The Tribune details the reasoning for the power plant referendum being taken off the ballot. (Why is the Tribune the only one covering referendums in Utah? I can't find anything in the Deseret News about the disputes about Sevier County, Beaver County, or Box Elder County.) How does this decision benefit anyone? Seriously? Besides those with a financial stake in building the power plant in Sevier County, who does SB 53 benefit?
The legal reasoning seems faulty to me as well since the petitioning group turned in their signature two days before the new SB 53 law took effect. The judge in the case about the Box Elder Referendum (2nd article down dated 5/17) rejected all arguments against a public referendum "The court finds that the issue . . . is one of great potential impact upon the county's environment, resources and citizens and very appropriate for voter participation."
Does anyone else care? Can an appeal be expedited to take place before the November elections? Once again--why was this bill, apparently written by wealthy lobbyist, Steve Barth, proposed and passed? Did our state Representatives and Senators of both parties actually read the bill and question what need it was addressing?
Here's the full text of the article:
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10422169
Judge knock's people's vote on power plant off the ballot
Sevier County citizens considering an appeal
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 09/09/2008 08:09:59 PM MDT
Posted: 8:09 PM- A 6th District Court Judge ruled Tuesday to pull a power-plant referendum off Sevier County's ballot.
"We're quite pleased with the judge's decision," said Fred Finlinson, one of the attorneys for Sevier Power Co.
According to Finlinson, Judge Wallace Lee ruled from the bench shortly after hearing oral arguments at the Richfield courthouse, using a new state law as the basis for his decision.
With SB53, "the Legislature determined that the initiative process does not apply to the changing of a zoning ordinance," Finlinson said.
For several months, Sevier County residents - led by Elaine Bonavita's Right to Vote Committee - fought to put construction of the proposed coal-fired power plant to a public vote.
The Right To Vote committee submitted over 1,500 signatures two days before SB53 took effect on May 5. In July, Sevier County Commissioners allowed the referendum to advance to the ballot, but juggled terminology in a way that could have rendered it invalid.
"It was an unexpected and disappointing result," said Jeff Owen, the attorney representing the Right To Vote effort.
"Judge Lee felt that SB53 was in effect at the time of our initiative because the County Commission took no action on it until July 7," Owens said. "I disagree. On May 3, my clients did the last thing they could possibly do and it was out of their hands at that point."
Judge Lee did not rule on whether SB53 is constitutional, choosing instead to leave that up to the state Supreme Court, which will deal with the BRAVE v. Beaver County case concerning the proposed Mt. Holly ski and golf resort.
Before SB53 took effect, the state attorney general's office advised that courts might strike the new law down as being unconstitutional because of its limits on local initiative and referendum powers.
Sevier County residents associated with the Right To Vote effort are considering an appeal, Owens said.
In the meantime, Sevier Power Co. will pursue further county approvals and also faces a state Supreme Court battle with the Sierra Club over air quality issues. That appeal is scheduled for early October, Finlinson said.
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
UPDATE:
The Sevier Referendum petitioners are appealing on two different grounds: One, SB 53 is an unconstitutional (Utah State Constitution) restriction on the public's right to redress government. Two, even if you find that SB 53 is not a sham, they submitted their petition two days before the law took effect. The new law should be irrelevant to the legal petition. They're right on both counts I believe.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10433603
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700257775,00.html
Showing posts with label tribune. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tribune. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Articles about the Box Elder County referendum where a 2-1 vote of a 3-member county commission authorized the sale of the county landfill
This KSL article has an explanation of the initial positions, pictures, and some horrible arguments for disallowing referendums:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3046883
The 2nd article down describes the court decision allowing the referendum--very applicable to the importance of referendums overall.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9028866
Box Elder residents want more say in landfill suit
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/23/2008 03:21:32 PM MDT
Posted: 3:22 PM- BRIGHAM CITY - Box Elder County residents who
successfully petitioned for a right to vote on selling the county
landfill are now asking a judge to let them have a say in the lawsuit
challenging the referendum.
Eight residents, including several sponsors of the petition, say
in a 1st District Court filing that they have both a constitutional
and a statutory interest in seeing that the landfill vote remains on
the Nov. 4 ballot.
The Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority, comprised of
garbage districts covering most of northern Utah, wants to turn Box
Elder County's Little Mountain Landfill southwest of Tremonton into a
large regional dump.
The three-member County Commission, two of whom also serve on the
authority's board, agreed last December to sell the landfill to the
authority.
But residents were angry over what they considered a lack of
public debate and circulated petitions to force a referendum on the
sale. They gathered far more signatures than were necessary, and
County Recorder LuAnn Adams certified the petitions and put the matter
on the ballot.
In its lawsuit against the county and Adams, the landfill
authority argues that the Box Elder Commission's decision to sell the
landfill was administrative, not legislative, and thus not subject to
a referendum.
Ron Germer, a Brigham City resident who is among the eight trying
to intervene in the case, said they are trying to protect the
constitutional rights of the 4,400 residents who signed petitions.
"It is unbelievable that NURLA would try to infringe upon the
rights of the people," he wrote in an e-mail. "If this is what we can
expect from them, I am not sure we should have anything to do with
them."
Some of petition signers have said that, although they eventually
may support selling the landfill, they want a more public process
before the decision is made.
NURLA was organized last year by four entities that handle all the
garbage - except Bountiful's - in Davis, Morgan, Weber, Box Elder and
Cache counties.
Participants are Wasatch Integrated Waste Management System, Weber
County, Box Elder County and Logan.
kmoulton@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9290468
Little Mountain facility
Box Elder landfill sale decision appears headed for the ballot
Judge Hadfield rejects arguments seeking to quash the referendum
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/17/2008 12:34:41 AM MDT
BRIGHAM CITY - Box Elder County residents will get to vote after all on the sale of their Little Mountain Landfill to a regional landfill authority.
First District Court Judge Ben Hadfield has rejected arguments from the Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority (NURLA) to keep a voter referendum off the Nov. 4 ballot.
Reggie Petersen of Penrose cheered the judge's decision.
"I'm happy the judicial system protected the Constitutional right of the people to have a say," he said.
The Box Elder County Commission voted last December to sell the landfill southwest of Tremonton to NURLA, formed in 2007 by garbage districts covering five northern Utah counties. The plan is to line and enlarge the landfill to eventually accommodate garbage from Davis County on the south to Cache County on the north.
Unhappy with the sale, county residents gathered more than 4,000 signatures to put a referendum on the ballot.
NURLA sued, asking the judge to rule that Box Elder County Clerk LuAnn Adams was wrong to certify the petitions.
The landfill authority argued that the commission's decision was administrative, not a policy-making decision open to referendum. It also argued that the sale fell under Utah's Interlocal Cooperation Act, which prohibits referendum - and that the matter was too complex to entrust to voters.
The judge rejected all three arguments.
"The court finds that the issue . . . is one of great potential impact upon the county's environment, resources and citizens and very appropriate for voter participation."
Weber County Commissioner Craig Dearden, the chairman of NURLA, said the authority board will meet June 5 to discuss its options.
The lawsuit, he said, was more about clarification than preventing the public from voting, he said.
