Stuart Reid is now reportedly claiming that a pair of election-eve mailers doomed his candidacy, due to false allegations; namely these:
• Reid supported the use of eminent domain to obtain private property for commercial purposes when he worked as Ogden's community and economic development director.Excuse us for asking, but wasn't Mr. Reid the Economic Development Director in the spring of 2005, the period when Boss Godfrey and his Emerald City Economic Development Department were madly scrambling to assemble properties for the downtown Wal-mart project? Wasn't the threat of eminent domain the "necessary tool" that city economic development officials were relying upon to pry property owners in the Wal-mart project area loose from their residential and business properties? Wasn't Reid one of the many Emerald City officials who cried their eyes out when Senator Bramble, and the majority of legislators on capital hill, abruptly removed the condemnation power from the city RDA's bag of tricks? Wasn't the restoration of the RDA power of eminent domain one of the projects that Mr. Reid had in mind when he threw his hat into the Senate 18 race? And now Reid seems to be suddenly implying that he wasn't in favor of the use of the power of eminent domain at the time?
• Reid's "political operatives" tried to steal votes by contacting the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to have Greiner disqualified for a federal Hatch Act violation.
And Utah Democratic Party Chairman Todd Taylor readily admits it was he who initiated the last minute Hatch Act complaint. If Reid doesn't consider the chairman of the party which put his name on the ballot a "political operative," we'd be hard put to find anyone else who would fit the description.
And of course Mr. Reid ignores the other political baggage he hauled into the Senate 18 race, such as his "secret" severance bonus, and his cushy $70 thousand/year "featherbed" BDO post-retirement management contract, which continues unto this very day. Citizens of both Weber and Davis counties were all well-aware of all of the above factors as Mr. Reid entered the Senate 18. All of these factors were widely reported in the media, well prior to the distribution of these mailers. Mr. Reid's candidacy was a non-starter from the very beginning, so far as we can see.
Somehow Mr. Reid's whining about a pair of "unnecessary" mailings has a mendacious ring to it, we think.
The truly odd component of this story, of course, is the fact that some well-heeled intermeddler (The Utah Republican Party[?]), outside Mr. Greiner's own campaign, ostensibly reached into its back pocket to the tune of $17 thousand, without so much as informing Mr. Greiner about it. This officious effort could easily have back-fired. Assuming the truth of the facts reported, Mr. Greiner is justifiably miffed. Utah voters have a notable aversion to late-campaign negativity, and these late mailings could very well have cost Greiner many votes.
If anyone should be whining here, it seems to us, it ought to be Mr. Greiner.
We think Mr. Reid should just "get over it;" and we say the same to the Standard-Examiner.
And what think our gentle readers? Isn't it time to move on?
Feel free to speak out on this topic; or start one of your own.
What's on our gentle readers' minds today?
38 comments:
I think YOU should just get over it. You won. Quit it. Why look back. We can talk about something else. There are plenty of troubles ahead without worrying about Reid.
And don't think I voted for Reid. I'm not in his area.
Our schtick here @ WCF, anonymous, is to springboard the discussion off the print news items of the day.
We didn't start the conversation.
Try to keep up.
Ah common Rudi
Greiner didn't know that the Republican party spent $17,000 bucks in his campaign!
It never fails to amaze me that you bloated elephants can say this kind of crap with a straight face!
This is one of the very reasons that the Republican Party "got its ass handed to it" as you so artfully stated the other day.
Lyin when the truth is better! You guys really ought to change your MO!!
Greiner won fair and square (as defined by the convoluted and sometime corrupt rules of the Republican/Utah)
So I say let us keep our fingers crossed that he will emerge from Lord Godfrey's shadow and represent the true interests of the folks of Ogden.
Hope may spring eternal, but Greiner is an Ogden boy after all. At least he is not some wimp from Harrisville.
Looking at national news, George Allen of Virginia is expected to concede his Senate race just about now. It's a fitting wrap-up to the feckless Allen's political career. With one word, macaca, he managed not only to bring his own career to a screeching halt but Republican control of the Senate as well. A fitting epitaph to a bigoted and none-too-bright bully.
Looking at local news, isn't the loose cannon we call mayor teetering on the verge of having his own "Allen moment?" (Far be it from me to imply an analogy here, Ed & Patty.) I hoped the van-gate (or Greiner-gate, or what have you) episode would precipate his undoing (and maybe it will, yet). But as his goondola campaign grows increasingly manic and desperate, I look for him to make the fatal George Allen slip.
