LAYTON — City officials have filed a complaint with the state elections office over a flier distributed by opponents of two land propositions on Tuesday’s ballot.
The flier looks similar to an official voter information pamphlet mailed out by the city weeks ago with information on the two development propositions.
“Through a complaint from citizens, it has come to Layton city’s attention that a flier is being placed on the doors of homes within (the city) that has the appearance of the official voter information pamphlet,” Assistant City Attorney Steve Garside said.
The official voter information pamphlet, mailed to city residents as required by law, contains information on ballot Proposition Two and Proposition Three. Both deal with the approval and implementation of a zoning ordinance to create a mixed-used village concept development on 107 acres of farmland.
“The flier that was complained of, is the same size and uses the same font as the official pamphlet with the word “UPDATED” in place of the city logo on the front page,” Garside said.
The group that issued the second pamphlet responded to Garside in an e-mail Saturday to the Standard-Examiner.
“Our pamphlet is an expanded version of our position in the voter information pamphlet released by the City of Layton ‘on our behalf,’ ” said the email, attributed to Tom Day. “It is our view that the City’s ‘opinion based’ pamphlet is more of an instrument of their own creation for pushing the village center high-density development and not strictly ‘information.’
“We believe that the citizens should see a more expanded explanation of our position on the propositions. It also appears we have more faith in the residents to read both pieces and make a determination for themselves.”
The e-mail advised residents to check the website www.VoteAgainst2and3.com.for more information.
“We’re aware of it. This is the first we are hearing of it,” said Mark Thomas, state director of elections. “On its face it is concerning: A group piggy-backing off the city’s voter information pamphlet without clearly trying to distinguish themselves.”
Comments