Nonetheless, "We felt like the County Commissioners represent the people and were elected by the people and they made their decision to sell it."
kmoulton@sltrib.com
www.sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9630930
Election issue
Landfill authority to make case for dump sale on ballots
The agency previously had opposed putting the matter before voters
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 06/19/2008 12:44:28 AM MDT
BRIGHAM CITY - The board representing garbage districts in five
northern Utah counties decided unanimously Wednesday to drop its
challenge of a voter initiative in Box Elder County.
The Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority board (NURLA),
comprised of elected officials from Davis to Cache County, instead
turned its attention to defeating the initiative on November's ballot.
Opponents of selling Box Elder County's Little Mountain Landfill
to NURLA gathered more than 4,000 signatures last winter, giving
voters a shot at reversing a Box Elder County Commission decision made
last December.
The NURLA board this spring sued in 1st District Court, arguing
the matter was not open to a referendum, but Judge Ben Hadfield ruled
against NURLA.
"We communicated as a body that our intent was to refer to the
court to have its opinion," said Box Elder County Commissioner Clark
Davis, who added that the board should "live with the decision."
The board now has to figure out how it will campaign for the sale
because it is illegal to use public money to do so.
Attorney Patrick Malone said NURLA can use public money to explain
its reasoning, but must give opponents the opportunity to explain
their positions as well.
Brigham City Mayor Lou Ann Christensen told the board its plan for
a regional landfill would save the city $90,000 to $150,000 a year in
tipping fees. She encouraged the board to organize independent
supporters to raise money for the publicity campaign.
Opponents of selling the landfill told the board it should
consider other options.
Dean Anderson, of Bear River City, said the Little Mountain site
is too small for the five counties' garbage, while a site on
Promontory Point is better suited.
"They just need to look at the big picture," said Anderson. "They
need to super-size."
The board settled on expanding the landfill at Little Mountain,
southwest of Tremonton, as the best choice after a feasibility study
last year.
Resident Bonnie Germer, who was involved in the petition drive,
said she doesn't want her county partnering with others in the
regional landfill authority.
"If you lose in November, don't come back suing us, because we
will fight you again," said Germer.
kmoulton@sltrib.com
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3046883
The 2nd article down describes the court decision allowing the referendum--very applicable to the importance of referendums overall.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9028866
Box Elder residents want more say in landfill suit
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/23/2008 03:21:32 PM MDT
Posted: 3:22 PM- BRIGHAM CITY - Box Elder County residents who
successfully petitioned for a right to vote on selling the county
landfill are now asking a judge to let them have a say in the lawsuit
challenging the referendum.
Eight residents, including several sponsors of the petition, say
in a 1st District Court filing that they have both a constitutional
and a statutory interest in seeing that the landfill vote remains on
the Nov. 4 ballot.
The Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority, comprised of
garbage districts covering most of northern Utah, wants to turn Box
Elder County's Little Mountain Landfill southwest of Tremonton into a
large regional dump.
The three-member County Commission, two of whom also serve on the
authority's board, agreed last December to sell the landfill to the
authority.
But residents were angry over what they considered a lack of
public debate and circulated petitions to force a referendum on the
sale. They gathered far more signatures than were necessary, and
County Recorder LuAnn Adams certified the petitions and put the matter
on the ballot.
In its lawsuit against the county and Adams, the landfill
authority argues that the Box Elder Commission's decision to sell the
landfill was administrative, not legislative, and thus not subject to
a referendum.
Ron Germer, a Brigham City resident who is among the eight trying
to intervene in the case, said they are trying to protect the
constitutional rights of the 4,400 residents who signed petitions.
"It is unbelievable that NURLA would try to infringe upon the
rights of the people," he wrote in an e-mail. "If this is what we can
expect from them, I am not sure we should have anything to do with
them."
Some of petition signers have said that, although they eventually
may support selling the landfill, they want a more public process
before the decision is made.
NURLA was organized last year by four entities that handle all the
garbage - except Bountiful's - in Davis, Morgan, Weber, Box Elder and
Cache counties.
Participants are Wasatch Integrated Waste Management System, Weber
County, Box Elder County and Logan.
kmoulton@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9290468
Little Mountain facility
Box Elder landfill sale decision appears headed for the ballot
Judge Hadfield rejects arguments seeking to quash the referendum
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/17/2008 12:34:41 AM MDT
BRIGHAM CITY - Box Elder County residents will get to vote after all on the sale of their Little Mountain Landfill to a regional landfill authority.
First District Court Judge Ben Hadfield has rejected arguments from the Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority (NURLA) to keep a voter referendum off the Nov. 4 ballot.
Reggie Petersen of Penrose cheered the judge's decision.
"I'm happy the judicial system protected the Constitutional right of the people to have a say," he said.
The Box Elder County Commission voted last December to sell the landfill southwest of Tremonton to NURLA, formed in 2007 by garbage districts covering five northern Utah counties. The plan is to line and enlarge the landfill to eventually accommodate garbage from Davis County on the south to Cache County on the north.
Unhappy with the sale, county residents gathered more than 4,000 signatures to put a referendum on the ballot.
NURLA sued, asking the judge to rule that Box Elder County Clerk LuAnn Adams was wrong to certify the petitions.
The landfill authority argued that the commission's decision was administrative, not a policy-making decision open to referendum. It also argued that the sale fell under Utah's Interlocal Cooperation Act, which prohibits referendum - and that the matter was too complex to entrust to voters.
The judge rejected all three arguments.
"The court finds that the issue . . . is one of great potential impact upon the county's environment, resources and citizens and very appropriate for voter participation."
Weber County Commissioner Craig Dearden, the chairman of NURLA, said the authority board will meet June 5 to discuss its options.
The lawsuit, he said, was more about clarification than preventing the public from voting, he said.
Nonetheless, "We felt like the County Commissioners represent the people and were elected by the people and they made their decision to sell it."
kmoulton@sltrib.com
www.sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9630930
Election issue
Landfill authority to make case for dump sale on ballots
The agency previously had opposed putting the matter before voters
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 06/19/2008 12:44:28 AM MDT
BRIGHAM CITY - The board representing garbage districts in five
northern Utah counties decided unanimously Wednesday to drop its
challenge of a voter initiative in Box Elder County.
The Northern Utah Regional Landfill Authority board (NURLA),
comprised of elected officials from Davis to Cache County, instead
turned its attention to defeating the initiative on November's ballot.
Opponents of selling Box Elder County's Little Mountain Landfill
to NURLA gathered more than 4,000 signatures last winter, giving
voters a shot at reversing a Box Elder County Commission decision made
last December.
The NURLA board this spring sued in 1st District Court, arguing
the matter was not open to a referendum, but Judge Ben Hadfield ruled
against NURLA.
"We communicated as a body that our intent was to refer to the
court to have its opinion," said Box Elder County Commissioner Clark
Davis, who added that the board should "live with the decision."
The board now has to figure out how it will campaign for the sale
because it is illegal to use public money to do so.
Attorney Patrick Malone said NURLA can use public money to explain
its reasoning, but must give opponents the opportunity to explain
their positions as well.
Brigham City Mayor Lou Ann Christensen told the board its plan for
a regional landfill would save the city $90,000 to $150,000 a year in
tipping fees. She encouraged the board to organize independent
supporters to raise money for the publicity campaign.
Opponents of selling the landfill told the board it should
consider other options.
