Sunday, February 10, 2008

Powder Mountain Development Update: The Plot Sickens

Another dunning reminder to SIGN THE PETITION!

Interesting twist in the Powder Mountain development/town incorporation brouhaha, with Friday's Marshall Thompson story, reporting that a Powder Mountain development project manager had held a meeting with the Cache County planning commission on Thursday:

LOGAN — If the proposed town of Powder Mountain incorporates in Weber County, it could annex the nearly 3,500 acres of the ski resort that lies in Cache County, a county planner said Thursday.

Brooke Hontz, a project manager for Powder Mountain, asked to speak to the Cache County Planning Commission to explain how the petition to incorporate as an independent municipality in Weber County will affect service agreements in Cache Valley.

“It will not affect the process in Cache County,” Hontz said. “It really is the same situation.”
So although people from the planning commission ostensibly got together to work out details regarding "service agreements," (with an emphasis on water issues) affecting Cache County, clearly there appeared an elephant in the room -- and other more important concerns were plainly on the minds of Cache County officials, regarding the PM developer's town incorporation plans:

But planning commissioners asked if Powder Mountain resort turns into Powder Mountain Town, could it expand across the county line to include land in Cache County.

“They could, in theory, incorporate the Town of Powder Mountain in Weber and then annex the portions that are in Cache,” said Josh Runhaar, county planner.

If that happens, he added, the county would no longer have any land use authority for the area, and the town would create its own zoning regulations.

“They would even set their own road standards,” Runhaar said.
If you're thinking Cache County planners may be a mite nervous about the bull-in-a-china-shop developer from Weber County encroaching upon the planning authority of Cache County, you're probably right. Although the Powder Mountain developer has handled Cache County officials with kid gloves so far, you'd better believe those officials are painfully aware that the same pushy folks who are riding roughshod over the citizens of Ogden Valley (and Weber County) are also casting a covetous eye toward the 3,486 acres of Cache County mountain acreage which are described in their project master plan. If they succeed in obtaining town status under the provisions of the flawed HB-466, annexation of the Cache County land could likely be a relatively easy slam-dunk, we believe.

It's in that connection that we once again issue a dunning reminder to all residents of any county which might be remotely affected by the Powder Mountain town incorporation action, to beat feet over to the Ogden Valley Forum blogsite to sign the petition.

Time's a'wasting, gentle readers. As set forth in Friday's Std-Ex article, the PM developers are optimistic that town status could be achieved in as little as "two or three weeks."

And if the foregoing isn't enough to get you all riled up, read today's Deja Mitchell letter to the editor.

The petition is available for your electronic signature here. Don't forget to provide your zip code, which helps with signature verification, and lets individual legislators know they're hearing from their own constituents.

The floor is now open for reader comments. Surely at least a few of our readers will have something to say about this.


Minor Machman said...

I am paying 191 bucks for a postage stamp size black and white public notice to run only two times.

How much does the Realtor/Developer Association pay daily for a 7 to 8 full page color advertisement?

Any wonder why the Realtor Association skullduggery and ethically challenged business and legislation in this State is never called on the mat?

Is that good business or being complicent in undue influence?

Ogden Valley is faced with an invasion...and it "ain't" from Mexico.

J. Spencer said...

I am still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of a state legislature that would pass a law allowing a single developer to draw boundaries and incorporate a company town without even giving it's inhabitants a chance to vote on it. And I don't believe it was accidental.

Throw all the bums out in November!

winston said...

If the legislature doesn't act to correct this warped law it seems like some one will surely challenge this in the courts. It seem that the people that live in these proposed new towns have had their constitutional rights to vote for their city officials denied.

Any constitutional lawyers here that can give us an opinion?

NoMoPowMow said...

It is also no coincidence that State Senator Lyle Hillyard, who supported HB466, also just happens to be a Cache Valley attorney representing Powder Mountain.


Its integrity stupit! don't you get it. said...

Do what is right said...

Maybe all you know it all's should read the standard editoral first and see just where Hansen is coming from.
Read it and then open your mouths.

Legislative swag baggers

After perusing the state’s online lobbyist disclosure forms, the first question that springs to mind is: Do our state lawmakers ever pay for their own meals?

Have a look for yourself at It’s enough to make you gasp — immediately followed by an involuntary deepening of your cynicism regarding our elected leaders. More than half of the $279,000

gifts, , , etc., given to lawmakers during 2007 is listed without the names of recipients attached. That’s because lobbyists don’t have to identify the receiver if the freebie is under $50.

You’ll notice, as we did, that lots of gifts are listed as being worth $49.

Our opinion on this issue has been consistent over the : Lawmakers and state executives should ban gifts, period. But since that’s not likely to happen soon — at least one lawmaker in an open meeting has tearfully defended the free meals and event tickets and rounds of golf as deserved compensation for time spent on state business and away from a loving family at home — we have repeatedly requested that all gifts be reported, no matter the value.

But lawmakers are so wedded to their gifts — along with their own anonymity — that they refuse to do even this.

It’s difficult to believe lawmakers when they say the gifts don’t influence them. Of course they do. If they didn’t, they’d give them up.

Who takes them? Just about everybody’s mentioned in the reports as having received at least one freebie over the $50 reporting threshold. Some have even taken trips, and lots of them are wined and dined with spouses in tow — maybe the way to a legislator’s heart is through his or her spouse.

If lawmakers really don’t

up to where it should be, they should ban the gifts and raise their own pay.

This won’t happen in an election year, so don’t look for anyone outside a newspaper editorial page to suggest such a thing in 2008, but this suggestion should be seriously considered

Unfortunately, we are at a time in our state’s history where people running for office — local, county and state — really don’t do it just because they want to serve; almost everyone seems always to be asking for a little bit more return for the time they spend performing the public’s business.

OK, then. If that’s the way it has to be, give up the gifts and raise the pay. At least that way the only thing voters can complain about is incompetence — graft, the situation we have right now, is a lot worse than being overpaid.

February 11, 2008 1:01 AM

look in the mirror said...

So Mr. Googleboy and Myra.
I guess that you really look like an dumbass for calling Hansen dumb when you should look in the mirror.

Minor Machman said...

Doesn't the second amendment to the Constitiution have an "Equal Protections Clause? Where was the Constitutional Review Commission on this HB 466? Asleep or with their heads up the Realtor/Developer arse? I found it interesting that while HB 466 was being "scrutinized" there was another Bill cosponsored by Rep. Froerer which also allowed an "end run" around local Planning Commissions. Me thinks they were loading both barrels while claiming "We (the Realtor Assoc.) defend private property rights." Froerer was a past President of the Realtor Association. He and the Realtor/developer influence and medling in legislative affairs must stop at the polls if not sooner. He is only one of many in the legislature. Unless you want more of the same...that is?

Myra said...

Look in the Mirror

Wow, that was about the funniest line ever written on the WCF!

And I thought you guys were on strike!!

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved