June 20, 2002

Mr. Evensen:
Our Granite community (near the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon) has recently been embroiled in a controversy over a painted rock. I would like to get an independent, balanced perspective from someone outside of the community, and I'm hoping you might help me out. Below is a rundown of relevant facts as I understand them. This includes pasted in copies of a flyer and a petition to UDOT. Both contain background information, but neither of these documents was publicly distributed because soon after they were written it appeared that the issue would be resolved fairly via a community survey, as explained below. Also pasted in is a copy of an e-mail which I did send to Randy Park, Director of UDOT region 2 on June 6, 2002.
 
1964                Rock first painted as a face by local teenagers. No one complained.
 
1964-2002        Numerous other paintings of rock by many people. Messages included celebrations of: America's 1976 bicentennial, numerous weddings, graduations, family reunions and other events; farewells and homecomings for many servicemen, missionaries, family and friends; also to commemorate the deceased, including victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America. Over time the "Painted Rock" became a landmark by which many residents gave directions to get to their homes. Occasionally there were obscene expressions. These were generally painted over quickly, either by local residents or by whoever did the next paint job (nothing lasted very long). Unfortunately, in recent years there have also been, at times, other undesirable things happen near the rock, possibly by irresponsible rock painters and/or those accompanying them: graffitti on a nearby fence, noisy midnight painting parties, the litter of leftover paint, brushes, cans, etc. (these were picked up and put in the garbage from time to time by some locals). Once someone drove their 4WD vehicle through the nearby fence, knocking down several rails. On another occasion someone lassoed one of the horses inside the corral and yanked it around, causing a bad cut on its neck. After some research with the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office, this horse incident appears to be the only one, potentially rock-related, that was ever complained about in all the 38 years of the rock being painted. 
 
March 28, 2002    The rock was buried on site by direction of a local developer (one week before my wife planned to paint it to welcome home our missionary son). He claimed it was necessary to put the water line in, but this turned out to be incorrect. This was done without a UDOT permit and after checking with only a few approving neighbors. Why? Many believe that it was done to improve the property value and "salability" of his own upscale units.
 
April 3, 2002        The rock issue was addressed at the local Granite Community Council meeting, with several advocates from both sides attending. After hearing from both sides, the Community Council declared that UDOT had asked them (the Granite Community Council) to make a recommendation, and that they would require the developer to exhume the rock if it was clear that a majority of the community wanted it back. The community council then commissioned  Granite resident, Alan Longstaff, to get volunteers from both sides and conduct a survey, which was to be presented at the next Granite Community Council meeting on May 1, 2002. It was understood that this survey could not reach everyone. The object was to obtain a statistically reliable sampling of Granite residents.
 
April 8-30, 2002    The survey was conducted by Mr. Longstaff and several volunteers in an area within roughly one mile of the rock. Some was done by phone and some by door to door canvassing. Anyone of voting age in that area was eligible to participate.Care was taken to record names and ensure there were no double votes. Of a total of 584 people surveyed, these were the results:
 
In favor of exhuming the rock:            476, or 81%
Opposed to exhuming the rock:         39, or 7%
Indifferent:                                        71, or 12%
 
May 1, 2002        Another Granite Community Council meeting was held and the results of the survey were presented by Mr. Longstaff. Council Chair Doug Haymore requested opinions from the audience. State representative Karen Morgan was in attendance and said she had had numerous calls from constituents in favor of raising the rock, and that she would work to ensure that it would happen. Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman was also in attendance and said she had received more calls regarding this issue than on any other issue, and that she would support the will of the community. A few residents also spoke in favor of raising the rock. Mr. Haymore twice asked if there were any opposing views to be expressed, but no one there offered anything but support for exhuming the rock. The community council then voted to present the survey as their recommendation to UDOT, with one member abstaining.
 
May 2002            UDOT was informed of the Granite Community Council's recommendation and they, in turn, informed the developer that the rock must be exhumed within 10 days. The rock was never exhumed. Although no opponents attended the second Granite Community Council meeting, they complained to UDOT that the process was unfair, that their input had either been ignored or avoided, and that only property owners in a much more restricted area next to the rock should have any say in the matter. UDOT put a hold on unburying the rock in order to allow these people to take a second survey of a much more limited area near the rock. To my knowledge this was done without any help, input or even the invitation for such from those favoring the rock exhumation. Only one vote per property was allowed. All non-property owners in the area were intentionally excluded from a voice in this survey (including my wife, myself, and our 2 voting age children). I called Mike Donovan at UDOT to explain the matter to me. He indicated that thus far, the new survey favored keeping the rock buried. I asked why non-property owners were barred from this survey. In effect, the answer was that "it's just the way it was decided to be done". I asked if the new survey would anull the original survey. The answer was "well, no; we just want to have more information on which to base a decision" and that "we want to make a decision that will help avoid community discord" (these are paraphrased). He was then very helpful in going over the votes of some of the properties. Some discrepancies were apparent between the 2 surveys. Had these people changed their minds? I checked up on 2 of the discrepancies. One of them indicated that he had voted to bring the rock up on both surveys, and was puzzled why anyone might think that he had voted against it. The other one said that she agreed that the anti rock people had some legitimate grievances, but that burying the rock without permit or public forum was wrong. She then had changed her vote from favoring rock exhumation to "undecided", but not to keeping the rock buried. I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally falsifying votes; but it appears that those taking the survey (all of them being opposed to exhumation) tried to convince people of their own point of view, got some sympathy for their legitimate grievances, and then incorrectly interpreted that as a vote against exhumation; at least in these 2 cases. It is unfortunate that votes were not gathered by an independent or impartial group, or at least by people representing both sides in the controversy.
 
