Standard-Examiner: The Powder Mountain Debate Rages On

Why one gentle reader does not find it reassuring that Rep. Froerer is trying to cut a deal with the Powderville jackals that starts "at the development agreement"

By Curmudgeon

The Standard-Examiner has up Friday morning a good news/bad news piece on the Powderville mess:

• Powder Mtn. debate rages on, unsettled

First, the good news. The Utah Supreme Court, which has received appeals from both sides in the controversy, has issued a stay order to prevent the appointing of a town government by the developers until the appeals can be heard by the court. The developers opposed the stay order, but the court issued it anyway.

And what did the developers have to say about all this? From the story: "Spokespeople for the town sponsors did not return calls for comment." Of course. Such people much prefer to operate in dark damp places out of the public eye. It is their natural environment.

The story reports that opponents of Powderville [aka residents of the developer-decreed and to-be-developer-governed town] are also hoping the legislature's leadership will not this year cave to the realtor lobby as it did last year by preventing a bill to give town residents the immediate right upon incorporation to dissolve the town by popular vote. Based on past performance, relying on the House leadership to do the right thing when its Utah realtor lobby masters wants it to do otherwise is a doubtful strategy unlikely. But we can still hope, I suppose. Miracles do happen they say.

And the not-so-good news? The story reports that Rep. Gage "Asleep At The Switch" Froerer [who managed not to notice that his constituents were being sold down the river in the Developers Dream Bill] is trying to cut a deal with the developers. From the story:

While the talks are still very preliminary, Froerer said he thinks a deal is in everyone's best interest....
Froerer said he wants to go back to the beginning of the problem. "We can pull the lawsuit, pull the incorporation off the table and start at the development agreement," he said.

Uh oh. Mr. Froerer's legislative career has mostly involved his sitting up and rolling over on cue from the Utah realtors' lobby [as frequent poster Machman has often pointed out]. Why do I not find it reassuring that Mr. Froerer is trying to cut a deal with the Powderville jackals that starts "at the development agreement?"

Going to be interesting to see what the Utah Supreme Court does with the appeals.