Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 246.
This bill (University of Utah Research Park Act) retroactively confirms that roughly 593.54 acres of non‑Federal land in Salt Lake City conveyed to the University of Utah may be used as a University research park. It confirms uses approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1970 and prior Department of the Interior modifications, and validates other uses consistent with a research park (including student housing and a transit hub).
Progressives emphasize community, affordable housing, and environmental protections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused procedural/housekeeping measure that precisely confirms specified non‑Federal land uses under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
This bill (University of Utah Research Park Act) retroactively confirms that roughly 593.54 acres of non‑Federal land in Salt Lake City conveyed to the University of Utah may be used as a University research park.
It confirms uses approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1970 and prior Department of the Interior modifications, and validates other uses consistent with a research park (including student housing and a transit hub).
The confirmation is made pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and is subject to the original letters, terms, and approvals.
Highly targeted, low-cost, administrative confirmation with few national policy implications; main risks are localized disputes or procedural/legal challenges.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused procedural/housekeeping measure that precisely confirms specified non‑Federal land uses under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. It is specific about the parcel, the controlling DOI correspondence, and the scope of confirmed uses.
Progressives emphasize community, affordable housing, and environmental protections.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize community, affordable housing, and environmental protections.
Likely supportive but cautious: sees potential public benefits from research, housing, and transit, but worries about privatization and community impacts.
Wants assurances that developments serve public interest, affordable housing, and environmental protections.
Views confirmation as a narrow, local land‑use bill rather than a major federal policy change.
Views the bill as a technical, pragmatic fix that confirms longstanding approvals and reduces legal uncertainty.
Generally supportive because it clarifies land use, enables economic development and transit improvements, and appears to have minimal federal cost.
Wants transparency that the university complies with original terms.
Generally favorable because it affirms non‑Federal control and local development by a university, reducing federal entanglement.
May express concern if the confirmation looks like a federal giveaway or bypasses property rights protections.
Overall supportive if it advances local economic growth and limits ongoing federal oversight.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Highly targeted, low-cost, administrative confirmation with few national policy implications; main risks are localized disputes or procedural/legal challenges.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize community, affordable housing, and environmental protections.
Highly targeted, low-cost, administrative confirmation with few national policy implications; main risks are localized disputes or procedur…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused procedural/housekeeping measure that precisely confirms specified non‑Federal land uses under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. It is spec…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.