Dean Anderson, of Bear River City, said the Little Mountain site
is too small for the five counties' garbage, while a site on
Promontory Point is better suited.
"They just need to look at the big picture," said Anderson. "They
need to super-size."
The board settled on expanding the landfill at Little Mountain,
southwest of Tremonton, as the best choice after a feasibility study
last year.
Resident Bonnie Germer, who was involved in the petition drive,
said she doesn't want her county partnering with others in the
regional landfill authority.
"If you lose in November, don't come back suing us, because we
will fight you again," said Germer.
kmoulton@sltrib.com
Articles about Sevier County power plant referendum and SB 53--power company tries to switch zoning acronyms to avoid referendum
A few lines underlined by me.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9813736
Sevier County plant will be on ballot
Residents will vote on the coal-fired power facility in November
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/08/2008 12:21:40 AM MDT
A referendum that would allow Sevier County residents to vote on
construction of a coal-fired power plant will be on the November
ballot, thanks to agreement Monday of the County Commission to take no
action on it.
That allowed the measure to go to the public vote without the
commission actually endorsing it, said Commission Chairman Gary Mason.
"I have no trouble [with] it going to the voters," Mason said.
"That takes the monkey off my back."
The commission validated the citizens' referendum petition, which
had more than the necessary number of signatures, Mason said. The
measure would amend the county's conditional-use permit ordinance to
require voter approval prior to issuing such permits for coal-fired
power plants.
It also would revoke any conditional-use permit issued - specific
language likely to further snarl the long-simmering dispute, because
the county is now considering Sevier Power's permit request as a
planned unit development request, said County Attorney Dale Eyre.
The terminology switch, said coal-plant opponent Elaine Bonavita,
was "a smooth move."
Everybody thought the commission's decision was a victory, said
Bonavita, chairwoman of the Right-to-Vote Committee. "But I must tell
you this: It was a victory clouded in deceit," she said.
" 'Conditional-use permit' is on the ballot, and if they change
the wording, they've pulled a fast one," she said. "We will go to
litigation."
A planned unit development typically is a residential project that
features relatively dense clusters of houses, which are usually
surrounded by areas of commonly owned open space maintained by a
nonprofit community association. A conditional-use permit is a
variance to allow a project otherwise prevented by zoning.
Mason said the commission always considered the Sevier Power
request to be for a PUD. Right-to-Vote Committee attorney Jeff Owens
says that's not so.
The county previously changed its zoning to allow the power plant.
A lawsuit on that decision is pending, Eyre said. There also is the
matter of SB53, a possibly unconstitutional law passed during this
year's legislative session, which bans voter initiatives on land-use
ordinances.
"SB53 will always be out there," Eyre said. "But unless someone
approaches a court or maybe the attorney general's office, we're not
going to take any action to stop the ballot."
No matter which way the November vote goes, Eyre said, he expects
to go to court.
Sevier Power co-owner Bruce Taylor sounded an ominous note about
the referendum after the commission meeting.
"We do not believe it will get to the vote," he said.
History of the Sevier Power Project
Nevco, a Nevada limited liability corporation with offices in
Bountiful, for seven years has sought to build the Sevier Power
Project near Sigurd, about midway between Richfield and Salina. The
$600 million plant would burn about 940,000 tons of coal per year
using a technology called fluidized bed combustion to produce enough
power for 135,000 homes. As a so-called merchant plant, it would sell
the power on the open market. The Sevier County Commission had four
options Monday: Adopt the petition and put it on the ballot; adopt it
without putting it to the vote; reject it; or take no action, which
means the referendum goes to the ballot if no further action is taken
during the next 30 days.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10321401
Coal plant sues to get rid of ballot initiative
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 08/28/2008 12:06:43 AM MDT
Attorneys for Sevier Power Company have sued Sevier County officials to get a citizens' initiative kicked off the ballot. They also seek an expedited decision as ballots have to go to print by mid-September.
"I feel confident the judge will rule in our favor," says Fred Finlinson, a Saratoga Springs attorney representing Sevier Power.
Finlinson notes that the proposed coal-fired power plant falls under the county's planned unit development (PUD) ordinance, not the conditional-use permit (CUP) section of county law.
Last spring, more than 1,500 voters signed petitions provided by Elaine Bonavita's Right To Vote (RTV) committee, specifically targeting Sevier County's conditional use ordinance as it relates to coal-fired power plants.
Known as Proposition 1, the measure would require voter approval before the county can issue conditional-use permits for such facilities. It would also revoke any permits already approved for pending power-plant construction.
"That becomes fairly critical," Finlinson, a former state senator, adds, ''because the conditional use in Sevier County simply doesn't apply to any commercial or industrial development.''
In early July, Sevier County commissioners allowed the initiative over the hotly contested power plant to advance to the ballot - then switched labels and began referring to Sevier Power's CUP request as a PUD.
The switch in terminology means the ballot measure no longer applies, says Finlinson.
RTV's attorney disputes that reasoning.
"This is a conditional-use permit they're seeking. Whether you call it a pig, horse or cow, it is what it is," asserts Jeff Owens, a land-use attorney with the Salt Lake City-based firm of Strong and Hanni.
Owens intends to argue that a recently passed state law, SB53, restricting local initiatives is unconstitutional, a legal battle he said he is eager to fight.
"Our suspicions that they were trying to skirt our initiative are confirmed, and I don't think that will sit well with the people of Sevier County."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
New Utah law being put to test
SB53, which took effect in May, limits local initiative and referendum rights pertaining to land-use ordinances and their implementation. While the state Constitution protects those rights, a large body of case law prohibits putting administrative land-use actions to a public vote. In late April, the attorney general's office gave its opinion that courts might strike down the new law. So far, two cases involving SB53 await legal action, including the Sevier Power case and another involving a proposed development in Beaver County.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10207373
Sevier subterfuge: County out to foil efforts of its citizens
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 08/14/2008 07:16:09 PM MDT
It seems that since Sevier County officials failed to keep a citizen initiative that they don't like off the ballot, they're willing to try subterfuge to make the vote meaningless.
At the least, the county attorney and County Commission are engaged in a campaign of aggressive obfuscation apparently aimed at frustrating the democratic right of their constituents to have a voice in determining the county's future health and welfare.
The complicated conflict began when a grass-roots group of citizens objected to construction of the Sevier Power Project near Sigurd. The $600 million plant would burn about 940,000 tons of coal per year and spew CO2 and other pollution over the region.
When the County Commission went ahead and approved the plant anyway, the Right to Vote Committee managed to gather more than enough signatures in just over a week to put the proposal on November's ballot.
Their initiative would stop the power plant by revoking the current permit and requiring that voters approve any conditional-use permit for a coal-fired power plant. The group acted quickly, before a constitutionally suspect state law that bans initiatives and referendums on land-use issues went into effect.
At that point, the County Commission members decided not to object to the voter initiative. Instead, they contrived another tack. The initiative as written amends the "conditional-use permit ordinance." So these public servants labeled the project a "planned-unit development," which requires a different kind of permit. Even if voters approve the initiative, it would not block the Sigurd plant. Cute.
The planned-unit development label is ordinarily applied to residential projects that feature clustered housing and areas of open space. A power plant is no PUD. A conditional-use permit, on the other hand, is a variance to allow a project to go forward in a zone where it would otherwise be prohibited.
Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre contends that the Sigurd plant was always referred to as a PUD, but an attorney for the citizens group disputes that in a complaint to the Utah Attorney General's Office, and says he has documents referring to a conditional-use permit for the plant. He also says Eyre did not notify the group of the time period when it could contest wording of the initiative.
Even if the county is innocent of skulduggery in this dispute, which seems highly unlikely, it is obviously guilty of standing in the way of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right to legislate by initiative. That alone pollutes the atmosphere of Sevier County.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9597737
Muzzling the people: Legislature should not take lawmaking petitions away
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008 10:47:56 PM MDT
The Utah Constitution says that two groups can make laws: the
Legislature and the people. The first group is trying to cut the
second group out of the process. That isn't right, and the Utah
Supreme Court should put a stop to it.
This year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 53, which says that
the voters of any county, city or town may not initiate a land use
ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance. That's the right of
initiative we all learned about in school.
For good measure, the Legislature also said that the people may
not require a land use ordinance passed by the local legislative body
(city council or county commission) to be submitted to the voters for
approval before it can take effect. That latter process is called a
referendum.
This bill, which was passed virtually without opposition in the
Legislature and signed quickly into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman, is an
insult to the plain wording of the Utah Constitution, which reserves
the rights of both initiative and referendum to the people.
In 2002, the Utah Supreme Court commented that "the power of the
Legislature and power of the people to legislate through initiative
and referenda are coequal, coextensive and concurrent and share 'equal
dignity.'" It follows that the Legislature can't take that power away
from the people in defiance of the Utah Constitution.
Why would the Legislature do this? To help developers, of course.
In the delicate balance between private property rights and community
interests, the Legislature is putting its thumb on the scale to favor
property.
Private property rights are a foundation of the republic. But when
one property owner does something that profoundly affects his
neighbors, and their property, there's got to be a balancing process.
That's where local planning and zoning laws come in.
SB53 passed during a bitter fight in Beaver County over the
redevelopment of Elk Meadows Resort into the $3.5 billion Mount Holly
Club. The citizen effort to make that project the subject of a
referendum will provide the test case for SB53 before the Utah Supreme
Court. The outcome of that case also will affect an initiative
petition in Sevier County targeting a proposed 270 megawatt coal-fired
power plant near Sigurd. Both of these projects will have far-reaching
effects on the neighboring communities.
In both fights, the people should have the right to seek a direct
voice at the ballot box, and the Legislature should not be allowed to
muzzle that voice.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9813736
Sevier County plant will be on ballot
Residents will vote on the coal-fired power facility in November
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/08/2008 12:21:40 AM MDT
A referendum that would allow Sevier County residents to vote on
construction of a coal-fired power plant will be on the November
ballot, thanks to agreement Monday of the County Commission to take no
action on it.
That allowed the measure to go to the public vote without the
commission actually endorsing it, said Commission Chairman Gary Mason.
"I have no trouble [with] it going to the voters," Mason said.
"That takes the monkey off my back."
The commission validated the citizens' referendum petition, which
had more than the necessary number of signatures, Mason said. The
measure would amend the county's conditional-use permit ordinance to
require voter approval prior to issuing such permits for coal-fired
power plants.
It also would revoke any conditional-use permit issued - specific
language likely to further snarl the long-simmering dispute, because
the county is now considering Sevier Power's permit request as a
planned unit development request, said County Attorney Dale Eyre.
The terminology switch, said coal-plant opponent Elaine Bonavita,
was "a smooth move."
Everybody thought the commission's decision was a victory, said
Bonavita, chairwoman of the Right-to-Vote Committee. "But I must tell
you this: It was a victory clouded in deceit," she said.
" 'Conditional-use permit' is on the ballot, and if they change
the wording, they've pulled a fast one," she said. "We will go to
litigation."
A planned unit development typically is a residential project that
features relatively dense clusters of houses, which are usually
surrounded by areas of commonly owned open space maintained by a
nonprofit community association. A conditional-use permit is a
variance to allow a project otherwise prevented by zoning.
Mason said the commission always considered the Sevier Power
request to be for a PUD. Right-to-Vote Committee attorney Jeff Owens
says that's not so.
The county previously changed its zoning to allow the power plant.
A lawsuit on that decision is pending, Eyre said. There also is the
matter of SB53, a possibly unconstitutional law passed during this
year's legislative session, which bans voter initiatives on land-use
ordinances.
"SB53 will always be out there," Eyre said. "But unless someone
approaches a court or maybe the attorney general's office, we're not
going to take any action to stop the ballot."
No matter which way the November vote goes, Eyre said, he expects
to go to court.
Sevier Power co-owner Bruce Taylor sounded an ominous note about
the referendum after the commission meeting.
"We do not believe it will get to the vote," he said.
History of the Sevier Power Project
Nevco, a Nevada limited liability corporation with offices in
Bountiful, for seven years has sought to build the Sevier Power
Project near Sigurd, about midway between Richfield and Salina. The
$600 million plant would burn about 940,000 tons of coal per year
using a technology called fluidized bed combustion to produce enough
power for 135,000 homes. As a so-called merchant plant, it would sell
the power on the open market. The Sevier County Commission had four
options Monday: Adopt the petition and put it on the ballot; adopt it
without putting it to the vote; reject it; or take no action, which
means the referendum goes to the ballot if no further action is taken
during the next 30 days.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10321401
Coal plant sues to get rid of ballot initiative
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 08/28/2008 12:06:43 AM MDT
Attorneys for Sevier Power Company have sued Sevier County officials to get a citizens' initiative kicked off the ballot. They also seek an expedited decision as ballots have to go to print by mid-September.
"I feel confident the judge will rule in our favor," says Fred Finlinson, a Saratoga Springs attorney representing Sevier Power.
Finlinson notes that the proposed coal-fired power plant falls under the county's planned unit development (PUD) ordinance, not the conditional-use permit (CUP) section of county law.
Last spring, more than 1,500 voters signed petitions provided by Elaine Bonavita's Right To Vote (RTV) committee, specifically targeting Sevier County's conditional use ordinance as it relates to coal-fired power plants.
Known as Proposition 1, the measure would require voter approval before the county can issue conditional-use permits for such facilities. It would also revoke any permits already approved for pending power-plant construction.
"That becomes fairly critical," Finlinson, a former state senator, adds, ''because the conditional use in Sevier County simply doesn't apply to any commercial or industrial development.''
In early July, Sevier County commissioners allowed the initiative over the hotly contested power plant to advance to the ballot - then switched labels and began referring to Sevier Power's CUP request as a PUD.
The switch in terminology means the ballot measure no longer applies, says Finlinson.
RTV's attorney disputes that reasoning.
"This is a conditional-use permit they're seeking. Whether you call it a pig, horse or cow, it is what it is," asserts Jeff Owens, a land-use attorney with the Salt Lake City-based firm of Strong and Hanni.
Owens intends to argue that a recently passed state law, SB53, restricting local initiatives is unconstitutional, a legal battle he said he is eager to fight.
