For those carefully following the developments at Powder Mountain resort, we've found three informative articles this morning, reporting on last night's Weber County Commission public hearing agenda.
The Salt Lake Tribune's Kristen Moulton provides her writeup here.
The Standard-Examiner's Brooke Nelson story can be viewed here.
During last night's meeting, both the Commission and the Developer's representative framed the discussion as if there were only two alternatives on the table, i.e., 1) Approval of a County Commission/Powder Mountain development agreement, or alternatively, 2) Completion of Powderville town incorporation under the terms of the original SB 466.
Ogden Valley Forum has a thoughtful article on the subject this morning too, which delves into a discussion of a third alternative which goes beyond the two options listed above -- litigation in federal court. From this morning's OVF article:
You have to admire the chutzpah of the Powder Mountain people. They are trying to hold a gun to the head of the Weber County Commission and Weber County citizens by threatening to go forward with the incorporation petition if they don't get everything they want, including the additional units beyond what they asked for originally.Read Ogden Valley Forum's full morning article here. It's short but sweet, with a flavor resembling a citizen manifesto. Yes, litigation remains a viable alternate -- perhaps the most viable alternative of all. Moreover, this "hanging alternative," (a "wildcard alternative" if you will), is just the kind of option that's likely to keep both the County and the Developer at the bargaining table.
We in the Valley have news for Powder Mountain and Weber County. Bring on the Incorporation! It is very likely that a Federal Court will see things differently on the incorporation and the denial of the civil rights of Weber County citizens due to the ill advised HB466. A Federal Court case could tie up the process for years and during that time, Powder Mountain can sit on its assets.
Your blogmeister also attended last night's meeting, and had originally intended to write his own article on the topic. Thanks to the hard work of the authors above however, all of the important issues arising at last night's hearing are embodied within one of the above articles or another.
We'll nevertheless throw in our own two bits, with a couple of observations we made during last night's two hour meeting:
1) Last night's hearing was a wonderful demonstration of openness, transparency and democracy in government, we believe. No fewer than 25 concerned citizens made their way to the podium last night to make their comments, and lodge their objections to the skeletal draft proposal which was presented by the developer. One of these citizens actually made a second trip to the microphone, without any objection from Commissioner Zogmeister, Commission Chair. Although an electronic 3-minute clock prominently ticked away in one corner of the commission chamber, it was quite clear that nobody was watching the clock. Our County Commissioners listened intently to the sometimes long-winded citizens, leaving your blogmeister with the distinct impression that the commissioners were quite interested in all citizen input which was offered. We believe this impression was shared by most hearing attendees. After the hearing, scores of citizens remained in the chamber and hallways for an impromptu post-mortem; and it seemed to us that everyone was "all smiles." Everyone got to "speak their minds;" nobody got shut down in mid-sentence upon the running of the three-minute clock. There are lessons in this for other local government officials, we think (wink-wink).
2) Commissioner Dearden performed with particular distinction, we believe. Upon the conclusion of the meeting he pressed the Developer's representative for a "date certain" by which a complete written copy of the Developer's proposed agreement could be furnished to the commission, for posting on the Weber County government website. After some hemming and hawing, the Developer's representative agreed to furnish such a document "within a week."
Not only that, Dearden closed the meeting with this final comment (and parting shot) to the Developer: "I'd suggest that you take another look at density." Project density, of course, was one of the two prime objections (along with inadeqate roads) raised by many of the concerned citizens last night. With Commissioner Dearden's pointed admonition, it was clear to most in attendance, we think, that Commissioner Dearden is carefully looking after the citizens' interests.
We'll now open the floor for reader comments. Let's hear from other meeting attendees who might want to throw in their own two cents.
