Wealthy residents of stunning beauty spot outraged by plans to build giant WATER PARK next to their homes
Residents who live in a picturesque part of Utah have been left outraged that the owners of Splash Summit Water Park want to move its existing Provo location right on top of their prime real estate.
The park currently sits a mile or so northwest from the Slate Canyon, where the company wants to move. Splash Summit reportedly wants to relocate there due to aging infrastructure and the size limitations of its current property.
Specifically, the plan stipulates that the new park will take up 130 acres of city-owned land at the base of the canyon, which borders dozens of people's homes.
Residents have come out in droves to say this will destroy the natural beauty of Slate Canyon, where many people go every day to get breathtaking views of the Wasatch mountains.
The plan, which has not yet been formally submitted to the Provo City Council, would mean many homeowners will no longer get to marvel at snow-capped peaks when they step out into their backyards.
Instead, they'd have brightly-colored slides, sprawling parking lots and retail space to look at.
'Where we are is so beautiful and to think of the natural beauty taken away from us is scary,' resident Quinton Parrish told ABC 4.
Parrish also pointed out that there is a drainage basin at the bottom of Slate Canyon which he believes could be overwhelmed by all the concrete in the new park. This, he said, could create a scenario where dozens of homes are flooded by runoff and snow melt.
Tyler Peterson, another resident, said he was excited about the new park but not too thrilled about the traffic it would undoubtedly bring to the area.
Last week, the plan was first presented by the water park's project manager, Bryan Bayles, at a Neighborhood District 2 meeting, the Daily Herald reported.
Well over 200 people showed up to hear out Bayles, who is insisting this won't just be a water park. There will be an expanded frisbee golf course, pickle ball courts and other amenities to appeal to a wider customer base, he said.
'We envision people coming to see the new entertainment options at Splash Summit, walking to the neighborhood retail, grabbing dinner,' Bayles said at the meeting.
'We envision a place where families and friends can gather to play pickleball or any other numerous enhanced outdoor activities. It's a place where kids will have something to do that is close to home, where they can come and be kids again,' he added.
The city's comment period on the proposed park remains open, and residents were not shy before and after the meeting to make their thoughts known.
'Please, please preserve our beautiful Slate canyon! The road from the state hospital to Slate canyon is gorgeous, when all you can see is the mountainside and sky. This is a Provo treasure—please do not pollute it with retail, waterparks, hotels, billboards, and anything else. We don't need it. We DO need to be good stewards of our natural treasures,' Joanna Harmon wrote on May 7.
One anonymous person opposed to the park said they have lived in Aspen Summit, a housing development on the border of Slate Canyon, for five years and described the proposal as 'such a disappointment for all Provo residents.'
'The idea of moving Splash Summit and further developing the last quiet, beautiful space around Slate Canyon runs contrary to all of the values I thought we Utahns stood for,' Jess Brown wrote on May 3, adding that the outdoors 'improves our mental health.'
Others also showed concern about the area's ability to handle the increased traffic in the event this park were ever built.
'I live in the Slate Canyon neighborhood. I use the streets and the park and hike the trail on the mountainside regularly. Slate Canyon is not designed to handle that much traffic,' an anonymous resident wrote on May 1.
Bayles appeared undeterred by the overwhelming backlash, defiantly stating that 'we could be proposing to build heaven right here in Provo and people would oppose it. Good solutions require compromise.'
The park's developers still need to submit a formal application to the city, which means plans have not been reviewed and public hearings have not been scheduled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Trump reveals how Americans can score a free $1,000 'MAGA baby account'
President Donald Trump promoted a key aspect of his 'big beautiful bill' as the Senate continues to debate the legislation: $1,000 investment accounts for babies born during his tenure in office. The 'Trump accounts' will be given to every U.S. citizen born after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029. The government's $1,000 contribution would be placed in an index fund tied to the overall stock market and managed by the child's legal guardians. The accounts 'will make it possible for countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer, absolutely no cost. It's going to have a huge impact,' the president said during an event at the White House on Monday. Named after himself, Trump called the accounts a 'pro-family' initiative as he works to rally senators to support the legislation. It's not the first time that Trump has made sure it's his name that Americans see on a financial statement. He put his name on the stimulus checks the government sent to millions of Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. House Republicans changed the name of the program from 'MAGA accounts' to 'Trump accounts' before the bill's passage last month. The Trump accounts will be funded by contributions from private businesses. The heads of Dell, Uber, Altimeter Capital, ARM Corp, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Robinhood and Goldman Sachs jointed the president for the announcement. The accounts will also be accessible for additional financial contributions throughout the child's life: from family, friends, parents, employers, or other entities. 'It is a pro family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies,' Trump noted. The recipient of the account could access some of the money when they turn 18 for things like education, training or a first-time home purchase. The full balance would be available at age 30. Democrats are critical of the legislation, which they say will remove millions from Medicaid and add billions to the federal deficit. Some Republican senators, especially those who represent states with large rural areas, also have expressed concern about the cuts to Medicaid. The Senate can still amend the bill, which, if that happens, it would need to be re-approved by the House before it could go to Trump for his signature.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is going after LGBTQ rights and big companies have responded by shunning Pride Month
Every June, like clockwork, multinational corporations — from banks to fashion houses to petrochemical giants — would suddenly don their Pride-themed logos on social media. Many LGBT+ people found it shallow, and mocked the phenomenon as a cynical exercise in "rainbow-washing". But just a few years since the wash of rainbow feeds, even this skin-deep show of support is conspicuous by its absence. Of the ten major U.S. corporations documented by journalist Hunter Schwarz to have adopted a Pride avatar or banner on Twitter in 2023 — including ExxonMobil, Bank of America, and Freddie Mac — just one, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, is still flying its rainbow flag on the social network today. Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League have also abandoned it since 2023. "A lot of people have hesitations around 'rainbow capitalism', and I'm definitely one of those people," Maybe Burke, a 32-year-old gender inclusion consultant in Philadelphia, tells The Independent. "But to not see anything makes you miss when you did, you know?" Multicolor logos aren't the only things disappearing. Pride marches across the nation have lost corporate sponsorships, from big city extravaganzas to small town celebrations. New York City's Pride organizers reportedly lost roughly one quarter of their corporate donors this year; Kansas City Pride lost half its annual budget; even San Francisco Pride was down $200,000. Some ties, such as that of Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch to St Louis PrideFest, were decades old. LGBT+ non-profits have also reported severe drops in their funding. The newsletter Popular Information found 19 examples of companies that appeared to have scaled back their support for Pride, including Dyson, Nivea, UPS, Mastercard, and Citi. The hardware chain Lowe's reportedly also backed out of a regular Human Rights Campaign survey and shut down an LGBT+ employee resource group. Another report by NBC News named Nissan, Comcast, and drinks maker Diegeo. "The scale of the retreat in the U.S. is dramatic and telling," Fabrice Houdart, executive director of the Association of LGBTQ+ Corporate Directors, tells The Independent. "We're not witnessing a mere dialing down — we're witnessing withdrawal, with a few exceptions... the exuberant displays of support we saw five years ago have been replaced by passivity, silence, or strategic invisibility." 'We are seeing the unravelling of conditional support' Burke, who earns much of her living training organizations to be more welcoming to trans and non-binary people, noticed conditions beginning to change after the Trump administration's flurry of executive orders targeting DEI programs — one of which threatened to investigate companies, non-profits, universities, and other institutions that maintain them. "No new inquiries were coming in, and people I had been planning and talking with for months were ghosting me," Burke says. "June has always been my busiest month of the year. June has funded the rest of my summer. In recent years I've had at least two gigs a week in June with different clients; as of right now, I have two gigs for the entire month.' One client, she adds, told her straight up that the company's legal department had intervened and warned that hiring her for a gig might violate Trump's decrees. That's just one symptom of the sudden chill that has descended over corporate America about openly standing up for LGBT+ rights. Some companies pulled back earlier, as a new anti-LGBT+ hate movement gathered steam between 2021 and 2024. But the presence of an openly authoritarian president in the White House, backed by a movement seemingly hellbent on driving queer people back underground, has drastically raised the stakes. "Companies are afraid of backlash, boycotts, and being 'called out' by the administration. But the real issue is that many never developed the courage of their convictions," says Houdart from the Association of LGBTQ+ Corporate Directors. "We're seeing the unraveling of conditional support: the second Pride stopped being universally popular or profitable, many brands quietly exited." Ron deHarte, co-president of the Pride organizers' association USA Prides, says there has indeed been a "noticeable decline" in national-level brand sponsorships, especially in the biggest advertising markets (mostly large cities such as New York and Los Angeles). Yet he stresses that there are other factors at play too. "The broader economic climate", he argues, especially "uncertainty around tariffs", is making companies reticent about spending on events and marketing across the board. Whatever the cause, the lost money will have an impact. Sponsorship money, deHarte explains, is "crucial not only for the flashy decorations and entertainment but also for essential aspects like security, insurance, porta-jons, and maintaining free entry for many events." At least smaller Pride events, which is most of them, will be less impacted on average, because they "traditionally rely more on community fundraising and local business support". 'This is a wake-up call to reclaim our power' Of the nine companies that ditched their Twitter drag since 2023, ExxonMobil, McKesson, Cencora, Cardinal health, Centene, Bank of America, Freddie Mac, and UPS, all either did not respond or declined to comment to The Independent. Citi did respond, though it declined to answer our specific questions. A spokesperson said the company's LGBT+ employee group is 'excited about sponsoring a range of Pride celebrations' worldwide, and will be marching with the LGBT+ elders' charity SAGE in New York City. To be fair, few companies seem to have completely cut all support, instead either scaling down their commitments or simply undertaking them more quietly. Yet that still sends a bitter message to a community that has spent decades fighting not to have to live in hiding. There is, after all, a reason that nobody dubs it LGBT+ Sensible Modesty Month. "In the short term, it's unpleasant. It reinforces the sense that LGBTQ+ dignity is still negotiable and that we never really accumulated any political or economic power," says Houdart. There will, he argues, be lasting damage to companies' reputation: "Many queer people will not forget who stood up and who disappeared." Yet in the long term, deHarte and Houdart are both hopeful that good things will come of this. To deHarte, it's an opportunity for the movement to diversify its funding and prioritize sponsors who demonstrate a real, year-round commitment to LGBT+ equality all year round "It could be a pivotal moment — a forced reckoning,' says Houdart. 'We have been too dependent on institutional validation from parties, governments, and corporations that never honestly shared our long-term vision. "This is a wake-up call to reclaim our power and stop renting our liberation from others... it's a painful moment, but it's also clarifying. Our future depends on solidarity and organizing, not sponsorship."
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump FAA nominee says agency faces serious leadership, trust issues
WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Federal Aviation Administration says the agency faces serious leadership, trust and culture issues, according to a Senate questionnaire seen by Reuters. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday on Trump's nomination of Republic Airways CEO Bryan Bedford to head the FAA. The FAA has come under scrutiny after a series of safety incidents, especially a January 29 mid-air collision between an American Airlines regional jet and U.S. Army helicopter that killed 67 people. "The lack of steady and qualified leadership helps to explain the lack of any coherent strategy or vision for the agency," Bedford wrote in the questionnaire reviewed by Reuters. "A malaise has set in whereby managers believe the agency is helpless to make the necessary changes, and furthermore, they rationalize it isn't really their fault." Bedford, a pilot and industry veteran of more than 30 years, was nominated in March. He previously headed two other carriers and oversaw a significant expansion of Republic Airways, which operates regional flights for American Airlines (AAL.O), opens new tab United Airlines (UAL.O), opens new tab and Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), opens new tab. Bedford said there was a profound lack of trust with and within the FAA. He described the agency's organizational structure as "unwieldy" and said there was a need to urgently address the agency's "reactive" safety culture. "The lack of trust makes many managers at FAA reluctant to speak up for fear of retribution," Bedford wrote. He cited "failures" like the FAA's Boeing BA.N 737 MAX certification, oversight of chronically delayed air traffic control implementation, and continued controller shortages. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wants Congress to approve tens of billions to reform air traffic control and boost staffing. "The root cause of FAA's inability to complete its mission to modernize air traffic systems and effectively manage safety is the lack of strategic vision and competent leadership," Bedford wrote. The FAA does not encourage risk-taking for innovation, Bedford added. "There appears to be no incentive for anyone at FAA to take any innovation risk for fear that it could fail," Bedford wrote. "You could say there was an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude, but that has morphed into a quiet resignation that 'we can't fix it, but we can do our very best to make the system work safely today' mindset."