"Our suspicions that they were trying to skirt our initiative are confirmed, and I don't think that will sit well with the people of Sevier County."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
New Utah law being put to test
SB53, which took effect in May, limits local initiative and referendum rights pertaining to land-use ordinances and their implementation. While the state Constitution protects those rights, a large body of case law prohibits putting administrative land-use actions to a public vote. In late April, the attorney general's office gave its opinion that courts might strike down the new law. So far, two cases involving SB53 await legal action, including the Sevier Power case and another involving a proposed development in Beaver County.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10207373
Sevier subterfuge: County out to foil efforts of its citizens
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 08/14/2008 07:16:09 PM MDT
It seems that since Sevier County officials failed to keep a citizen initiative that they don't like off the ballot, they're willing to try subterfuge to make the vote meaningless.
At the least, the county attorney and County Commission are engaged in a campaign of aggressive obfuscation apparently aimed at frustrating the democratic right of their constituents to have a voice in determining the county's future health and welfare.
The complicated conflict began when a grass-roots group of citizens objected to construction of the Sevier Power Project near Sigurd. The $600 million plant would burn about 940,000 tons of coal per year and spew CO2 and other pollution over the region.
When the County Commission went ahead and approved the plant anyway, the Right to Vote Committee managed to gather more than enough signatures in just over a week to put the proposal on November's ballot.
Their initiative would stop the power plant by revoking the current permit and requiring that voters approve any conditional-use permit for a coal-fired power plant. The group acted quickly, before a constitutionally suspect state law that bans initiatives and referendums on land-use issues went into effect.
At that point, the County Commission members decided not to object to the voter initiative. Instead, they contrived another tack. The initiative as written amends the "conditional-use permit ordinance." So these public servants labeled the project a "planned-unit development," which requires a different kind of permit. Even if voters approve the initiative, it would not block the Sigurd plant. Cute.
The planned-unit development label is ordinarily applied to residential projects that feature clustered housing and areas of open space. A power plant is no PUD. A conditional-use permit, on the other hand, is a variance to allow a project to go forward in a zone where it would otherwise be prohibited.
Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre contends that the Sigurd plant was always referred to as a PUD, but an attorney for the citizens group disputes that in a complaint to the Utah Attorney General's Office, and says he has documents referring to a conditional-use permit for the plant. He also says Eyre did not notify the group of the time period when it could contest wording of the initiative.
Even if the county is innocent of skulduggery in this dispute, which seems highly unlikely, it is obviously guilty of standing in the way of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right to legislate by initiative. That alone pollutes the atmosphere of Sevier County.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9597737
Muzzling the people: Legislature should not take lawmaking petitions away
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008 10:47:56 PM MDT
The Utah Constitution says that two groups can make laws: the
Legislature and the people. The first group is trying to cut the
second group out of the process. That isn't right, and the Utah
Supreme Court should put a stop to it.
This year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 53, which says that
the voters of any county, city or town may not initiate a land use
ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance. That's the right of
initiative we all learned about in school.
For good measure, the Legislature also said that the people may
not require a land use ordinance passed by the local legislative body
(city council or county commission) to be submitted to the voters for
approval before it can take effect. That latter process is called a
referendum.
This bill, which was passed virtually without opposition in the
Legislature and signed quickly into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman, is an
insult to the plain wording of the Utah Constitution, which reserves
the rights of both initiative and referendum to the people.
In 2002, the Utah Supreme Court commented that "the power of the
Legislature and power of the people to legislate through initiative
and referenda are coequal, coextensive and concurrent and share 'equal
dignity.'" It follows that the Legislature can't take that power away
from the people in defiance of the Utah Constitution.
Why would the Legislature do this? To help developers, of course.
In the delicate balance between private property rights and community
interests, the Legislature is putting its thumb on the scale to favor
property.
Private property rights are a foundation of the republic. But when
one property owner does something that profoundly affects his
neighbors, and their property, there's got to be a balancing process.
That's where local planning and zoning laws come in.
SB53 passed during a bitter fight in Beaver County over the
redevelopment of Elk Meadows Resort into the $3.5 billion Mount Holly
Club. The citizen effort to make that project the subject of a
referendum will provide the test case for SB53 before the Utah Supreme
Court. The outcome of that case also will affect an initiative
petition in Sevier County targeting a proposed 270 megawatt coal-fired
power plant near Sigurd. Both of these projects will have far-reaching
effects on the neighboring communities.
In both fights, the people should have the right to seek a direct
voice at the ballot box, and the Legislature should not be allowed to
muzzle that voice.
Collection of articles on the Beaver County referendum fight and the Attorney General's office gives the opinion that SB53 is unconstitutional
Do you believe Governor Huntsman actually read SB53 before signing it? What about legislators? What about Senator Goodfellow? Was it just cut and pasted from an email from Steve Barth? And this is the shorter of the two referendum change bills...
I am posting these articles with a few things underlined by me.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9175754
Utah AG has doubts about new law banning voter initiatives on land issues
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 11:22:19 PM MDT
Posted: 9:42 PM- The Utah Attorney General's Office believes there's a good chance that a new law banning voter initiatives on land-use ordinances is unconstitutional.
In an April 29 letter to Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre - obtained by The Tribune today through an open-records request - Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts said there is "a serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
Roberts wrote that by banning initiatives and referenda on land-use ordinances, the law "appears in direct conflict with the Utah Supreme Court cases" on such voting rights.
A group of Sevier County residents, dubbed the Right to Vote committee, turned in 1,536 signatures last Friday to put plans for a coal-fired power plant to a public vote. SB53 took effect Monday.
The bill's sponsor, along with the lobbyist credited as the brains behind the developer -friendly measure, defended its purpose.
"My legislation was in no way intended to take away the right of the people to petition their government," said Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City. "But I think that right applies to legislative matters, not administrative or executive. I was trying to put into statute what is already in case law."
Lobbyist Steve Barth agrees.
"The court has been very consistent in drawing that line and this was to save people the time and money of a wasted referendum effort," Barth said.
One of Barth's clients, Mount Holly Partners, faces extended litigation brought by Beaver County residents who oppose the multi-billion-dollar Mount Holly Club project planned for 1,800 acres in the Tushar Mountains.
A 5th District Court judge ruled last July against the residents and their desire to put that development to a public vote. Their attorney, Joel Ban, appealed the case to the Utah Court of Appeals and briefs are expected to be filed this week.
Ban said he suspected - but did not know - that developers had turned to the Legislature to try to cut off such citizen ballot movements.
"That's typical of these kind of developers," Ban added. "I'm not surprised by anything they've done."
Goodfellow's SB53, touted as mostly housekeeping during the recent Legislative session, sailed through with little opposition
"No one asked for our opinion on its constitutionality until now," said Attorney General spokesman Paul Murphy.
Eyre, the Sevier County Attorney dislikes SB53. And he agrees with the AG's opinion.
"It will help the county make its decision," Eyre said, noting that commissioners can either enact the Right to Vote committee's ordinance themselves, place it on November's ballot or reject it.
That ordinance would require that all future power plant applications go to a public vote and would also revoke any power permit granted between the filing date of the initiative and the time of the vote.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed SB53 in mid-March.
"It's fair to say that we don't get an AG opinion on every bill that passes," said Lisa Roskelley, the Governor's spokeswoman.
"Considering it passed with such an overwhelming majority, we thought it was appropriate to sign it into law and if it came to this situation, any judicial clarification would be beneficial."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9200987
Beaver County: New law put to the test by developer
Attorneys argue that it renders a citizens referendum on a development moot
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
A law that took effect Monday - a law the state Attorney General's Office believes could be unconstitutional - is being used as a developer's argument to get a voting-rights case tossed out of court.
