Proposed Splash Summit Relocation and Mixed-Use Development

Stated that residents are not motivated by NIMBYism but want the city to respect its general plans and keep promises made to the community.

Pointed out that all land in question is currently owned by Provo City and argued that while Provo needs housing, this project violates key principles of preserving open space.

Criticized the project as an overly massive 'Park City' style development for the east bench and expressed disappointment in the city for entertaining the sale of public land.

Expressed deep concern that the project could stall out and leave behind dangerous, abandoned half-built structures similar to past failed developments in Provo.

Expressed skepticism about developer promises regarding parking and traffic, noting past negative experiences with student housing and chronic noise issues with current water park owners.

Called for full transparency regarding long-term plans, referencing past legislative attempts to develop the State Hospital area and historical ski resort proposals.

Noted that living directly below the mountain creates an acoustic echo chamber where voices and noise carry clearly, making a resort highly disruptive.

Questioned whether multi-story parking structures at the existing site could solve parking issues instead of expanding onto sensitive mountain slopes.

Voiced skepticism regarding developer deflections about long-term plans and praised the State Hospital's beauty as a testament to caring for vulnerable populations.

Expressed support for the project as a young father desiring walkability, local dining options, and recreational activities close to home.

Confronted the developer directly over whether community feedback would actually change plans if the developer intends to push the project through regardless.

Suggested an indoor mountain-shaped water park as an alternative, while urging caution against building on unstable mountain slopes.

Applied project management principles to question whether the project 'juice is worth the squeeze,' noting the proposal appears to be a second-choice location.

Clarified the neighborhood board's role, noted that 110 hillside homes were previously approved against community wishes, and warned that chipping away at neighborhood plans erodes protections.