Syracuse goes its own way
Text 
1 comment [ View ]Syracuse knows what it wants: nothing different.
It prefers to be the same as any other bedroom community along the Wasatch Front -- mostly residential rooftops, with some retail shops, restaurants, a Wal-Mart, convenience stores and a little office space.
But no manufacturing, to speak of -- no high-tech industry to provide jobs Syracuse residents can walk or bicycle to. If you want a job in high tech, you'll have to leave Syracuse to go to work.
That's what Syracuse wants, and it looks like that's exactly what Syracuse will get now that city leaders appear committed to terminating the community's involvement with the proposed Davis Technology and Economic Cooperative.
The DTEC, as originally envisioned, would have been a one-of-a-kind economic development effort undertaken by Syracuse, Clearfield and West Point on 1,000 acres of undeveloped land along their common borders. It was to have been restricted to high-tech industries, residential and complementary retail, restaurants and the like. The cities would not have been competing, but cooperating to make their communities more inviting, livable and economically productive.
Now that Syracuse has seen the future's potential and apparently decided it would rather stick with the same old way of doing things, West Point and Clearfield probably will get those good jobs. And, as a result, municipal taxes will be lower than in Syracuse. Also, West Point and Clearfield -- if they do this right -- will not only be destination cities for workers from other communities, they will be attractive to workers who would like a commute-free lifestyle in the age of skyrocketing gasoline prices.
We understand well a city's right to grow and develop as it sees fit. But every chance we get, we'll let cities know when we think they're being shortsighted. Syracuse residents, we'll wager, don't fully understand the long-term ramifications of this decision. They're being frightened, for example, by those who say the city will have to allow sexually oriented businesses into the DTEC; in fact, no city can ban sexually oriented businesses, they simply decide to confine them to whatever zone they see fit. If there's not already a strip club in Syracuse, there may never be -- like any business, sexually oriented businesses need a customer base to survive.
Also, there are worries about possible truck traffic near Syracuse High School -- which is close to lots of open land that could possibly be part of DTEC. We're not sure that's a legitimate concern, either, since it all depends on what types of businesses are allowed, and more importantly where they are located within the 1,000-acre development. Besides, business parks can determine truck routes, and they can restrict them from conflicting with school traffic.
We're quite sure most of the Syracuse residents who object to DTEC haven't heard detailed explanations of what the development could be -- its appearance (it won't be anything like the Freeport Center), its composition of businesses and residential, the types of industry allowed, etc. Also, the vocal group of anti-DTEC residents are speaking for the rest of Syracuse residents in saying they're happy to pay higher municipal taxes to support construction and long-term maintenance of residential infrastructure -- roads, sewer, water, etc. -- in order to keep DTEC out of town.
We urge Syracuse not to completely close the door to this opportunity. We hope its leaders will continue to confer with West Point and Clearfield in a cooperative effort to allow sensible development along their common borders, and to provide what's best for all three communities. By remaining a part of DTEC, Syracuse could help control what happens next door; by opting out completely, the city surrenders that ability.
You really show your bias in both your editorial and your cartoon depicting Syracuse residents as brainless, backward country hicks.
You also show your ignorance regarding DTEC. DTEC was originally slotted to be nothing more than an Industrial zone which would have allowed low paying menial industrial jobs like the ones that already exist at Freeport Center. it would have also allowed sexual oriented businesses, class four and five bars and apartments. All of these are detrimental to keeping crime down in a community. Originally, DTEC would have also permitted chemical manfacturing and day care facilities. Hmm, sounds like a great pairing to me. Throw a new high school into the mix and you have a wonderful concoction for tragedy.
It was not until a couple of hundred citizens showed up in June to a DTEC meeting that within two weeks DTEC began to morph into something totally different.
This is when, suddenly, Mayor Panucci said all of the previous concerns are moot, because DTEC would not be zoned Industrial, but it would have it's own zoning "DTEC Zone." Panucci then began to change the idea from the first concept to one that would be high tech, high paying jobs in a walking community. Sounds very Utgopian if you ask me, and he obviously had you to pitch his dream for him.
I have spoken to nobody who would have been against something like a medical complex or professional complex with doctor, attorney, real estate, banks etc type of employers. If you'll notice, nobody is trying to boot out IHC which is going in just across the street from the new high school.
You state that DTEC opponents are happy paying higher municipal taxes. You need to check city council minutes, because when I mentioned to Panucci that his DTEC would not bring enough tax revenue to cover the increased costs of emergency response and police patrol, he told me DTEC was not about increasing tax revenue. It was about creating jobs. He admitted DTEC would provide nothing more than property tax dollars which is exactly what happens when residential homes are built. He knows that the increase in tax revenue needed to support increased infrastructure comes from commercial development. Therefore your thesis is baseless. Syracuse citizens would still have to pay higher municipal taxes with DTEC, but you fail to print this little fact in your propaganda.
If Panucci had pitched his high tech high paying, family supporting jobs from the beginning he likely would have succeeded in his DTEC dream. But he did nothing of the sort. Instead he tried to sneak something by the citizens that would have been terrible for the city, but wonderful for his political aspirations. He never involved the land owners, he lied about the LDS church being in favor of DTEC and to the very end he refused to be open and honest with the citizens about DTEC. He was ready to use our tax dollars to send letters to everyone in the city informing them of his morphed DTEC vision, but refused to use those same dollars to present any opposing view. That is just flat wrong.
I doubt you'll mention any of this in your newspaper, because it is contrary to your agenda. I often wonder why I keep subscribing to your little work of fiction called a news paper. I just have to remind myself to take salt, or a sadative, when I read this type of bologny from you dips.