Second thoughts

There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]

Consumers call it "buyer's remorse": You see something you like, purchase it, but, later on, regret that you did.

There are 104 lawmakers at the Capitol, we hope, who are suffering their own pangs of buyers' remorse over a law they passed in 2007 without a single dissenting vote.

It was House Bill 466, and it amended Utah law regarding the incorporation of towns in the state. Basically, it allows landowners -- who are often real estate developers -- to sidestep county planning processes and too easily create their own towns.

That's the scenario playing out in Weber County at the Powder Mountain ski resort, where a private developer -- frustrated with the county's ability to demand an additional access road, an on-site sewage-treatment plant and other items -- has decided to use HB 466 to create Powder Mountain Town. Not only that, the amended law apparently allows the developer to force dozens of Eden residents who now live in unincorporated Weber County to be part of Powder Mountain Town, without even so much as an opportunity to vote up or down on the plan.

HB 466's House sponsor was Rep. Mel Brown, R-Coalville. Its Senate sponsor was Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse.

If you want to see how the developer-/landowner-friendly bill modified state statute, go to Legislature's 2007 session Web site at (http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillenr/hb0466.htm). It makes for interesting reading, since you'll see the following section of the law was removed: "... the county legislative body may approve the incorporation petition, if the county legislative body determines that the incorporation is in the best interests of the citizens of the county and the proposed town."

That part of the law gave a county some leverage over making sure the development was "in the best interests of the citizens of the county and the proposed town."

But if you happen to be a county with a population less than 700,000, your options are limited. Those counties are described as being of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth classes, in descending order according to diminishing population totals. If the incorporation petition is presented by owners of half or more of the land proposed for incorporation as a town -- as is the case with Powder Mountain -- the law "requires counties of the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth class to grant a petition that represents over 1/2 of the property value in the area proposed to be incorporated as a town; ..."

In other words, the counties' hands are tied. They simply must grant the petition. None of the residents get to vote on the matter, either.

Huntsville Rep. Gage Froerer is busy drafting a bill designed to amend HB 466. There's another bill on the Senate side that would amend HB 466, too. Both bills reportedly would require majority votes of the residents within the boundaries of the incorporation proposal before approval.

We haven't decided yet whether the proposed Powder Mountain development is a good idea for Weber or Cache counties. It's a gigantic project: Developers have proposed 805 single-family homes, 2,090 multiple-family units, 500 hotel rooms, 11 corporate retreats, a 60,000-square-foot recreation center, a 40,000-square-foot equestrian center, a 40,000-square-foot air station, three lodges, two 18-hole golf courses and a fire station.

But one thing we are sure about: Being able to create a town in the manner allowed by HB 466 is bad public policy. Public comment, a detailed review process and a vote of the people within the boundaries of a new town should determine a proposal's success or failure.

Here's hoping the Legislature acts quickly enough to head off a too-hasty decision on Powder Mountain Town.

Comments

Add a comment...

Name:
Comment:
Security Code:	Type the characters to the left in the box exactly as they appear.
Your IP:	38.103.63.60 This address is recorded for security purposes.