The Deseret News reports the circumstance of yet another highly-productive Ogden resident who is being deported to Mexico, for relatively trivial reasons, we think, under federal immigration law:
Utah's art community is rallying behind Guillermo Colmenero, an emerging local sculptor and undocumented immigrant who was deported last week.
A motion to reopen Colmenero's case seeking legal status was recently denied, and his attorney said a past marijuana conviction has been the biggest obstacle in Colmenero's long-standing application for legal status.
Colmenero opted to be deported to Mexico on Thursday, his only option other than remaining in jail while his appeal is pending. His wife, Marla, a U.S. citizen, remains in Salt Lake.
"He's one of the top Latino artists in the state," Marla Colmenero said. "He wanted to be here legally. He made Utah his home for over 10 years. He didn't want to leave, but he didn't want to stay in jail either."
We'll happily entertain our readers' comments on this. While we recognize that we do have a serious "immigration problem" in this country, we wonder whether the law, as presently applied, isn't a mite heavy-handed in some individual cases.
One of our gentle readers directs our attention to a Saturday Standard-Examiner story, reporting the results of a Thursday night meeting, wherein the Farmington City Council voted unanimously to deny a property owner's rezoning request, despite a Planning Commission recommendation for approval. Our reader contends that this city council action is a demonstration of democracy in action, and an illustration of what can happen when citizens get involved in their local government. Our take, on the other hand, is that this council decision may represent the very type of mobocracy that the Founding Fathers warned us about. It seems to us that Mr. Haugen's fundamental property rights interests may not have been accorded due weight by the Commissars in the Farmington Chamber of People's Deputies in this matter; and we invite our readers' comments on this observation.Finally, the Standard-Examiner editorial page presents another Jay Hudson guest commentary, pertaining to concerns about the Mt. Ogden Parklands. Mr. Hudson, who also contributed an earlier Std-Ex article on the same topic recently, submits this latest guest piece in apologue form, presumably intended for readers other than Rudi. Your humble blogmeister inevitably and invariably experiences gastric distress, of course, whenever confronted with allegories, fables, parables and other metaphorical devices conveyed in overly-attenuated literary form. We are certain, however, that such contrivances work for other people, so we're highlighting the article here.
Comments are welcome on any of the above, or any other topics that float our readers' boats.
Time to shake out the weekend cobwebs, gentle readers, and get back to frenzied blogging again!
Update 11/23/06 11:12 a.m. MT: Sharp-eyed and genuinely gentle reader Dan S. informs us of this ominous language in a Std-Ex "Tuesday Council Agenda" notice, buried in the Std-Ex obituary page: "Process steps for Chris Peterson project."
We'd heard rumors that something new has been surreptitiously sent to our Emerald City Council by Peterson's high-priced mouthpiece, Ellison. We think Tuesday night's RDA meeting may be a must-attend event.
26 comments:
Here's another tidbit from today's Standard-Examiner: On page 6B, alongside the obituaries, we find that tomorrow (Tuesday), at the end of its 6:00 meeting, the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency (i.e., City Council wearing different hats) will discuss "Process steps for Chris Peterson project."
Some aspect of Chris Peterson,s proposal is on the RDA's or City Council's agenda for Tuesday night (can't remember which entity). It was in this mornings paper agenda section, last item for the committee. Public comments allowed in meeting.
The full agenda for tomorrow's RDA meeting is here.
"Process steps for Chris Peterson project."
My initial reaction is to say BALDERDASH!
OK, maybe this is a discussion of what steps Mr. Peterson will have to follow before the RDA will look at his proposal.
Chris Peterson has submitted NO plans for a project, has provided documentation of ANY environmental or geologic studies, so why is our City Government taking time to discuss any of this? So far all we have gotten is hand waving and smoke and mirrors (maybe not even the mirrors). As someone (Rudi or Curm?) recently pointed out, if this is the due diligence demonstrated before the project, what kind of attention to the law, details, and just plain responsible behavior should we expect to see if the project goes ahead?
In other words, if this is what it's like while we're considering dating, what would it be like after marriage?
Also in Saturday's SE, on the front page above the fold there was an article on the study of WSU land whose purchase is proposed. Results were described as tentative at this time since the report hasn't been completed. I'd link to it, but am having trouble doing that.
My previous post should have read "...Chris Peterson has submitted NO plans for a project, has provided NO documentation of ANY environmental or geologic studies...."
You know Rudi, one begins to wonder whether what you do is offer reasoned discussion or just well articulated brick throwing at the government, whatever they do.
Here we have a case when a city councilman owns some property and wants to get it re-zoned for higher density. That's the easiest way to make fast money in the real estate market.
