OCR Text |
Show Free Press - Wednesday, October 29, 1997 - Page 4 Growth out of control. Lehi needs managed growth initiative By DONNA LOTT Our mayor and city council members would have you believe that the managed growth initiative would take away the rights of property owners to do what they want with their land. They say it would only benefit the wealthy and discriminate against the rest. Right now the appointed planning and zoning commission determine what you can and cannot do with that same land. It would be no different if this initiative passes, only there would be fewer large developments. There are "For Sale" signs on exist- ing homes and lots all over town Why don't we build where we already have the services in place? This initiative would not impact building sites inside the city limits. It would simply put us back to about the growth rate we had before the big developers started buy ing up land and constructing homes everywhere. They also say that this initiative would drive up the value of homes. The values have already gone up dramatically because of our accelerated growth and would only become worse if we continue down our current path. We are annexing land right and left with many people being forced to do so against their will. People are being approached about annexing into Lehi from the southeast end of American Fork to the Redwood Road. How can we supply services to places like that? And if we do, how can we afford them? Who pays to run them to these outlying areas? As things are going now, they claim they will not raise your taxes, but for each $1 houses bring in taxes it costs $1.30 for municipal services. Who pays the bill? that this initiative Opponents say would destroy their "master plan" but when a big developer wanted to change the zoning to fit their needs, it was done in a heartbeat even though it did not comply with the plan. They say if Lehi doesn't annex everything around it someone else will. Hopefully not, but if it happens, let them pay for the services and find the water to accommodate everything. I don't think developers will be so quick to build in outlying areas if they don't have Lehi City to pay the bill for most of the infrastructure. The cities around us don't seem to be obsessed with annexing everything in sight like we are. The council members say the growth has already slowed down, but developers are not petitioning to have thousands of acres annexed into the city Stan Sorensen and Business Law specialist and college professor, the Committee for Sensible Growth in Lehi asked me to respond to some of the claims made by the folks who would restrictions impose the Gestapo-typ- e on the city's growth under the guise of Iniative. their "Limited-Growth- " First of all, Midway and St. George have rejected this same initiative within the past five years. Why? Because the people of those two communities, when they understood the facts of actually trying to live with the limitations of the initiative, voted it down resoundingly! One must ask the question ... why haven't other towns and cities in Utah, one of the nation's fastest growing states, adopted this limited growth program, if it is such a great boon to mankind0 Why hasn't Park City, located in Summit County, the fastest growing county in the nation, adopted a limited growth proposal? Because their citizens are smart enough to know that we still live in a representative democracy, not a command economy such as China and Cuba, and Americans do not want their rights taken away from them by a few misguided citizens who want to stop them from doing what they desire with their own property and from living where they desire to live. Secondly, this group have touted as "facts" some information about four h initiatives cities who have in place. Well, I called each of these cities and spoke with people in their planning departments and these are the real facts about those four cities (I teach niv students to never assume By an Economics limit-growt- anything, and so I did not assume that their "facts" were accurate): 1. I spoke with Vickie Johnson in Boulder City. Nev., which has had a limit of 120 building permits a year since 1976. Want to know why? Because during World War II, the area that is now Boulder City was a huge CCC camp set up to help construct Boulder Dam, and after the project was finished, Boulder City owned all of the vacant property within its borders. There are no land owners of undeveloped land in Boulder City, except Boulder City, so it easy for them to control things? Incidentally, Las Vegas, Boulder City's neighbor, has had rapid growth and most of Clark County's growth has gone to Las Vegas and not Boulder City. 2. I spoke with Jim Hare, Senior Planner in San Clemente, Claif. Your folks said they have a three percent limit on growth there ... not so, guys, according to Jim Hare. San Clemente allows 500 building permits a year that's an enormous difference from what you told us were the "facts" about San Clemente! Thirdly, I called Bob Nevins, Senior Planner for Aspen, Colo., which is a " ski development. "Park Again, your "facts" aren't quite correct, guys. Mr. Nevins said their grwoth initiative is two percent, not the three percent you presented as "fact." But he also said that they have made many "exceptions" to their plan. Aspen felt they had to do something about the thousands of rich folks who want to live near the world-clas- s skiing at Aspen and who want to have their own "estate in the mountains," and who