When SB53 was going through the Legislature earlier this year, backers called it a "housekeeping" measure that simply put into code established case law.
Attorneys for a planned $3.5 billion Mount Holly Club development in Beaver County, however, argue the new law is much more than a technicality.
On Tuesday, one day after the new law took effect, lawyers representing Mount Holly Partners LLC, CPB Development LC and Beaver County, filed briefs in the Utah Court of Appeals asking that a lawsuit brought by a group of Beaver residents be dismissed.
The attorneys argued that SB53 renders a citizens referendum on the project moot and that the case belongs in the state Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
Steve Barth, a lobbyist who claimed credit for the bill, lists Mount Holly as a client.
"The 2008 Utah Legislature has enacted revisions to the Utah Elections Code, effective May 5, 2008, which make land-use ordinances of the nature at issue in this case not subject to a referendum vote," the briefs state. In other portions of the documents, the attorneys specifically identify SB53 as the basis of their argument.
A message left for the Mount Holley attorneys was not returned Thursday.
Attorney Joel Ban, who represents the residents group, said he has 10 days to file his response.
"I don't think SB53 is constitutional - that's what I'm sure about," Ban said Thursday. "But in terms of its effect on this case, that's up in the air right now."
A letter released by the Utah Attorney General's Office Tuesday in a different voting-rights case - this one in Sevier County - said there is "serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
The Beaver County dispute heated up last spring when county commissioners passed an ordinance authorizing the county to enter into a developer's agreement, paving the way for phased construction of 2,000 multimillion-dollar homes around a ski resort and premiere golf course.
Members of a long-standing homeowners association went to court to halt the project and gathered 845 signatures to put it to a public vote. Last June, a 5th District judge ruled in favor of the developer, deeming the commission's decision administrative and therefore not subject to referendum.
The residents' group is appealing that ruling.
The original version of SB53 introduced in the Legislature stated that the voting ban applied to a land-use or zoning matter "administrative in nature." However, before it's first floor vote, that was replaced with broader language.
Lincoln Shurtz, legislative analyst for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, helped to craft the substitute version, which passed with minimal opposition.
The bill was changed out of concern the original went too far in trying to "draw a bright line between administrative and legislative" actions, Shurtz said.
"That line is quite blurry at times," Shurtz acknowledged.
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
What does SB53 do?
Lobbyist Steve Barth pushed for legislation to help his client, Mount Holly Partners LLC. In the recent legislative session, Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City, sponsored SB53 and Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, co-sponsored it in the House. Here's what SB53 does:
* Bars legal voters of any town, city or county from initiating a land-use ordinance or a change to a land-use ordinance.
* Also bars the aforesaid voters from requiring the implementation of a land-use ordinance to be submitted to a public vote.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9342999
Mount Holly
Lawyer urges project to go to referendum
Developers, on their part, say the appeal should be dismissed
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 01:05:32 AM MDT
A developer's legal battle to block a public vote on its plans for a
pricey ski-and-golf resort in Beaver County took a circuitous and
"desperate" detour through the state Legislature, charges an attorney
for resort opponents.
"In what can only be described as a series of desperate acts,
[developers] have taken extraordinary measures to try and avoid a
legal review of the trial court's conclusions," Joel Ban, attorney for
a grass roots group trying to put the Mount Holly project to a vote,
wrote in appeal briefs filed Wednesday.
"[Developers] hired a lobbyist, pursued an amendment to the
referendum statute and then filed a request to extend the briefing
schedule. Knowing that SB53 had been signed by the governor and would
become effective May 5, they nonetheless waited until the last day to
act," Ban wrote.
Sen. Brent Goodfellow's SB53 - a new law confusing to the point
state lawyers say it could be unconstitutional - took effect May 5.
A day later, CPB Development LC and Mount Holly Partners LLC used
it as the basis to ask that a resident group's appeal get tossed out
of court.
Ban wants the Utah Court of Appeals to allow the Mount Holly
project to go to a referendum vote. A lower court, in a complex
decision, ruled it could not.
Ban claims the issue is subject to referendum because the county
decision constituted legislative action - the enacting of an ordinance
establishing the details of the Mount Holly Club development
agreement.
Developers say the appeal should be dismissed, arguing that SB53
bans referendums on all local land-use issues. It also claims the
state Supreme Court is the proper forum for an elections dispute.
In late April the state Attorney General's Office questioned
SB53's constitutionality in a letter sent to Sevier County Attorney
Dale Eyre - concerning another right-to-vote effort, this one over a
controversial coal-fired power plant.
Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts cited Article 6 of the
state Constitution, which provides for the people's fundamental right
to legislate through initiative and referenda.
That right - viewed as sacrosanct - bucks up against individual
property rights, said Dan McDonald, an attorney with Smith Hartvigsen,
the firm representing CPB and Mount Holly.
"More and more, citizen groups who dislike a landowner or
development organize themselves to challenge land-use decisions,"
McDonald said.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that individual
property rights are important as well as deference to local land-use
authority."
McDonald intends to file a quick answer to Ban's brief today -
although the court could rule without it.
The weighty issues of SB53's constitutionality - and application
to this case - cannot be ignored, McDonald said.
"This has statewide impact and is important enough that we think
it will percolate to the Supreme Court, no matter who loses in the
Court of Appeals."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9597737
Muzzling the people: Legislature should not take lawmaking petitions away
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008 10:47:56 PM MDT
The Utah Constitution says that two groups can make laws: the
Legislature and the people. The first group is trying to cut the
second group out of the process. That isn't right, and the Utah
Supreme Court should put a stop to it.
This year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 53, which says that
the voters of any county, city or town may not initiate a land use
ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance. That's the right of
initiative we all learned about in school.
For good measure, the Legislature also said that the people may
not require a land use ordinance passed by the local legislative body
(city council or county commission) to be submitted to the voters for
approval before it can take effect. That latter process is called a
referendum.
This bill, which was passed virtually without opposition in the
Legislature and signed quickly into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman, is an
insult to the plain wording of the Utah Constitution, which reserves
the rights of both initiative and referendum to the people.
In 2002, the Utah Supreme Court commented that "the power of the
Legislature and power of the people to legislate through initiative
and referenda are coequal, coextensive and concurrent and share 'equal
dignity.'" It follows that the Legislature can't take that power away
from the people in defiance of the Utah Constitution.
Why would the Legislature do this? To help developers, of course.
In the delicate balance between private property rights and community
interests, the Legislature is putting its thumb on the scale to favor
property.
Private property rights are a foundation of the republic. But when
one property owner does something that profoundly affects his
neighbors, and their property, there's got to be a balancing process.
That's where local planning and zoning laws come in.
SB53 passed during a bitter fight in Beaver County over the
redevelopment of Elk Meadows Resort into the $3.5 billion Mount Holly
Club. The citizen effort to make that project the subject of a
referendum will provide the test case for SB53 before the Utah Supreme
Court. The outcome of that case also will affect an initiative
petition in Sevier County targeting a proposed 270 megawatt coal-fired
power plant near Sigurd. Both of these projects will have far-reaching
effects on the neighboring communities.