I can speak with authority as to Stuart Reid's position on eminent domain when he was a big cheese in the Ogden City RDA in 2004.
If you will recall, the Ogden RDA initiated a plan to bring Wal-mart to Ogden by taking the land from some 50 property owners by eminent domain threat to give to Wal-mart along with a $2 million subsidy to come to town.
I was incensed with this proposal so I bought land from the biggest landowner in the area, Hal Le Fleur, so that I would have more clout in taking a pro se lawsuit against Ogden City RDA in District Court.
My intent was to help the long-time property owners who were being forced out of their homes and businesses by the threat of eminent domain by Ogden City to acquire the land for a Wal-mart store.
Stuart Reid actually called Hal Le Fleur to his RDA office several times to tell him that "you have to get rid of Dorothy Littrell" - "you have to buy back that land" because I was holding up the seizure of land as I was not about to sell that land until I had taken Ogden to court to test the question of eminent domain in Utah.
Remember that Stuart Reid was not only running the RDA Project but he was also an LDS bishop and Hal belongs to "The Church".
So Mr. Le Fleur did the dishonorable thing of reneging on my land deal with him and gave me a certified check back for my purchase price.
By Monday I owned a lot on Reeves Avenue and my suit against Ogden began.
So you now know where Mr. Reid stand on the use of eminent domain and other threats.
However, our new Senator Greiner has questionable ethics re eminent domain as well.
Greiner made a speech to a breakfast club at the Country Club later about "that woman from North Ogden" (my latest monicker) because I had effectively stopped the Wal-mart debacle and has also been instrumental in getting Utah's Eminent Domain Law signed by Governor Huntsman in March of 2005.
I have kept the eminent domain mailer I received on Greiner's behalf in this latest campaign because I could not believe that he authorized it since I experienced where he stands on eminent domain.
I will be watching to see how Greiner votes on the upcoming Resolution 0002 already prepared by the League of Cities to introduce in the next legislature to recall eminent domain for Mayor Godfrey and the lobbyist Jolley who was paid $45,000.00 taxpayer funds for his effort.
This will be interesting to see how Senator Greiner handles this one.
If he votes for the Resolution I will be at the Capital with this flyer in hand to ask why.
Ah, the American electoral system....
Greatest spectator sport going. Leaves football and basketball far in the dust.
So, let's see... post election, we have first Rudi whining about Greiner having had to face dirty tricks on the way to victory. Then, not to be outdone, Mr. Reid whines that Greiner's dirty tricks done him [Reid] in. Followed by Rudi whining about Reid whining about Greiner's dirty tricks. Follow by Ms. Littrell chiming in, complaining that both Greiner and Reid were lying in their teeth. And all this after the election was over.
And the beat goes on....
My understanding is the new proposed eminent domain law is much more restrictive, requiring a majority vote of the residents before the neighborhood can be sold off in one chunk. I have always been an opponent of eminent domain for private developement, but on the other hand, should one or two landowners prevent all others from selling if they want to do so? I would be interested in your opinion, which I value.
From my experience I believe that one or two landowners should be able to stop eminent domain.
If a handful of us had not stood our ground in the Wal-mart fight there would have been a $2 million giveaway by Ogden to Wal-mart to building a big box store to put the locals out of business.
This has nothing to do with numbers, it is about constitutional principles.
We find an interesting historical parallel here:
This is the second straight unsuccessful Stuart Reid campaign where claims have been made that the election outcome resulted from unapproved written materials.
In 1999, Mr. Reid was Rocky Anerson's opponent for the SLC mayoral seat. Although Reid was the heavy favorite at the beginning of the race, Rocky was closing the gap. THe race was neck and neck just prior to the election -- until an unsigned "negative" campaign flier appeared, slamming Mr. Anderson. The anti-Anderson flier back-fired, and Anderson won the seat by a large margin. see: Updated: Changing of the Guard at City Hall?
In the instant case, the circumstances are reversed. This time the unauthorized written materials were "negative" on Reid, But Greiner prevailed anyway. Whether the mailings that Reid complains about backfired, (i.e., whether they helped or hurt Reid) is anybody's guess. The actual political effect would be hard to measure.
Our guess, though is that the negative mailers helped Reid more than they hurt him:
If there's one article of faith in Utah political campaigns it's: "Never go negative."