have the money to do about anything limit-growt- h City-type- they want to do... so they put some limits on who could spend all their money in the area around the resort! Fourthly, I put in calls for Jane Thompson, Planner in Petaluma, Calif., but she was out all week. I'm sure some of your "facts" about Petaluma would have also been incorrect! Where did you get your information, anyway! Obviously, not from the people who live in these cities! h Question: Why have less than of one percent of America's cities h initiative like adopted a this one? Because it is not good for American citizens and most towns still believe in living under democratic principles! I honestly believe that the wording in this initiative is unconstitutional and I believe that courts in Utah would uphold my belief. St. George and Midway's city attorneys believe that also. Litigation is very costly and guess who pays? Lehi's residents will pay all court and lawyer costs. Oh, and incidentally, the individuals responsible for pushing this initiative would also be named as litigants in any lawsuits that one-tent- limit-growt- would be filed. Next, your have you believe limit-growt- folks would by a h that a decision liberal judge in California's Ninth District, whose decih sion that the initiative there is not unconstitutional, would be accepted as such by people in Utah. That is really absurd. Each of these tort which means cases are that there are not any twosituations in the world that are exactly the same nor any two judges in this nation who see things exactly the same and you can bet your life on the fact that Lehi City Clinton-appointe- d limit-growt- "facts-sensitiv- this initiative. It has been called arbitrary and capricious, but this is not something we just dreamt up. Many citizens of Lehi who are responsible and thoughtful people had input into this. It is based on programs that are working very well in many communities at the present time. The legality of these limitations has been tested and found constitutional by the courts all the way to the Supreme Court. Many residents received a message by phone stating that if this initiative passes your utility bills will go up 100 percent. This is absolutely untrue, and those responsible for that message know that. This is just another scare tactic to sway your vote. We ask that you spend a few minutes to sort out the truth, consider what it will achieve, and then decide what you want for the f uture of our city. restrictions for Lehi City Growth initiative amounts to Gestapo-typ- e As (with the blessings of city officials) just for the privilege of belonging to Lehi. They plan large developments for most of this land. What does this do for us besides cost us money? We still feel that water is the most important factor in our future development. We have been blessed with a lot of moisture lately but if our city becomes too large we will have a real problem when we go back into the dry cycle. Our city officials say we elected them to take care of these matters and this initiative would tie their hands. We thought we elected them to represent the people of Lehi and carry out their wishes, not for them to decide everything for us. Maybe someone should have tied their hands before now. You will hear many things before election day to sway your vote against would face extensive litigation over this initiative, both from developers and from private citizens whose home plans the American Constitution. Well, I teach the constitution in my American Government courses and you are right it is there to protect on this one guys from people like you who citizens would be controlled by an group whose own festishes and prejudices would enter into each and every would establish dictatorship-typ- e polidecision made concerning who could cies to control what folks can and canbuild and what type of dwelling they not do in their own community. would be allowed to build in Lehi. Finally, the annexation procedures Next, they stated that Cary Peterson, in Utah County are based on the demoUtah's Commissioner of Agricluture, is cratic principle of majority rule and mortified because because people are have been adopted by the State of not farming their land, but choosing to Utah. Anyone who is annexed against develop it. Well, let's challenge Mr. his or her will is brought in because a Peterson to come down and run a 200 majority of his or her neighbors want acre farm in Lehi for one year and see if the annexation. As you know, there are he and his family can live off the land some people in Lehi who oppose anyands tay alive for that year. Times are thing and everything that anyone changing folks. Six percent of wants to do that affects them in any e agriclu-tura- l Americans are now in way. It is sort of hard to be an island businesses and those six percent unto yourself anywhere, except maybe supply food for America and a large per- on a desert island. This initiative will cost Lehi resicentage of the rest of the world. The family farm is not a viable way to make dents more money for utilities and a living any more, unless you have property taxes, and will definitely lock their own children out of Lehi and force about 1,000 to 5,000 acres to farm. Next, they talked about water. Well, them to live someplace else. Let's be since the late 1970;'s Lehi City has honest about it Saratoga Springs required that all land that is developed couldn't annex into Lehi so they formed must bring to the city enough water to their own town. Lehi