By Curmudgeon
Just up on the Salt Lake Tribune website: "Powder Mountain Town petition postponed for more discussion", per Kristen Moulton.
OGDEN - Opponents of the proposed Powder Mountain Town won a minor victory this morning when the Weber County Commission delayed the developer's petition to form a town until the commission, developers and opponents sit down and talk.Seems to me the Republican establishment, or elements of it facing re-election this year, are beginning to scramble to find a way out from under the mess their developer owned and operated legislators created when they snuck the Developers' Dream Act through late in the session last year. My my my, will wonders never cease....
Commissioner Craig Dearden said he wants to find out if Powder Mountain's owner, Western America Holdings, is willing to compromise with residents of the Eden area who don't want to be part of the new town.
"I don't know where it's going to go, but I thought it was worth a shot to . . . see if we can come up with a solution that might work," Dearden said.
Powder Mountain spokeswoman Lisa Davis said the developers are happy to accommodate Dearden's request.
"We've been proactive in soliciting public opinion," she said, pointing to a series of public meetings and one-on-one sessions between resort representatives and residents.
"Hopefully we'll have a good, productive discussion," Davis said.
Darla Longhurst-Van Zeben, whose home would be in Powder Mountain Town, said the delay is a good idea. But she doubts Powder Mountain owners will give residents what they want: the ability to opt out or the right to vote for town council members if they're forced into the new town.
10 comments:
5subhb164 just passed and is headed to the governors' desk
Here's how it works in America, Curm:
1) the citizens get upset,
2) the write and call their local government officiial to complaian,
3) local officiails react, and take action to protect their citizens from encroachment upon their interests.
That's how it's supposed to work in America; and that's how it seems to be working now in Weber County.
I have no problem with yellow dog democrats who wish to spin the facts for the next election.
Rumor has it though that you Demos will once again fail to field a slate of capable demo challengers to challenge the Republicans you criticise, even though they're responding to their contituents' complaints.
Seems to me you should applaud the Weber County Commission for what they've done now -- which is to serve the interests of Weber County citizens who reside in Ogden Valley.
We love a good political scrap. We'll see ya's for that in November.
;-)
"5subhb164 just passed and is headed to the governors' desk"
Exactly right-- a remedial bill WITHOUT retroactive provisions. Time for the inevitable lawsuit. We love a good righteous lawsuit where the citizens are standing up for their God-given natural rights, even more than we love a regular political scrap.
Just got off the phone with Gage Froerer, BTW. He and Senator Allen Christensen tried to engineer an amendment on the Senate floor... and got slapped down hard by the Senate neoCONS.
We'll put up the Senate audio as soon as it's available.
Rudi:
Hmmmm... the elected listening to their anger of the people, eh? Just how does that fit in with the "fix" going to the guv without retroactivity?
The way it's spozed to work is the elected looking out for the interests of "the people" before they sell their souls and votes to developers, create a mess, and then notice the people are buying pitchforks and torches.
Or so we teach 'em in the schools. But maybe it's different here in the Republican Utopia of Zion.
Rudi is correct.
The pols are listening. Just because they didn't do EVERYTHING is no reason to throw rocks.
Thank you elected officials, for listening. Perhaps the county commissioners can work out something. In the meantime, the looming depression will do plenty to stop the Powderville promoters - if not killing the project, at least delaying it for a few years to work out issues.
On another controversial subject, I note Greiner supports SB81, to bring some reason and enforcement finally, to illegal aliens.
And Greiner pushed bills to allow warrantless searches of parolees, and to stop assembly and recruiting of gangs.
Good for him.
These have been attacked by some here on constitutional grounds. These people, it appears, know virtually nothing about the purposes of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
How's that for throwing down the gauntlet? Pity, the evening nurse will soon be arriving and I must draw the curtains and close the laptop once again, else I would love to argue it.
There are plenty of good reasons to oust this county commission without the Powderville mess. I find their stance on the UTA tax to be spineless and unacceptable.
Danny:
You wrote: And Greiner pushed bills to allow warrantless searches of parolees, and to stop assembly and recruiting of gangs.
Good for him.