Curmudgeon's right.
Politics watching is great sport.
Pass the peanuts and crackerjack!
I too have kept all of the Greiner mailers. The first time he slips up and votes his own way against whaasast is good for the people and in opposition to his election promises, he gets one of these and each time there after.
Thanks for the comments, Dorothy. If anybody is familiar with Reid's stance on the topic of eminent domain, it's you.
As for Jon Greiner, we do hope you'll hang onto those mailers.
And if the mailers are the ones that Greiner is denying to have come from his own campaign organization, the plot thickens considerably.
And you're right about the constitutional issues. Property ownership is a fundamental individual right, originally intended by the founders to be protected by the U.S. Constitution.
If your neighbor or a group of neighbors want to sell their own properties, they should call a realtor like everybody else.
Dorothy,
Now you are a member of that neighborhood, what is your plan to improve it? Have you done anything down there to clean it up?
heck no the city says that it is just blighted and they will not help out the residents, and it is her property so she may do withit as she pleases. so what is it to you.
Anonymous 1:
My lot is kept meticulously.
I am not responsible for anyone else's property.
How is your neighborhood?
"Your land is your land,
Your land is MY land...
From California,
To the New York highlands..."
That's the Woodie Guthrie socialist mantra.
You know the rest of Woody's little commie tune, dontcha, Dorothy?
You're part "Texan" after all!
[Segue]
Who is this little commie A**-H*** who believes YOUR neighbrhood ought to be cleaned up, we wonder?
Woodie Guthrie? The Ghost of Joe Stalin?
Check your deed, Dorothy.
Perhaps this little twit, Hizzoner, and lackey Ogden Socialist Commissars wormed their way into your Ogden city property ownership records... they have may well bcome your "silent" partners, Perhaps.
The socialist mentality abounds in our little blue collar community.
A Weber County Forum triple tip o' the hat to you for carrying the banner of the U.S. Constitution, BTW, Dorothy.
Many thanks to you also, for you magnificent and constant pro-property-owner advocacy.
Even President Bush is finally starting to clean out his NeoCON rats-nest.
Maybe he ought to have lstened to "poppy" several years ago.
Permit me to, yet again, ever so quietly remind one and all that the Mayor of Our Fair City, who our Blogmeister is pleased to call a socialist, is... a Republican.
Imagine that.....
We really love Matt Godfry down at Mel Kemp's airport.
Although Mayor Godfrey is hung like a hanster, we always call him the BIG MAN, after his eyes glaze over and he says "oooh, baby" and hands us piles of Ogden RDA c-notes.
He's lillipution, but at least he offers "one good tip" at the end of our "date".
Sounds like Dorothy L. has been (really) hanging out at the Airport again.
One possible ways to circumvent the eminent domain laws, with the new proposal that the City of Ogden is endorsing and that is coming out of the organization “The Utah League of Cities and Towns, is to utilize a Mixed Use Zone.
Simply create a Mixed Use Zone large enough to incorporate land owners outside but adjacent to the actual area that is being considered. Include existing landowners or already established businesses that are or would be supportive of the development being proposed. Thus you already have a super majority to allow you to do what you want. Any Mixed Use Zone that the city is contemplating should restrict such maneuvers by the city or the developers. This in effect would give private business eminent domain over private citizens.
The city should be the controlling body of the Mixed Use Zone, not the developer, to ensure conformity to the cities codes and standards. With the proposal that was to be presented to the planning commission of Ogden the other night, the developer would have control the Mixed Use Zone. With the developer having control over the zone rather than the city, the developers could change anything within the development that they want since the zone would be incorporated into the General Plan (thus making it legally conforming). Ogden City would only be able to comment on the project rather than have direct input for the best interest of the city and its residents.
Any Mixed Use Zone established within the city must be controlled by the city.
This is just one way in which the Mixed Use Zone could be used to the determent of the residents and definitely not the only way to circumvent eminent domain. There are several issues that the city needs to think about before it rushes head first into establishing a Mixed Use Zoning ordinance. The city needs to put a lot more time into developing this ordinance than it has to date.
I'm not an attorney, but I doubt that the proposed (and misnamed) MU zone could be used to circumvent eminent domain laws. In order for property to be zoned MU, the owner or a designated representative must request it.