The folks next door preferred not to find themselves living next to a duplex jungle. One the whole, it might have been better than what's there now, and might have been a good idea, but it's nice to see the politicos listening to the small fry once in awhile.
Which brings me to this: This WCF of yours may be the most important thing to happen in Ogden in the decades that I've lived here. Keep shining the bright lights, but try not to blind folks who are trying to act in good faith and do the public's wishes (for a change.)
We will always owe you one.
Thanks to Dan S. for the RDA agenda heads-up. As you can see we've added it to the maim page as an update.
And OgdenLover, here's the link to the Saturday article that you mentioned, concerning the WSU "study":
WSU orders land study
Give Peterson this:
He may be an a-hole, but he can sure sell his own sorry self. Look at how he gets people to jump and spend, before he even submits a single sheet of paper outlining what he actually plans to do. He's either a pied piper, or we are led my idiots. Somebody should ask old Earl why he fired the boy, being his son in law and all.
Two points on two stories:
1) The City Council agenda item in its capacity as RDA board: I don't know, specifically, to what it refers, but folks seem to be assuming that it involves some presentation by Mr. Peterson to the RDA board. I recall the Council, wisely, decided to devise for itself the approval process any Peterson proposal would have to undergo [if and when he got around to submitting one], rather than let the Mayor's office dictate an approval process for the Council. This agenda item may --- I do not know --- involve the Council doing the same thing now in its capacity as RDA board: laying out the way any proposal would be treated and what steps would have to be fulfilled before it would be approved. Something to consider at least.
2.On the Farmington Rezoning matter: I'm with "I Was a Little." I don't see how the owners' property rights were in any way violated. He bought the land when it was zoned single family. The Council simply decided that the zoning should stay single family. How does that violate his private property rights? He certainly had the right to ask the Planning Commission to recommend a change in zoning to permit duplexes, and he had the right to ask the Council to concur in the recommended change. But he has no right to have zoning changed to accommodate his interests. That judgement is the Council's to make and it made it.
I am not a Farmington resident and I don't know if the Council chose wisely or unwisely in refusing the zoning change, but I don't see any grounds on which to claim it had no right to make that decision or the the petitioner had a right to have the zoning changed to accommodate his interests.
LOL, I was upset.
Seems to us that this Farmington situation is ripe for discussion, as the fundamental rights of an individual property owner bump headlong into the socialist "greater good" mantra.
We framed our lead article in a manner intended to promote discussion of the issues, BTW. By no means did we intend it to be the last word.
Please explain why the Farmington council result isn't just another instance of the socialist mob mentality, i.e., "Mi casa, su casa," succeeding over a property owner's fundamental property rights.
It seems to us that a reasonable argument can be made that even a snazzy retirement duplex project would be a more community-friendly use than the property's current wrecking-yard status, BTW.
We're having a hard time falling straightaway into the "democracy prevails" camp in this instance.
It's up to you to convince us otherise, dontcha think?
And although Mr. Haugan's position as a council member presents an interesting twist to this story, we'd like to know why you believe it's even significantly relavant to the reported facts, inasmuch as Mr. Haugen reportly recused himself from the council vote, and the rest of the council unanimously voted against him.
We await your reasoned reply with abated breath
:-)
Rudi:
Seems like you are arguing that all zoning regulations are unjust limits on the property rights of landowners. Is that what you are arguing? If not, then why should a refusal to change this existing zoning for a parcel of land involve a violation of the property owner's rights when [presumably] the Council's refusal to waive other zoning restrictions on other properties would not?
If you are arguing that all zoning necessarily involves and unjust restriction of the property owner's development rights, then we disagree. I've seen what "no zoning" leads to in an urban setting. It leads to Houston. If my choices are zoning ordinances approved by elected representatives on the one hand, or turning Ogden into a mini-Houston on the other, I'll take zoning. Every time.
Are you really going so far as to argue that there is no "greater good" that ever trumps the private right? We've been battling this out since Henry Demerest Lloyd wrote Wealth vs Commonwealth during the Gilded Age. I'd agree with you that often public bodies, carried away by their own power and the glitterning dreams of wealth slick promoters hold up before their dazzled eyes, ride roughshod over private right in the name of some [tenuous] public good --- the Connecticut case that triggered the Supreme Court ruling that led to Utah and other states banning the use of eminient domain to benefit private persons or businesses is the most recent example.
But if you are suggesting that there is no "public good" or "public interest" or "community interest" that can or should trump private interests, well, then we disagree deeply.
Like most tools in the hands of law makers, zoning powers can be, and have been, abused. But eliminating them altogether would mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Rudi-
Your comments regarding sculptor Colmenero's being sent back to Mejico as being "heavy handed" got my hackles up.
