It makes sense that if you don't zone for certain activities, you will not have as much of them. Imagine a city not leaving room for commercial development, but instead zoning all for agricultural and residential uses.
I imagine, if that is what they want, that is what they will get.
So, why don't we have a zoning for tourism and conventions? You might argue that those uses are allowed in other zones, but aren't we going to be more likely to attract tourism and conventions if we designate a spot just for them?
And, if we are to pick the best spot for tourism and conventions, wouldn't it be next to the airport? And within reach of an interstate?
Wouldn't it?
Salt Lake City is in an enviable position. It has an airport with large amounts of undeveloped land around it, so it is in position to capitalize on that land for tourism and conventions. We should be pleased and grateful that the land stretching west from the airport hasn't been developed in all these years since Brigham Young arrived here. By the turn of good fortune, it remains open to what is probably its highest and greatest use.
No comments:
Post a Comment