The real problem (or at least, one of the real problems) with the MU zone is that it actually has nothing to do with mixed use. It allows anything at all that a developer might propose: a sprawling residential subdivision, or a Walmart, or a hog farm. I recently looked up the mixed use zoning ordinance of another Utah municipality and while it similarly requires a development agreement, it actually puts conditions on what sorts of uses are possible (imagine that!). For example, it specifies that at least 25 percent of the development must be residential, and that no one category (residential, commercial, etc.) may occupy more than 75 percent of the development. It also requires that the development exhibit "urban characteristics" such as reasonably high densities, minimal building setbacks, sidewalks, and shared parking. I've also heard that this (suburban) municipality has had trouble filling the commercial space in mixed-use developments. The lesson seems to be that these things work only in high-density urban centers. Downtown Ogden would be an obvious candidate, but we actually already have a special zone for downtown that encourages mixed use.
Dian:
Exactly. The "mixed use" zone ordinance proposed recently by the planning staff would create in effect "no zoing zones."
I hope the Planning Commission members are, on their own or with the cooperation of planning staff, getting copies of other MU zoning ordinances in Utah in order to compare them to what the Administration is proposing here. That would highlight what, might be uncommon about the administration's proposed ordinance, and those elements should become, I would think, matters for fuller investigation and discussion.
So Dorothy, how has the value of your property changed since you bought? Has anyone that was in the area that the city wanted to buy with the threat of ED sold since then? If so, how did their sales price compare to what the city was offering?
I don't ask these things to try to put you down cause I really don't know what the answers are. In fact, I would expect values to have increased, but I don't know so I am asking.
Arcritic:
I don't know what Ms. Littrell's answer will be. But seems to me the question kind of misses the point of Ms. Littrell's complaints about using eminent domain procedings to take private property for the use of another private entity, like Wal-Mart. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the market value of the property declined after the Wal-Mart project fell through, that would not address Ms. Littell's point, which involves a matter of right as she [and in this instance I] see it.
What is clashing here are two ideas, the tension between which has shaped a large and continually growing portion of public debate and public policy and developing law in the US: the clash between the "the public good" on the one side and "private right" on the other. At what point does "public good" out weigh my "private right" to possess and use property as the owner might wish?
There is no absolute bright and shining line that can be found separating those two in all instances and in every case. Most of us would agree on cases at the margines I imagine --- that public good trumps private right, for example, where land is needed for a flood control dam. And private right trumps public good when a landowner to sell to say, an adjacent a business owner who wants to expand his business, even if doing so would, in the eyes of many, or even most, result in a benefit for the community. But where the line should be drawn to separate public good from private right between cases at the margins is a much dicier proposition.
I suspect I'd draw the line in some instances somewhat to the left [presuming "left" stands for the "public good" end of the spectrum] of where Mrs. Littrell would draw it, and that she would draw it somewhat more to the right [presuming "right" stands for the "private right" end of the spectrum] of where I would draw it. The point is, though, that the resulting market value of the property involved is irrelevent to the question of "right" involved. Or so it seems to me.
And on the Wal-Mart matter, I think she was on the correct side of the debate about private right vs. public good, and the Ogden City administration was not.
To Dan S.
Law, unlike physics, is open to interpretation.
Just think about it a little and re-read the League of Cities and Towns proposal. It is proposing that if the requirements of a super majority are met then that majority can force the other land owner to participate (i.e.sell). Now overlay a proposed mixed use zone that incorporates the desired property that is not willing to be a part of the development with additional property of sufficient size, which is willing to participate, to create a super majority of land owners involving both properties in one mixed use zone. Once accomplished, you simply designate the willing participant’s property “as is” and you’ve taken the rights (and property) from those who didn’t want to be part of the development.
Anon:
Before I can re-read the League of Cities and Towns proposal, I'll have to read it. Where can I find it?
As far as the MU zone is concerned, here's the relevant language: The mixed use (MU) zone may be considered by the City only after an application complying with the application requirements of this Chapter has been submitted by the owner or owners or one or more designated representatives of the owner or owners of the property to be considered in the application. So I don't see how this zone could be used as a vehicle to facilitate condemnation of a piece of property.
I really don't want to be put in the position of defending this horrible proposed ordinance. On the other hand, if we're going to persuade the Planning Commission to reject it, we'll have to bring legitimate criticisims, not fabricated ones.
The thing I like about her is she doesn't try to talk herself into knots to show how thoughtful she is. She follows the intent of the constitution. If it's yours, it's yours.