In both fights, the people should have the right to seek a direct
voice at the ballot box, and the Legislature should not be allowed to
muzzle that voice.
I am posting these articles with a few things underlined by me.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9175754
Utah AG has doubts about new law banning voter initiatives on land issues
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 11:22:19 PM MDT
Posted: 9:42 PM- The Utah Attorney General's Office believes there's a good chance that a new law banning voter initiatives on land-use ordinances is unconstitutional.
In an April 29 letter to Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre - obtained by The Tribune today through an open-records request - Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts said there is "a serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
Roberts wrote that by banning initiatives and referenda on land-use ordinances, the law "appears in direct conflict with the Utah Supreme Court cases" on such voting rights.
A group of Sevier County residents, dubbed the Right to Vote committee, turned in 1,536 signatures last Friday to put plans for a coal-fired power plant to a public vote. SB53 took effect Monday.
The bill's sponsor, along with the lobbyist credited as the brains behind the developer -friendly measure, defended its purpose.
"My legislation was in no way intended to take away the right of the people to petition their government," said Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City. "But I think that right applies to legislative matters, not administrative or executive. I was trying to put into statute what is already in case law."
Lobbyist Steve Barth agrees.
"The court has been very consistent in drawing that line and this was to save people the time and money of a wasted referendum effort," Barth said.
One of Barth's clients, Mount Holly Partners, faces extended litigation brought by Beaver County residents who oppose the multi-billion-dollar Mount Holly Club project planned for 1,800 acres in the Tushar Mountains.
A 5th District Court judge ruled last July against the residents and their desire to put that development to a public vote. Their attorney, Joel Ban, appealed the case to the Utah Court of Appeals and briefs are expected to be filed this week.
Ban said he suspected - but did not know - that developers had turned to the Legislature to try to cut off such citizen ballot movements.
"That's typical of these kind of developers," Ban added. "I'm not surprised by anything they've done."
Goodfellow's SB53, touted as mostly housekeeping during the recent Legislative session, sailed through with little opposition
"No one asked for our opinion on its constitutionality until now," said Attorney General spokesman Paul Murphy.
Eyre, the Sevier County Attorney dislikes SB53. And he agrees with the AG's opinion.
"It will help the county make its decision," Eyre said, noting that commissioners can either enact the Right to Vote committee's ordinance themselves, place it on November's ballot or reject it.
That ordinance would require that all future power plant applications go to a public vote and would also revoke any power permit granted between the filing date of the initiative and the time of the vote.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed SB53 in mid-March.
"It's fair to say that we don't get an AG opinion on every bill that passes," said Lisa Roskelley, the Governor's spokeswoman.
"Considering it passed with such an overwhelming majority, we thought it was appropriate to sign it into law and if it came to this situation, any judicial clarification would be beneficial."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9200987
Beaver County: New law put to the test by developer
Attorneys argue that it renders a citizens referendum on a development moot
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
A law that took effect Monday - a law the state Attorney General's Office believes could be unconstitutional - is being used as a developer's argument to get a voting-rights case tossed out of court.
When SB53 was going through the Legislature earlier this year, backers called it a "housekeeping" measure that simply put into code established case law.
Attorneys for a planned $3.5 billion Mount Holly Club development in Beaver County, however, argue the new law is much more than a technicality.
On Tuesday, one day after the new law took effect, lawyers representing Mount Holly Partners LLC, CPB Development LC and Beaver County, filed briefs in the Utah Court of Appeals asking that a lawsuit brought by a group of Beaver residents be dismissed.
The attorneys argued that SB53 renders a citizens referendum on the project moot and that the case belongs in the state Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
Steve Barth, a lobbyist who claimed credit for the bill, lists Mount Holly as a client.
"The 2008 Utah Legislature has enacted revisions to the Utah Elections Code, effective May 5, 2008, which make land-use ordinances of the nature at issue in this case not subject to a referendum vote," the briefs state. In other portions of the documents, the attorneys specifically identify SB53 as the basis of their argument.
A message left for the Mount Holley attorneys was not returned Thursday.
Attorney Joel Ban, who represents the residents group, said he has 10 days to file his response.
"I don't think SB53 is constitutional - that's what I'm sure about," Ban said Thursday. "But in terms of its effect on this case, that's up in the air right now."
A letter released by the Utah Attorney General's Office Tuesday in a different voting-rights case - this one in Sevier County - said there is "serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
The Beaver County dispute heated up last spring when county commissioners passed an ordinance authorizing the county to enter into a developer's agreement, paving the way for phased construction of 2,000 multimillion-dollar homes around a ski resort and premiere golf course.
Members of a long-standing homeowners association went to court to halt the project and gathered 845 signatures to put it to a public vote. Last June, a 5th District judge ruled in favor of the developer, deeming the commission's decision administrative and therefore not subject to referendum.
The residents' group is appealing that ruling.
The original version of SB53 introduced in the Legislature stated that the voting ban applied to a land-use or zoning matter "administrative in nature." However, before it's first floor vote, that was replaced with broader language.
Lincoln Shurtz, legislative analyst for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, helped to craft the substitute version, which passed with minimal opposition.
The bill was changed out of concern the original went too far in trying to "draw a bright line between administrative and legislative" actions, Shurtz said.
"That line is quite blurry at times," Shurtz acknowledged.
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
What does SB53 do?
Lobbyist Steve Barth pushed for legislation to help his client, Mount Holly Partners LLC. In the recent legislative session, Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City, sponsored SB53 and Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, co-sponsored it in the House. Here's what SB53 does:
* Bars legal voters of any town, city or county from initiating a land-use ordinance or a change to a land-use ordinance.
* Also bars the aforesaid voters from requiring the implementation of a land-use ordinance to be submitted to a public vote.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9342999
Mount Holly
Lawyer urges project to go to referendum
Developers, on their part, say the appeal should be dismissed
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 01:05:32 AM MDT
A developer's legal battle to block a public vote on its plans for a
pricey ski-and-golf resort in Beaver County took a circuitous and
"desperate" detour through the state Legislature, charges an attorney
for resort opponents.
"In what can only be described as a series of desperate acts,
[developers] have taken extraordinary measures to try and avoid a
legal review of the trial court's conclusions," Joel Ban, attorney for
a grass roots group trying to put the Mount Holly project to a vote,
wrote in appeal briefs filed Wednesday.
"[Developers] hired a lobbyist, pursued an amendment to the
referendum statute and then filed a request to extend the briefing
schedule. Knowing that SB53 had been signed by the governor and would
become effective May 5, they nonetheless waited until the last day to
act," Ban wrote.
Sen. Brent Goodfellow's SB53 - a new law confusing to the point
state lawyers say it could be unconstitutional - took effect May 5.
A day later, CPB Development LC and Mount Holly Partners LLC used
it as the basis to ask that a resident group's appeal get tossed out
of court.
Ban wants the Utah Court of Appeals to allow the Mount Holly
project to go to a referendum vote. A lower court, in a complex
decision, ruled it could not.
Ban claims the issue is subject to referendum because the county
decision constituted legislative action - the enacting of an ordinance
establishing the details of the Mount Holly Club development
agreement.
Developers say the appeal should be dismissed, arguing that SB53
bans referendums on all local land-use issues. It also claims the
state Supreme Court is the proper forum for an elections dispute.