He is in this country illegally!!!!
Nuff said!
On the immigration matter...
While I agree, as I imagine many people would, that this particular deportation ended up diminishing Utah overall, that doesn't address the problem of how to remedy the matter.
One possibility is to loosen the residency and citizenship requirments so that those who entered the country illegally find it easier to earn at least permanent residence rights or at most citizenship. But that proposal is fraught with political problems that make it, at the moment, impractical to enact. And a great many Americans believe it should not be enacted at all.
The other alternative is to arrange for some "special talent" exemption to the existing immigration laws. We've done something like that in the past, for particular industries... made it easier for people with particular skills needed by US industry to get green cards, residency status and ultimately citizenship. But it has been done, I think, generically [for categories of skills, like say computer programing, etc], not for individuals. And I don't think "kick ass artist" is one of the skills currently included in the special rules for special talents.
Which leaves creating some case-by-case process for exempting people from the immigration rules. Some judicial body or other body that would assess, case by case, whether person X possed a particular talent of such value to the community [and what would that community be? The US? Utah? Salt Lake City?] that the immigration rules should be exempted for him. Or her.
Not necessarily a bad idea, so long as we understand that such a system would be ripe for abuse. It would be an open invitation to bribery, to politicians putting pressure on the commission to favor "special cases" related to or important to Congressmen or Senators, etc. I can almost guarantee within five years of setting up such a review board, charges of cronyism if not downright bribery would start to appear with depressing regularity.
So, granting for the sake of argument that this particualr deportation does not serve the public interest, what remedy is there? What remedy should their be?
This statement below was taken directly from Ogden City’s web page to explain the purpose of the RDA.
“Ogden's redevelopment agency was created to encourage private investment in blighted areas of the community or areas with a demonstrated need for economic development. A board comprised of members of the City Council governs the agency. Priority development activity within targeted areas, known as "project areas," may be eligible for financial assistance provided by the agency. Project areas are usually less than 100 acres in size and take between three and six months to establish.”
It goes without saying that the Peterson proposed development which would involve our open space and golf course neither qualifies as a blighted area or an area with a demonstrated economic need.
So what the heck is he doing talking to the RDA and why are we, as a city, letting this happen. Seems to me that it goes against the charter of the agency.
We've tslked to one city council member about this.
Apparently there was an error in the published notice.
We're told now that the "Peterson Plan Discussion" will be on tomorrow's (11-14-06) CITY COUNCIL agenda -- NOT the RDA agenda.
Truth be known, Peterson came by what ever money he has, not by his accomplishments, but by the fact that he married well.
If his father-in-law thought he had any potential, he'd still be working for him, which he's not. In fact, the phrase kicking around the halls his father-in laws corporate office is that he and his wife are "persona non grata" around the company.
Thanks to alert readers out there for this info, and to Rudizink for hosting Weber County Forum. It's a great public service you are providing. Reminds me of the Revolutionary War era, when colonists relied on a loose network of like-minded patriots to defy the British monarchy.
But instead of galloping about the country shouting, "The British are coming!" and posting warning lights in the church steeple ("One if by land, two if by sea") we have The Weber County Forum!
These people are the real patriots of today.
I will attend the RDA meeting tomorrow night, if possible. Would like to bring my camera and get photos, if that is allowed.
Anon,
Perhaps Peterson did not marry so much "well", as simply "wealthy". There is a difference.
And Bob, my understanding is the great one said the meeting is next week not this week.
Meeting is Tuesday November 14.
Following the RDA meeting that begins at 6pm.
"Seems like you are arguing that all zoning regulations are unjust limits on the property rights of landowners. Is that what you are arguing?"
Oh really. Please enlighten us all about how you leapt to those unfounded and extreme conclusions.
Pretty quick to over-categorize your blogmeister when he asks a few Socratic questions, aren't we?
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful answer.
OK, Rudi, here's how: The property involved is currently zoned for single family dwellings. The Council decided not to change the zoning to accommodate duplexes, which you conclude violated the property rights of the landowner. I could see your argument if the land was already zoned for duplexes and the Council said no. But that is not the case. It was zoned single family.
So, the only basis on which I could see your argument that in denying the rezoning the Council had violated the landowner's rights was if you were arguing that all zoning necessarily unjustly restricts property rights. [Some argue this, and some cities, like Houston, have adopted no-zoning policies.] And so I asked.