Personally, the WalMart would have done me a lot of good. But I was rooting for Dorothy.
I Like Dorothy:
You wrote: The thing I like about her is she doesn't try to talk herself into knots to show how thoughtful she is. She follows the intent of the constitution. If it's yours, it's yours.
Except of course, that that is not the "clear intent of the Constitution" on all property rights matters. The US has excercised, and all the states have excercised and still exercise, the right of eminent domain --- the forced taking of private property [with just compensation] --- for a public purpose. E.g. to acquire land needed for, say, a flood control dam, or a roadway, or a coastal defense installation etc. This has been true from the establishment of the republic under the Constitution in 1789 to the present. However much you might wish it to be otherwise, the Constitution's meaning on property rights has never been starkly and absolutely "if it's yours it's yours."
The question, of course, is what constitutes a "public purpose" sufficient to trigger the right of eminent domain. The Supreme Court recently ruled [incorrectly in my view] that an increased tax base and improved business climate constituted sufficient "public purpose" to justify taking private property under eminent domain and transferring it to another private entity [a land developer in this case] but that the states could limit such actions by legislation if they wished to. Happily, Utah and now many other states rapidly passed state laws forbidding that practice.
But the notion that the Constitution somehow enshrines an absolute private property right is incorrect.
Here's another example. The Constitution bans the states from passing any law that impairs the "obligation of contract." And yet, the states that ratified the Constitution continued to permit bankruptcies and to pass laws defining the terms under which bankruptcy could be declared. It would be hard to imagine a law that "impaired" the "obligation of contract" more than a bankruptcy law, which wipes out contractual debt obligations. Yet the courts have consistently ruled that state bankruptcy laws do not violate the obligation of contract clause in the Constitution.
The main point is that property rights under the constitution are not absolute. Whether they ought to be is another matter. But under the U.S. Constitution, they are not.
Law, unlike physics, is open to interpretation. I still stand by my comments, that with a little messaging, that this is one possible interpretation. I'm also sure others will find other ways to interpret the ordinance to their benefit and that is a certainty.
My point being that those that want to circumvent the city codes and standards will now have a way using our Mixed Use Zoning ordinance if the city adopts the loosely worded, hurried plan that was put before the Planning commission.
The link you asked about was posted here about a week or two ago by I believe Dian.
"Your land is MY land,
Our land is My land...
From 25th Street,
to the East Bench Highlands..."
Anon:
Love it! Matthew "Woody" Godfrey and his Bench Clearin' Five. Hey, I'd book 'em....
WOOD-DICK!
That's what the gals from the airport call me!
Also FAT-WALLET!
Am I cool and sexy , or what?
You're so cool and sexy, dearest...that I'm frigid!!
Response to arcritic:
I really have no clue as to the value of my lot.
I did not buy it to invest in but to wage a war for what I believed was the right thing to do.
There are property owners in the area that have lived there for all of their lives and as long as they want to continue to live there I will do my best to help them do so.
I have no problem with eminent domain being used for the original intent as covered in our Constitution which was for the public good with just compensation for the property owner.
What I oppose with all my heart is taking any private property to give to another private party such as a developer or a big box store or a Marriott Hotel.
The advocates for seizure of private property by eminent domain, such as the Ogden City RDA group led by Mayor Godfrey, are violating the concepts of our basic freedoms under our Constitution.
Our nation was founded to a large extent on the principle of private property rights.
The constitution was written by and for property owners. If you didn't own property, or if you were property, you didn't count. Kind of like it is now actually.
As Dorothy and Curm points out, the constitution allowed the use of eminent domain taking only for the common good and with just compensation. Historically it has only been used for the kind of public good projects like roads, dams, etc.
It is only under the New Conservative (NeoCon) era of big brother government and this current effete supreme court that "public good" has been perverted to mean ripping your property off to benefit some insider developers, bankers, lawyers, political hacks, and other leaches.
The pendulum is starting to swing back and it is only a matter of time until these right wing extremists that are holding the supreme court hostage will die off and be replaced with decent people respecting justices.
To Dan S.
On 29 Oct Dian thread to article
Amendments proposed in Utah League of Cities and Towns eminent-domain resolution:
* Redefine blight and redevelopment of blighted areas as an appropriate use for eminent domain
* Implement a threshold of receptiveness. At least two-thirds of the property owners representing at least one-half of the land area must be under option to buy or willing to sell in order for eminent domain to be used on the holdout properties.
