well maintained and repaired homes surrounding downtown.Flag
-
25
Name: Renae Golding on Jun 18, 2011Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: David Harding on Jun 18, 2011Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Diane Christensen on Jun 18, 2011Comments: I fully support this petition. The entire city is strengthened by the above-listed benefits of owner occupancy, long-term residency, revitalization, beautification, improvement of curb appeal, and neighborhood appearance. I urge the council to reconsider the backyard paving issue as it benefits student landlords in the central neighborhoods but works to the detriment of the more permanent residents.Flag
-
28
Name: Maryann Andrus on Jun 18, 2011Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: George O. Stewart on Jun 18, 2011Comments: The passage of this new ordinance is a step back for home ownership in rental neighborhoods!Flag
-
30
Name: Derek Rentz on Jun 18, 2011Comments: I would ask the council to reconsider the ordinance to allow more paving in backyards. I was surprised when I read the article in the paper this week which outlined the ability for landlords who have no interest in our city, but to make a dollar to further degrade it by creating a parking lot in their back yards. I am opposed to this ordinance.Flag
-
31
Name: Ginger Woolley on Jun 18, 2011Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Robert V. Jaramillo on Jun 19, 2011Comments: We cannot afford the ripple effect of this legislation. Please undo it and reconsider.Flag
-
33
Name: Bonnie Callis on Jun 20, 2011Comments: I agree wholeheartedly with the points made on this petition. Let's have some vision for Provo and especially the Pioneer neighborhoods! Please reconsider this foolish "Pave Provo" ordinance. Thanks to Sherrie Hall Everett and Cynthia Dayton for their understanding of how to strengthen cities and their vision for the future.Flag
-
34
Name: Bob Allen on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Bob Allen on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: Georgia Solorzano on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Mary Winget on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Bryan Hutchison on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Jared Cardon on Jun 20, 2011Comments: My wife and I have been saving to buy a home in this area and become permanent residents of beautiful downtown Provo. If this legislation goes into effect, we are unlikely to pursue purchasing a home in this area as it diminishes green space, lowers property values and demonstrates the City of Provo's lack of commitment to long-term neighborhood creation.Flag
-
40
Name: Randy J. Christiansen on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Tad Rasmussen on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Mark Burns on Jun 20, 2011Comments: Please do not let this ordinance continue -- the only reason to pave more of a yard is to go and break up one home into several rental units, a move that is horrible for the city, the residents, real estate values, parking, etc. It's a losing proposition in all ways except for the handful of absentee landlords and real estate investors who would benefit.Flag
-
43
Name: Maria B "Cheli" West on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
44
Name: Anonymous on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Ben Zimmer on Jun 20, 2011Comments: My wife and I are considering buying a home in the Provo close to BYU, but adding more parking lots to backyards makes us MUCH less interested. Provo has had a short-sighted approach to its zoning for too long by allowing this type of practice. Long-term, to allow even more parking lots simply chases families out of the neighborhood.Flag
-
46
Name: Susan M. Keller on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Shima Baradaran on Jun 20, 2011Comments: I am a home owner in the downtown provo neighborhood and I would not like to allow more yards to be paved in my area. I think permanent home owners will lead to increased property values in the area and a more beautiful provo.Flag
-
48
Name: Rachel Wadham on Jun 20, 2011Comments:Flag
-
49
Name: Michelle Viertel on Jun 21, 2011Comments:Flag
-
50
Name: Brynn Zimmer on Jun 21, 2011Comments:Flag