loses the revenues from the tax base those people would take care of the needs of that development. No water, no development. Sound generate. Don't you think other areas around Lehi will do the same? I know policy. So, where is the water problem. Next, this group seems to think that they will. Lehi will have the population Lehi City officials are taking bribes impact but will derive no revenues at all from rich developers and setting aside from those developments, just as they the Master Plan for the benefit of those will derive none from Saratoga Springs. Think long and hard before you turn developers. O.K. Dean and Dick, tell us Lehi into a housing dictatorship, run by who it is and we'll help you prosecute them. Pretty nasty allegations.. .or is an appointed body to decide who can this some more of your "facts" which and cannot live in Lehi. I would deficannot be verified. nitely vote to defeat this dangerous and Next, they roll out a comment about costly initiative. full-tim- Reader's Forum Mayors oppose initiative Editor: Having served as mayor of Lehi for several years some time back, I have concerns about the effort by citizens to stunt the some of our growth of Lehi City over the next several years. Growth is a pure fact of life in Utah. Fact is people want to live among us here in this great state of ours and they are going to keep coming, no matter what we may do here in Lehi. I have three major concerns about limiting growth with a restriction on building permits in Lehi City: 1. The city council and mayor and city manager and city planner and city engineers and others have already put a master plan in place for the orderly growth of our city. It seems to me that if we pass this initiative we are slapping our city officials in the face and saying, "What you have done is not sufficient and we are going to take this situation out of your hands and ultimately let the courts decide," because I am quite sure that the city would be sued by developers and famlies who want to develop and live here, but who cannot due to the passage of this initiative. 2. People are going to move to Utah County to live and if Lehi locks them out, they will simply move to Saratoga Springs, American Fork, Draper or Cedar Valley and we still get some of the impact of the increased population on our streets, roads and schools, but some other municipality gets the benefit of the tax revenues and utilities revenues and property tax revenues! Do we want Lehi to be the only city in the county who locks people out? I don't think we want that stigma hanging over our well-meani- city. 3. I have children, just like most of you have. They graduated from Lehi High School and some of them would love to settle down here in Lehi and raise their families here. If we limit the growth we could be locking our own children out of the town they grew up in and forcing them to live somewhere else! I don't feel that is right. I surely would not want to lock my own children out of Lehi. if this is the place they really want to live ... do you? Garrv Sampson Ronald Smith Evan Colledge, Jr. Bill Gibbs - current mayor Initiative will hurt Lehi Editor: Growth will continue in Northern LTtah County with or without Richard Smith's Initiative One. And with that growth will come the good (i.e. economic prosperity and opportunity) and the bad (i.e. more traffic on Main Street). The question is will the voters let Lehi's public servants continue to manage that growth for Lehi's benefit by defeating Initiative One? Or will they send the growth and its control to Saratoga and Eagle Mountain and leave Lehi with only the growing pains? Join us in defeating Initiative 1 Nov. 4th! Dan Sorensen Mel Frandsen Dale Johnson Steve Romney Paul Taggart Make City Center happen Editor: A place that youth can gather to be constructive. A place for families to play together. A place that community interest classes can be taught, day and night. A place for seniors to meet, exercise, dance and share. A place the arts can be taught, practiced and shared. A place for people to keep fit, safe from the hazards of weather, animals and traffic. A place for couples to go knowing their children are safe and nearby. A place in Lehi and not somewhere else. There are many reasons for a Lehi RecreationCommunity Center. There is only one against. Money. We all would like to have one and many of us see a great need for one. But no one needs or wants a $17 million debt. Such a debt is bad for everyone. Yet, on Nov. 4, we will be asked to approve or disapprove such a debt. To approve it is wrong, but to disapprove it is also wrong. To disapprove it would be to send the message that we, the citizens of Lehi, do not want it. We do want it. What we don't want is the debt. On Wednesday, Oct. 22, in the city council chambers, James Dixon, Reldon Barnes, Ken Greenwood, Carl Mellor, Rick Worthen and Johnny Barnes unanimously affirmed the need for it. Each of them expressed how they wanted it for our community, and each expressed serious reservations about going into debt to acquire it. Each and everyone of them stated that, given the chance, they would find a way to pay for it without going into $17 million of debt. They, in fact, promised to do so, They promised to seek grants. They promised to set aside monies each year for it. They promised to use donations and volunteerism to get it done. They promised to seek further public input on exactly what was wanted and needed. On Tuesday, Nov. 4, let us show our support for