Powder town, chapter 2
Text 
The utter freakishness of the town-incorporation law passed by the Legislature in 2007 continues to defy common sense in Weber County.
Members of the Weber County Commission are in a bad spot. But by attempting to find an ethical, moral solution to their quandary, they are, perhaps, violating the law. A really bad law, mind you, but a law nevertheless.
On Tuesday commissioners once again refused to rubber-stamp a list of town council and mayor appointees from the creators/developers of Powder Mountain Town. Their reasoning: Maybe it's possible to put a shine on this lump of ... coal.
First, a little history: In a big wet kiss to land developers during the 2007 legislative session, House Bill 466 not only allowed developers to create their own towns, but permitted them to force nearby residents into the town boundaries without a vote. Furthermore, it allowed the developers -- those who petition a county commission or council for incorporation of the town -- to choose who'll be the initial mayor and city council, instead of having the county commission or the new residents of the town do the choosing. (HB 466 was amended and made reasonable this year, but the damage had already been done. The Powder Mountain developers acted while it was still the law of the land.)
As we've said in this space before, we're not opposed to a larger resort and housing and commercial development at Powder Mountain. But we think it's tragic that the Legislature allowed, potentially, developers to ignore -- if they so choose -- the hard-won Ogden Valley Master Plan.
And we remind you that only one Top of Utah incumbent legislator, Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, did not vote for House Bill 466 -- she wasn't present when the vote was taken. Every other member of the House and Senate in the Top of Utah voted in favor of this bill.
Now it's come down to the aforementioned face-off between the Weber County Commission and Powder Mountain developers. Two weeks ago, commissioners declined to appoint the six people on a list provided by the developers for the six available city government slots. One commission complaint was that the list included a grandfather, his grandson and granddaughter -- and perhaps one other close relative.
As awful as that sounds, HB 466 was such a grotesque piece of legislation, it allowed significant manipulation by petitioners/developers: "Upon the granting of a petition filed under this section, the legislative body of the county in which the proposed town is located shall appoint a mayor and members of the town council from a list of qualified individuals approved by the petition sponsors."
It doesn't define "qualified." And that, apparently, is the hook on which county commissioners are hanging their reluctance to approve the leaders of the new town government.
In the interim, commissioners even took it upon themselves to interview more potential appointees, and gave the developers a list of 19 names, including the original six. The developers returned this week with a list of 11 names, but three of the additional five names were relatives of the original six.
Commissioner Jan Zogmaister's sarcasm was apropos when she remarked that if those people were appointed, a family reunion could constitute a quorum of city government.
This process is a joke. The developers are taking advantage of the one-year gift provided by a developers'-lapdog Legislature. The Weber County Commission is attempting to salvage some semblance of governance that is representative of all the people who'll be living in the new Powder Mountain Town. And the rest of us are rubberneckers who can't resist peeking at the governmental carnage.
The commissioners' decision may ultimately be forced by a law that never should have been passed in the first place, much less signed by the governor.
What we'd like to know about the whole affair is this: Did all the lawmakers who voted in favor of this bill get something in return from the developer lobby? Or did they vote in favor of it because they were too incompetent to understand what they were doing?
Either way, are these the people voters want representing them at the Capitol?
Add Your Comment
The SE editorial asks why N. Utah legislators were asleep at the switch on this bill, and rightly so. But that's only part of the story. Another question it should have asked, but didn't, is this: Where the devil was Governor Huntsman? He has a legal and administrative staff whose job it is to vet bills that arrive on his desk for signing. It's his job to examine pending legislation and its probable consequences before he decides to sign or veto them. That is, in a government designed to provide checks and balances between its various branches, as Utah's is, his primary legislative responsibility. He had a responsibility to inform himself of the content and probable impact of the bill. If he did that, and signed it anyway, he has much to answer for. And if he didn't do that, and signed the bill anyway, he still has much to answer for. Huntsman seems to be a generally nice guy, and he definitely has a nice family and a big smile. But we're not paying him to be a nice guy, or Father or Husband of the Year, or a walking illustration of how well his toothpaste works. We're paying him to be Chief Executive Officer of the State of Utah, and on this matter, he did not do the job we're paying him to do.
Please read our posting guidelines before reporting a comment.