June 5, 2002            A third Granite Community Council meeting was held with the director of UDOT region 2, Randy Park, in attendance. Both sides in the controversy were also in attendance and allowed to express their views. Mr. Park said that UDOT would make a decision in a few days.
 
June 6, 2002            I e-mailed Mr. Park, detailing what I felt was a workable compromise in the situation (see below).
 
June 12, 2002          I learned that UDOT had decided to keep the rock buried, apparently without any concessions to the 81% who favored unburying the rock in the first survey.
 
Is there something wrong with this picture? I believe that opponents of the rock have some legitimate grievances, but is encouraging and supporting the illegal burial of the rock the right way to address the problem? This seems to be the (perhaps unintended) message that UDOT is supporting. And why not a compromise? Many people are perplexed or angry that a landslide majority of the community is being completely ignored by UDOT in what some feel is a behind the scenes political move favoring rock opponents with influence on higher up state officials.
 
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter.
 
Allen Bishop
 
 
 
 
(Actual e-mail sent to Randy Park, Director of UDOT Region 2)
 
June 6, 2002
 
Mr. Park:
 
From reports I get of last night's Granite Community Council meeting, UDOT may be facing something of a dilemma. As I understand it, you face one of these choices, with attendant advantages and disadvantages:
 
1. Status quo, leave the rock buried with no further action. This greatly reduces the possibility of noisy midnight parties and vandalism to nearby properties, thus pleasing what appears to be a majority of a small group of nearby property owners. It also keeps the rock out of the way for any future road widening. However, it disenfranchises a much larger Granite community and their duly commissioned survey of over 500 people, which shows 80% in favor of exhuming the rock and restoring it to its original location. It also sends a message to developers and contractors that UDOT just might turn a blind eye to any excavations without a valid permit, as happened in this case. A win for most nearby property owners, but a loss for 80% of Granite residents. For UDOT? Part win, part loss.
 
2. Require the developer to restore the rock to its original location. This would satisfy the great majority (about 80%!) of the larger community of Granite residents. It would also send a message to developers and contractors that UDOT expects full compliance with the law and will not tolerate excavations without a valid permit, as happened in this case. Still, this choice disappoints most nearby property owners by encouraging the prospect of vandalism and noisy midnight parties. It also puts the rock back in the way of future road widening. A win for 80% of Granite residents, but a loss for most nearby property owners. UDOT again gets part win and part loss.
 
3. Put a new rock in a different location, such as at the nearby Bell Canyon trailhead. This should satisfy anti-rock people by moving the potential source of headaches to a place with far fewer nearby residents. For UDOT, it keeps the rock out of the way of future road widening. But it only partly satisfies pro-rock people, who prefer the old traditional rock in the old, traditional place; the new place isn't as visible and the new rock would likely be much smaller. Also, it still validates the developer's decision to bury the rock illegally, again sending the wrong message to other developers and contractors. Anti-rock folks win. Pro-rock folks only get token crumbs. UDOT again gets part win and part loss.
 
What is the best compromise? What solution would offer as much win-win-win as possible? I propose for your serious consideration:
 
4. Require the developer to exhume the old rock, then have it moved to a different location, such as at the nearby Bell Canyon trailhead. This should satisfy anti-rock people by moving the rock to a place with far fewer nearby residents. And it would give the pro-rock people more, in that at least they would have the old traditional (and probably larger) rock. It would also require the developer to spend time and money to exhume the rock, thus sending the right message to developers and contractors: that UDOT expects full compliance with the law and will not tolerate excavations without a valid permit. Who would pay for the move? Well, the people who want it moved, of course, and anyone else willing to contribute. This solution seems to combine both winning and sacrifice for both sides of the controversy. And UDOT pretty much wins all the way around!
 
I hope you will carefully consider the win-win-win advantages of option #4.
 
Respectfully,
 
Allen Bishop