a Lehi RecreationCommunity Center by voting yes. Then, let us hold these men to their promises. Let's stop just talking about it, and start the process to make it happen. Michael and Michelle Corbett Editor: Lehi City might annex 1000 acres of farm land south and southeast of Lehi City all the way to Utah Lake. This area would be zoned residential Lehi needs initiative to pass (three homes per acre), planned community (which would include 500 homes near the lake shore, and light industrial. This land is agriculture ground and wetlands , near the lake and Spring Creek. All this land is prime pheasant, duck and other wildlife habitat. Hunting would be banned because, it is against the law to discharge a firearm or hunt within Lehi City limits. A development with so many homes would push the wildlife out. One developer has owned property less than a year, yet will pull 23 residents and landowners into Lehi City against their will if the area southeast of Lehi is annexed. At a recent Planning and Zoning meeting, a representative for the developer said he received a favorable response from the Lehi City Council for building this development. Some of the Lehi officials have said we need all this growth for homes for our children. The way Lehi is growing now, with this uncontrolled growth causing traffic, crime and other problems, my children don't care if they live her. If this uncontrolled growth continues, it might not be much different than living in West Valley City. Scare tactics have been used by the developers and some city officials to try and keep people from voting for the Controlled Growth Initiative. I don't believe your taxes will raise by reducing the amount of new roads, sewer lines, electricity lines, water lines, police protection, fire protection, new schools and other services that would otherwise be needed for all this uncontrolled growth. I think it would be a great benefit for the present residents of Lehi, and the farmers in the surrounding areas, if the Controlled Growth Initiative 1 to manage growth in Lehi City passes. Dave Messersmith Don't tax for center Editor: We were surprised to receive the mailing promoting the bond for the new Lehi Community Center, since we're not within the city. Then we realized that, according to the Lehi Master Planning Map, Lehi City has "claimed" us in a "not to exceed three units per acre" zone. We're like residents of Puerto Rico: "A voice but no vote." Therefore, consider our voice: We winced when we read one of the reasons to vote "YES" for this bond is because "67 percent of the polled citizens plan on voting yes for this center". We surmise one should vote in favor "because most everybody wants it". (Especially since after asking if they were willing to pay for it the response dropped to 58 percent.) . "(KIeeping kids active and out of trouble" infers the community should be nursemaid instead of individuals being responsible for their behavior. What is the criteria for using tax dollars to provide facilities and services? Because most of the people in a community could benefit from them? Then why not build grocery stores (or auto service centers, botiques, etc.), with tax dollars as well? Surely more people would use a grocery store than a recreational meeting facility. Food and sundry items could be offered at a lower price because the building could be built with low interest government type bond money. Residents of the city would pay a discounted price. It would be a smart investment. It would be a place for everyone, young and old! If building a Community Center is proposed to be financed in part by corporate gifts and volunteer donations, why not set it up as a fully funded venture by individuals and corporations? Think about it. Sell shares to those who would really use the center. It could be similar in operation to a credit union or a buyers Elect a chair and board of directors. Hire operation officers and other employees. Let the share holders have a discounted use fee. Allow use of the facility for the elderly, the financially disadvantaged through individual and corporate sponsors or by charter of the venture if the share holders want. Perhaps the cenYMCA and have ter could qualify as a the tax benefits of such. If revenue from renting the new auditorium for Ballet West, the Utah Symphony, or other concerts will help offset the cost of operation, let it happen. But don't tax subsidize it. There is much less motivation in utilizing a facility if a steady stream of revenue (tax dollars) unconnected with usefulness or level of service is required. A real, co-o- non-prof- it would actively seek to book such events "to the max." We know many, many cities have community centers with pools, gyms, indoor tracks, etc., etc. It seems to be fashionable. . Always under the guise of benefitting the entire community. But whatever good intentions there are to provide excellent service, it often degrades to service because the revenue is not directly related to how good a product or service is produced. ventures provide Again, many such recreational opportunities. Climbing walls, facilities, theater, etc. gymnasium type work-ou- t Some swimming pools are private ventures as are most water parks. Even if there are no businesses to compete in these areas, is it proper to vote money from businesses and taxpayers to be used primarily for recreational uses? You can make this proposed center a reality! But, please, don't vote it into existence! Kent and Nona Nielson . ho-hu- m nt |