* Require a separate supermajority vote (67 percent) of the governing body before eminent domain can be included in the project area plan and used by the agency. Supermajority would vary with council size - either five of seven members, or four of five members would be required.
* Reinstate relocation assistance provisions for owners of condemned properties.
The rest of the article is here: Cities pushing to get back limited eminent domain
Mark Johnson's position at ULCT can be viewed here: ULCT
Read rest of her comments and links on that 29th Oct article. The thread is in the middle of the chain
Dan S. said: Before I can re-read the League of Cities and Towns proposal, I'll have to read it. Where can I find it?
One point that I would like to make is that ED would still only apply in Community Development and Redevelopment areas. There are limitations as to what can be designated part of the area, how big it can be (I believe it max's out at 100 acres), as well as some other requirements. So saying that designating something MU would enable ED is not quite correct.
Here is the entire text of the resolution. I had posted it in an earlier thread and it took quite a bit of searching to find it, so rather than make you look further here it is.
Resolution: 2006-002
2006 Utah League of Cities and Towns Resolution - Community Development and Redevelopment Agency Amendments.
Resolution submitted by the ULCT RDA Subcommittee in support of legislation reinstating certain eminent domain provision back into the Community Develop and Redevelopment Agency Act concepts.
We, the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, find the following:
* Redevelopment takes collaboration from all levels of government.
* There is a distinction between development and redevelopment, and those two activities must be treated differently.
* In certain circumstances, the ability to condemn property is imperative in the redevelopment process.
* Utah's city and town leaders take the condemnation responsibility seriously and recognize the impact that such action can have on individual landowners.
* Utah's city and town leaders also recognize that condemnation can, at times, be considered a friendly action and threatening such action can also provide certain tax advantages to the "threatened" with condemnation.
The purpose of the amendments to the Community Development and Redevelopment Agency Act are to effectively address the existence of blight in Utah’s communities, and provide condemnation tools to be used judiciously by Utah’s municipalities.
The Amendments would:
1. Redefine blight and the redevelopment of blighted areas as an appropriate use for eminent domain.
2. Implement a threshold of “receptiveness” to the use of eminent domain. At least 2/3rd of the property owners representing at least ½ of the land area must be under option to buy, or willing to sell without the threat or use of eminent domain in order for eminent domain to be used on the “hold-out” properties.
3. Require a separate super-majority vote of the governing body before eminent domain can be included in the project area plan and implemented by the agency.
4. Reinstate the relocation assistance provisions for property owners of condemned properties.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, recommend the following:
Support legislation proposed by the ULCT RDA Subcommittee to implement amendments, as outlined, to the Community Development and Redevelopment Agency Act.
Resolution submitted by the ULCT RDA Subcommittee.
So Dorothy, if everyone esle that owned property down there had been satisfied with the offers that they got for their land and were willing to sell, you would have not stood in the way?
I wonder if there was anyone in that area that really wanted to sell, either to Wal-Mart or the city as proxy, but because a few others didn't want to, ended up losing significant amount of money?
And I believe that the beginning of the move to allow government to use ED for economic development and redevelopment was probably cities getting rid of slums and building public housing projects. Of course looking back, that may not have been, in the long run, the best option.
There were people in the area that did want to sell and saw this as a good opportunity. There were others that did not, and it wasn't about making more money by being hold outs. It was Godfrey and Reid that smeared them with that lie.
One neighbor wanting to cash out does not justify forcing the other neighbors to sell.
When the city started this action ED was still in full force and all of the property owners were faced with the threat to sell at the city's predermined chintzy price or the city would take them through ED action. Not exactly a willing seller - willing buyer scenario.
As far as getting rid of "slums", a good goal incidently, there is only two cities in Utah that are affected. Those being Ogden and Salt Lake. Even there we are not talking real slums in the Chicago or Philly sense, but small pockets of run down parts of town. That does not justify a statewide law that will mostly give ambitious kingdom building politicians more room to do their mischief.
In this WalMart case it seems to me like the richest company in the world could very well have bought out the whole neighborhood at fair prices and accomplished through fairness what they failed at by trying threats of force. A concept entirely lost on the arrogant little holder of the "keys" on the ninth floor.
Just because this new proposed incarnation of ED is less draconian than the old one does not make it any less evil.
If the politicians would just get out of the way, the market would solve the few pockets of blight that exist in Utah.
New comments are not allowed.