In late April the state Attorney General's Office questioned
SB53's constitutionality in a letter sent to Sevier County Attorney
Dale Eyre - concerning another right-to-vote effort, this one over a
controversial coal-fired power plant.
Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts cited Article 6 of the
state Constitution, which provides for the people's fundamental right
to legislate through initiative and referenda.
That right - viewed as sacrosanct - bucks up against individual
property rights, said Dan McDonald, an attorney with Smith Hartvigsen,
the firm representing CPB and Mount Holly.
"More and more, citizen groups who dislike a landowner or
development organize themselves to challenge land-use decisions,"
McDonald said.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that individual
property rights are important as well as deference to local land-use
authority."
McDonald intends to file a quick answer to Ban's brief today -
although the court could rule without it.
The weighty issues of SB53's constitutionality - and application
to this case - cannot be ignored, McDonald said.
"This has statewide impact and is important enough that we think
it will percolate to the Supreme Court, no matter who loses in the
Court of Appeals."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9597737
Muzzling the people: Legislature should not take lawmaking petitions away
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008 10:47:56 PM MDT
The Utah Constitution says that two groups can make laws: the
Legislature and the people. The first group is trying to cut the
second group out of the process. That isn't right, and the Utah
Supreme Court should put a stop to it.
This year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 53, which says that
the voters of any county, city or town may not initiate a land use
ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance. That's the right of
initiative we all learned about in school.
For good measure, the Legislature also said that the people may
not require a land use ordinance passed by the local legislative body
(city council or county commission) to be submitted to the voters for
approval before it can take effect. That latter process is called a
referendum.
This bill, which was passed virtually without opposition in the
Legislature and signed quickly into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman, is an
insult to the plain wording of the Utah Constitution, which reserves
the rights of both initiative and referendum to the people.
In 2002, the Utah Supreme Court commented that "the power of the
Legislature and power of the people to legislate through initiative
and referenda are coequal, coextensive and concurrent and share 'equal
dignity.'" It follows that the Legislature can't take that power away
from the people in defiance of the Utah Constitution.
Why would the Legislature do this? To help developers, of course.
In the delicate balance between private property rights and community
interests, the Legislature is putting its thumb on the scale to favor
property.
Private property rights are a foundation of the republic. But when
one property owner does something that profoundly affects his
neighbors, and their property, there's got to be a balancing process.
That's where local planning and zoning laws come in.
SB53 passed during a bitter fight in Beaver County over the
redevelopment of Elk Meadows Resort into the $3.5 billion Mount Holly
Club. The citizen effort to make that project the subject of a
referendum will provide the test case for SB53 before the Utah Supreme
Court. The outcome of that case also will affect an initiative
petition in Sevier County targeting a proposed 270 megawatt coal-fired
power plant near Sigurd. Both of these projects will have far-reaching
effects on the neighboring communities.
In both fights, the people should have the right to seek a direct
voice at the ballot box, and the Legislature should not be allowed to
muzzle that voice.
The Tribune's excellent editorial on Legislative Lawyer Legerdermain (Omnibus lawsuit)
This worries me. Did any of the legislature's lawyers voice concerns about the constitutionality of SB2 before it ran? Could they be called to testify under oath and reveal what discussions they had while drafting the bill? Not if they are safely under the shield as part of the defense's legal team.
The Tribune clearly and rationally explained various possible ramifications of a seemingly small decision about which lawyers can participate in the defense of the SB2 lawsuit. Amen, Trib editorial board...amen.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10356916
More machinations: Legislators should stay out of SB2 lawsuit
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 08:55:59 AM MDT
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an omnibus education bill passed by this year's Legislature has been delayed and muddied by a legislative committee, headed by Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis, who want to get legislative attorneys involved.
It's a complicated legal maneuver, and we don't pretend to understand all its ramifications and the legal underpinnings. But two things are clear: A legislative committee cannot speak for the entire Legislature (some legislators are plaintiffs in the suit), and the state attorney general needs no help defending the case. Further, involving legislative attorneys in defending Senate Bill 2 could unfairly undermine the lawsuit.
For these reasons, we feel the attorney general's office, alone, should defend the case. After all, the attorney general is, according to the Utah Constitution, the lead defense attorney when a Utah law is challenged. Furthermore, Mark Shurtleff, in his capacity as attorney general, is named as a defendant.
Legislative attorneys work for the Legislature to craft legislation, and their testimony might be valuable to determine the history of SB2 as the lawsuit goes forward. If they are part of the defense team, they probably would be barred from testifying.
And we can believe that might be the motive behind the move by the legislative management committee, since the history of SB2 has been one of back-room political maneuvering from the beginning. Its sponsors have an interest in keeping that history from public view.
Congress has long used omnibus bills to hide undesirable initiatives among many others thrown together at the last minute. Utah legislators unwisely followed that model, introducing the huge education bill two days before the session ended.
Many of its 12 portions had already been debated and voted on as separate bills before SB2 lumped them together. There was no good reason to package them except as a way for the legislative leadership to get unpopular bills passed that otherwise would have been, or already had been, defeated.
Omnibus legislation is a devious way to govern, lumping bills together so they are not debated and voted upon on their own merits. The way this omnibus bill was passed is an underhanded way to make public policy, and so is the attempt to thwart the legal challenge against it.
The Tribune clearly and rationally explained various possible ramifications of a seemingly small decision about which lawyers can participate in the defense of the SB2 lawsuit. Amen, Trib editorial board...amen.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10356916
More machinations: Legislators should stay out of SB2 lawsuit
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 08:55:59 AM MDT
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an omnibus education bill passed by this year's Legislature has been delayed and muddied by a legislative committee, headed by Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis, who want to get legislative attorneys involved.
It's a complicated legal maneuver, and we don't pretend to understand all its ramifications and the legal underpinnings. But two things are clear: A legislative committee cannot speak for the entire Legislature (some legislators are plaintiffs in the suit), and the state attorney general needs no help defending the case. Further, involving legislative attorneys in defending Senate Bill 2 could unfairly undermine the lawsuit.
For these reasons, we feel the attorney general's office, alone, should defend the case. After all, the attorney general is, according to the Utah Constitution, the lead defense attorney when a Utah law is challenged. Furthermore, Mark Shurtleff, in his capacity as attorney general, is named as a defendant.
Legislative attorneys work for the Legislature to craft legislation, and their testimony might be valuable to determine the history of SB2 as the lawsuit goes forward. If they are part of the defense team, they probably would be barred from testifying.
And we can believe that might be the motive behind the move by the legislative management committee, since the history of SB2 has been one of back-room political maneuvering from the beginning. Its sponsors have an interest in keeping that history from public view.
Congress has long used omnibus bills to hide undesirable initiatives among many others thrown together at the last minute. Utah legislators unwisely followed that model, introducing the huge education bill two days before the session ended.
Many of its 12 portions had already been debated and voted on as separate bills before SB2 lumped them together. There was no good reason to package them except as a way for the legislative leadership to get unpopular bills passed that otherwise would have been, or already had been, defeated.
Omnibus legislation is a devious way to govern, lumping bills together so they are not debated and voted upon on their own merits. The way this omnibus bill was passed is an underhanded way to make public policy, and so is the attempt to thwart the legal challenge against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