These have been attacked by some here on constitutional grounds. These people, it appears, know virtually nothing about the purposes of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Ah, Danny, Constitutional Scholar, I'd be interested, being one of those people who apparently knows nothing about the purposes of the Bill of Rights, to be educated about its purpose by one who does. Here I was, going along thinking the Bill of Rights [first ten amendments] were added to the Constitution [over the objections of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention] specifically to protect the rights of individuals, and particularly individuals in a minority, against incursion by government, to identify some rights that were beyond the reach of majority violation. Now where did I get that idea?
Where oh where did I go wrong?
Curm,
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, intended to allow people like you and me to freely criticize the government, which we do with impunity.
It was never meant to provide for the rights of hoodlums to congregate in a mall to intimidate people and harass young women or to make it difficult to prevent such behavior.
Following the interpretation of persons such as yourself, freedom is meaningless, because we have a de-facto mob rule by persons who simply game the system.
Your comments about protecting the minority from the majority are wrong. This is modern mumbo jumbo and finds no support in the Constitution at all. You interpretation has resulted in minority rule time and time again.
I don't blame you for your errors. They are shared by many.
Danny:
You might perhaps want to go back and do a little research on the origins of the Bill of Rights. Protecting individuals, particularly those whose views were not held by the majority, was one of the major motives behind it. The rights involved, like free speech, were specifically placed beyond the reach of government control precisely to protect unpopular speech and opinions not held by the majority. [It was assumed that views held by the majority needed no specific protection since the majority would control the elected government.]
You assume that the first amendment applied only to speech critical of the government. That kind of speech was certainly intended to be protected by the amendment, it seems not to have been the only kind of speech protected.
As for the amendment never having been intended to provide for the rights of hoodlums to congregate in a mall or harass young women or make it difficult to prevent such behavior: of course not. Such behavior is covered under a variety of laws making, among other things, disorderly conduct, assault and harassment illegal.
Still, there are problems with your statement and its implication that "hoodlums" are not entitled to first amendment protections. Right off the bat, who defines "hoodlum"? I remind you that the rebels of 1776 were routinely described as bandits by His Majesty's Government. If we're going to give to the police [government] the power to decide that you... or I... or anyone they don't like [war protesters? Animal rights advocates? Sierra Clubbers? Republicans?] is a "hoodlum" and therefor is not covered by the bill of rights, we will soon have few liberties left. It's telling to me that you think the bill of rights protecting the liberties of minorities is "mumbo jumbo."
Nothing whatever about the libertarian [and ACLU] approach to the first amendment implies in any way "defacto mob rule."
Now, about the gang problem, which is a serious one, we all agree. The potential problem with Greiner's solution... that it will become illegal for gang members to congregate on a street corner for the purpose of recruiting new members... is this: how, exactly, are police to determine if four teens standing on a corner are "gang members" under the law or are there for an illegal purpose? By sight? Hunch? It is a standard so loose it abuse will all but inevitably occur. And has been throughout American history when loose standards of presumed criminal conduct are applied. I've seen it. While I was in Madison, Wisconsin one year during the VN war, the city authorities tried to quell an anti-war protest by declaring an entire neighborhood [mostly occupied by students] to be an "illegal assembly" zone, and ordering the police to arrest any conglomeration of people greater than three from assembling anywhere in public within it --- including front porches. A state judge rapidly struck the order down, as he should have.
Which is why the courts have, since the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, acted to strike down vague statutes like the gang laws proposed by Greiner.
He says he's found a formula that the courts will uphold. I am skeptical but am willing to give it a look-see. But the notion that cruising police... aka "the government"... could simply declare that three or four or more people meeting on a corner, with no other evidence whatever of wrong doing or intent to commit a crime, have by the mere fact of meeting, committed a crime, makes me very nervous about the potential for abuse of power. It should make you nervous too.
Well said Curm. I fought in the VN war against my better instincts. But figured there was enough good about our Country - even if history says she was wrong on occasion - to defend what is good about her. The constitutional rights of those who protested the war were as important and just as my right to defend her. Their right to burn her flag was/is as important as my right to bleed for her and even die if I must, just as my father did in 1945.
A Constitutionally limited republic based upon democratic principles - means we are governed by laws which can only exist if they pass scrutiny by constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices. And these people can not be allowed to evolve nor create laws based upon "street corner" lawyers or cops. They are simply to simple for the task generally, no matter how good their meanings or intentions.
But then my civics class was back in 1958-60 so I could be wrong about the whole thing...?
Post a Comment