Editor’s Note: The Selective Echo is pleased to feature this electronic Q&A with Luke Garrott, the new representative for the City Council downtown district. Garrott handily defeated Nancy Saxton, who was seeking her third four-year term, by garnering 58 percent of the more than 4,500 votes cast in the district’s 25 precincts. The following came from his campaign biography: Luke lives in the Trolley Square neighborhood of downtown Salt Lake with his wife of ten years, Jen, who is in her residency training in emergency medicine at the University of Utah. A professor of political science at the University of Utah, Luke teaches courses in community studies and political philosophy. His personally developed course, Neighborhood Democracy, brings together students and community members to improve neighborhoods in Salt Lake.

Luke’s parents, Jess and Joann, were public school teachers and union members in the area around Chicago, IL.

As a life-long soccer player and regular participant in local neighborhood affairs, Luke knows what teamwork is all about — and the value of including community voices in government affairs. As a result, many of Luke’s former students have gone on to be active members of their communities, with several serving in leadership positions in their local neighborhood councils.

His passion for community building is also reflected in his commitment to The Westside Leadership Institute, where west Salt Lake residents learn how to engage their local government and improve their communities. The program is in its 4th year and has been a remarkable success.

Luke has provided thoughtful responses to questions that have the most direct impact upon the city’s downtown residents and business owners.

SE: With regard to downtown development, how do you envision your role as a newly elected member of City Council’s downtown district?

LG: The City Council has some, but not total control over what happens downtown. As I currently see it, we can have the greatest impact through: 1) participating in master planning, 2) implementing master planning through zoning changes, and 3) using the Redevelopment Agency to spark development where the master plan calls for it but the market is not providing. This sounds simple, but in the past the relevant actors — e.g. the Council, Administration, Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Merchants Association — have not acted in the coordinated and sustained way that is needed to make real progress.

SE: What do you consider the most urgent priorities in the downtown district and what strategies and tactics do you believe will constructively address these priorities?

LG: We have real urgency to catalyze the energies that City Creek Center is creating. The City needs to respond: what do we want the rest of downtown to look like? What do we want south of 100 South and how are we going to achieve it? We have too many vacant buildings and surface parking lots. Our nightlife is too spread out. Are we serious about an entertainment/hospitality district? On this and other issues (like housing), we need to make some bold moves that will make it clear to developers what we want where.

SE: There have been several public sessions regarding the proposed City Creek Center development and concerns about making the central business district friendly and accommodating to shoppers and local business owners. What can the mayor and city council do to promote effectively a central business district that is active and economically viable not only during weekdays but also on evenings and weekends? What incentives do you believe would be appropriate to encourage smart local entrepreneurship for downtown?

LG: I’ve tried to answer some of these questions in my above responses, but the local part of this question needs some attention. After our Sugarhouse debacle, we have a real responsibility to caretake local, independent business. This can be done by: 1) simplifying the code that regulates businesses, 2) providing increased support for local, independent business through initiatives like a mentoring program and a business incubator, and 3) preserving the buildings that many local businesses reside. Once those affordable rents are gone, they’re gone forever. I feel so strongly about this, I’m not above subsidizing rents for local businesses.

SE: Some individuals have publicly voiced their concerns that the crime problem in Pioneer Park and surrounding areas is intractable. What policy approach do you believe could be potentially effective for making the park safely accessible and welcome to all community members?

LG: The crime problem is only intractable if we allow it to be so. The problem is not the people who use the services at the shelters (a/k/a ‘the homeless’) it’s the well-organized drug trade that we have tolerated in the park for so long. We’re dealing with organized crime here, and so far we’ve given them the message that Pioneer Park and environs are their territory. I see two sides to the solution: 1) A balance between users, so that on a daily basis the number of day campers and drug dealers is smaller than other city residents using the park. Already, neighboring residents are programming events in the park and have started an energetic neighborhood watch program. The addition of a dog run and a jogging/skating path to the park are also major strides in this direction. 2) A sustained commitment by police to crack down on criminality in the park. In the past, there has been a level of tolerance that simply cannot continue. SLCPD are willing to step up their efforts, but they need more resources (including space at the county jail) to make a real difference.

SE: Previous posts in this blog have addressed the distinction between the problems of the homeless population and the presence of panhandlers and possible ways in which these issues should be addressed. What do you believe the city could do to address these issues?

LG: We do need to make a distinction between poverty and criminality. I think that inventive ideas about how to house the homeless need to be investigated and tried. Expanding the amount of subsidized affordable housing and number of single room occupancy (SRO) units, as well as ‘housing first’ policies for the chronically homeless are part of this. Panhandling is Constitutionally-protected speech, so registering and confining them to a restricted area, as my predecessor in this office proposed, is not feasible (nor desirable, I might add). There are hard-liners out there who say we should adopt Rudy Giuliani-style tactics on the street—stopping (certain) people for petty misdemeanors like jaywalking and then patting them down for weapons and running their record for warrants. Even if we could swallow the civil rights implications of such policies, we still wouldn’t have the County jail space to make it happen. I prefer to give people other opportunities to drug dealing and panhandling… this is a systemic problem that we can’t solve locally, but we can offer people a home and surround them with supportive services to get their life back on track.