If you generally think, as I do, that zoning regulations are a proper exercise of municipal authority, then I am puzzled about on what grounds you base your belief that denying the owner a zoning change violated his rights? You could argue that the Council decision was unwise, certainly, and it may have been. But if you agree zoning regulations are a proper function of municipal governments [as apparently you do], then I am puzzled, as I said, about your claim that the landowner's property rights were violated by the Council's decision.
Hope that clears it up.
Gentle Curmudgeon:
Your retort hardly clears up the factual and equitable objections, although the pro-property rights legal arguments are indeed obfuscated, at least for the time being, by the legal status quo.
The initial legal infringement upon Mr. Haugen's fundamental property rights arguably occurred years ago, upon the passage of the 60's-ish zoning and planning rules. Mr. Haugen (or his family predecessors in interest) probably waived their fundamental legal rights in a technical sense, either by failing to bring legal action at the time of the historically-recent socialist planning/zoning incursions, or by failing (apparently) to legally assert their objections in the interim.
The body of law also includes equitable principles however, in addition to purely legal ones. And in apurely equitable sense, property rights advocates will continue to argue that the property owner expectation interests of Mr. Haugen, as an property owner with "natural" rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, have been again assaulted by the latest decision of the Farmington City Chamber of People's deputies.
In the interest of achieving legal equity, Mr. Haugen apparently expended a great deal of effort in trying to satisfiy and overcome the objections of the local community, and to achieve equity, to the extent that his project gained formal Planning Commission approvel after a long effort. The object of these efforts, of course, was reportedly to arrive at an equitably "fair" solution, balancing Mr. Haugen's expectation interests as a property owner, with the "communalist" interests of a vaguely-identifiable local community, some of who seem to have popped up at the last minute.
And factually, Mr. Haugen now runs an auto junkyard on his property, which by no reasonable measure can be argued to be less objectionable to the community than the use which he reasonably proposed to the council -- a proposal which would have drastically cleaned up and improved his neighborhood.
Yet his efforts to satisfy everyone, and still maximize the economic potential of his property were thwarted, apparently by the appearance of a band of local citizens with zero proprietary interest in his property, and with no hand in the equitable negotiations.
Some would argue from the reported facts that Mr. Haugen attempted to improve the conditions in his neighborhood to a remarkable degree, and that the last-minute arrival of local commissars, apartchiks, grand planners and neighborhood rabble were the only obstacle to his efforts.
Su casa, mi Casa is the modern big-government socialist approach. Unless we hear convincing argument to the contrary, we'll continue to assume, on behalf of our pro-property rights readers, that big-government socialism is alive and well in Farmington City.
One of the activists in the Farmington matter has been invited to submit his own article on this subject BTW, which gracious request has been less than graciously declined -- at least for now.
No, cavalier dismissals, based on purely legal argument certainly do not dispose of the real issues.
The case is definitely NOT closed, IOO.
Well, what it seems to me, still, that you are arguing mostly is that the Farmington Council made an unwise decision, that the public good would have been better served by granting the zoning change so that duplexes could replace a junkyard. You may well be right. As I said, not being familiar much with the details, I'm willing to grant that the Council may have not chosen wisely in what it did.
However, it does seem to me that your argument above approaches, if it does not actually reach, the point of arguing that all zoning restrictions necessarily violate the property rights of landowners. That zoning itself involves the notion of su casa, mi case as you put it, which represents [for you]"the modern big-government socialist approach. "
Which is what I suggested you seemed to be arguing in my earlier post, and which conclusion about the character of zoning per se I do not share.
Senor Colmenero was here ILLEGALLY.
Let his wife go to Mexico without proper documentation and see what her reception will be!
Why didn't he become a naturalized citizen? He certainly had the time.
Perhaps you're right, Curmudgeon, when you suggest that the "what's yours is mine" mentality can't be adopted in bite-sized pieces. Such an argument could certainly be made.
Once it became public policy in America that property ownership exists subject to the fickle will of the general public, the traditional concept of private property ownership had already headed down the slippery slope, it could be argued.
For our own part however, we don't believe we're forced to choose "all or nothing" in the arena of property use regulation. We rather believe that traditional property rights concepts and property use regulation CAN happily co-exist, so long as governmental regulation is strictly limited to the prevention of public nuisances and threats to public health and safety -- in a manner as existed in this country in the 1950's, prior to what we believe to have been a 1960's "planning and zoning craze."
The error we've made in this country, we believe, is to have extended property use regulation to matters of aesthetics and design, matters which ought to be rightly left to individual property owners themselves, and to the mechanism of the free market, we believe.
And as to the results of last Thurday's Farmington council decision, "injustice" is the word a property rights advocate would likely choose, describing the council's action in opting for a continuing de facto commercial use, over the adoption of an upscale residential one.
New comments are not allowed.