Right to Petition will be eliminated for the first Time Under SB53.
The Deseret News hit the Nail on the Head when they reported
” A bill that would ban local initiatives or referendums for land-use or zoning measures, and would only allow protests before zoning ordinances are set, was approved by the House on Thursday.”
The main defender “The Utah Leagues of Cities and Towns” has said that this bill does not in anyway restrict the Current right to Petition the Government and codifies as Law certain Legal Decisions. The Bill Sponsor also reiterated it does not take away any current rights held by the Citizens of the State of Utah. One of the most sought after resources for this discussion was Craig Call a former Property Rights Ombudsmen for the State Of Utah. Craig who now works for the Utah Leagues of Cities and Towns, When pushed on the interpretation Stated ” The Legislature can restrict Referendums and Initiatives any way they want.” This was a total reversal of his original position.
Bill Excerpts “
32 (2) The legal voters of any county, city, or town may not require any budget adopted by
33 the local legislative body or the implementation of a land use ordinance adopted by the local
34 legislative body to be submitted to the voters. ”
In Talking to many Legal Experts on this Issue all were agreed minus Mr. Call. This bill does restrict current RIGHTS held by the People of Utah. Further more both the bill and the underlying Statute run afoul with the wording and intent of the Utah State Constitution. While no legal expert can for sure predict the ruling of any Judaical body. By reason and belief a Constitutional challenge has merit, and may even be a fruitful endeavor.
Below is the “Rest of the Story”, The flip side if you will, and what might happen if this bill is signed into Law.
The Flip Side of Side of Substitute S.B. 53
After obvious behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and deft slight of hand, by proponents of Substitute S.B. 53, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Brent Goodfellow, and in the House by Representative Kevin Garn, S.B. 53 passed unanimously out of committee with little discussion or questioning, and was quickly passed by both chambers.
With ample coaching by the Utah Association of Realtors and Utah League of Cities and Towns, The Bill’s sponsors claim that this law only deals with “administrative land use” matters, protects vested property rights and entitlements, and otherwise “doesn’t really change anything.”.
Unfortunately, that’s just one, twisted side of the story – and captures less than half the picture.
When pressed, the proponents and sponsors all claim that this is really good for property owners and property rights — investors, developers, etc. — and only affects land use administrative processes. Boy, do they have the blinders on!
Case in point: The small, rural community of Kanosh is in the process of debating a land use ordinance. This isn’t an administrative process. This is a legislative process. The ordinance hasn’t even been adopted yet. Although Kanosh Town already has a General Plan, which reflects the rural values and character of the community, after ample brainwashing by Utah League of Cities and Towns, the town planning commission recommended that the Town Council adopt a boilerplate, one-size-fits-all urban zoning ordinance that will be completely at odds with the town’s general plan, and attempt to urbanize the community.
This has been a hot issue in Kanosh. It has neighbors pitted against neighbors, friends against friends. The clique of people that are friends of the planning commission chairman won’t speak to, look at, or shake hands with most of the rest of the town, and particularly those who are opposing the proposed ordinance.
After much effort to open the process to public input and debate, the proposed ordinance has been put to much public discussion. There have been numerous public hearings both in the planning commission and town council. For a small town, many written comments have been submitted. Many people have spoken out about the proposed ordinance.
At the last final public hearing before the town council, which was so crowded that it had people spilling out into the street, aside from the planning commission chairman, not a single person out spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Not a single written comment has been submitted in support of the ordinance.
Yet — politics being what they are — three members of the town council seem determined to adopt the proposed ordinance. Although two council members attempted to convince the rest of the council to throw the ill-fitting ordinance out and start over, after having already invested much time ireviewing the proposed ordinance, going through and discussing it page by page, line by line, and word by word — for months — the majority of the council ultimately voted to continue that process — in an obvious attempt to simply try to outlast the crowd of opponents, so that the ordinance could ultimately be adopted late some night at the end of a town council meeting, when the council wouldn’t have to look into the eyes of quite so many constituents.
The night of the public hearing, a scout leader brought his troop to the meeting to observe the public process in action. Before the meeting, he had explained that “in this country, and in Kanosh, we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” After the meeting, the scouts had lots of questions for their leader. They wanted to know — if we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people came and expressed a clear consensus of what they wanted — why did their elected leaders go against the voice of the people? Much like attempting to explain what really goes on in the Utah State Legislature, it was really tough for the scout leader to explain how and why that happens.
Again, the situation in Kanosh has nothing to do with administrative process. The Kanosh Town Council is considering adoption of a proposed land use ordinance that the vast majority of the town’s people do not want. This is 100% legislative process.
As opposed to the one-dimensional scenario(s) described by the proponents and sponsors of S.B. 53, the towns people of Kanosh already have vested property rights and entitlements that will be seriously changed, infringed, and jeopardized by adoption of the proposed ordinance. In fact, adoption and enforcement of the proposed ordinance will completely change the character of the community. Unlike the scenario(s) described by the proponents and sponsors of S.B. 53, there are no land owners, investors or developers in Kanosh who are seeking protection of their property rights in the administrative process. Kanosh is a poster child for exactly the opposite situation.
If the proposed ordinance is adopted by the town council, opponents have long been planning to initiate a referendum under current Utah Law, to put the new ordinance to a vote. If it’s such a contentious issue, and the politicians are clearly ignoring the will of the people, why shouldn’t it be put to a vote?
But in one fell swoop, Substitute S.B. 53 completely deprives the residents of the Town of Kanosh the ability to do that. In one fell swoop, the residents of Kanosh become completely disenfranchised regarding adoption of a land use ordinance the vast majority to not agree with. In one fell swoop, Substitute S.B. 53 completely deprives the residents of the Town of Kanosh the ability to protect their existing property rights and entitlements against the tyranny of government action that is not supported by the people.
In addition to being an outrage, Substitute S.B. 53 is unconstitutional, both on its face, and as applied in a situation like Kanosh faces, and should be vetoed — even faster than it was passed.
A Mother of Seven
I am the mother of seven, living in a community in rural Utah which is facing some zoning and land use ordinance issues right now. I am frustrated with my local government and the decisions they are making. Many others in my community share my frustration.
When I heard about SB53, the bill which would eliminate the use of initiatives and referendums with regards to land use ordinances and budgets, I was sickened. With the swipe of a pen, my right and the right of the citizens of my community to determine how we choose to be governed could be obliterated should this bill be passed into law.
So many times, we as citizens trust our elected officials to truly represent us, their constituents. Many times they do, and sometimes they don’t. The referendum and initiative processes, give “The People” the final vote when they feel they are not being represented properly. True representation is a fundamental right that we have being citizens of this great country.
I read through the bill and listened to the online audio discussion of this bill prior to the senate vote. I am very concerned about the statements made to the “intent” of the bill. It was said that the “intent” is not to take the voice of the people out of the process. In actuality, that is exactly what is being done. The language of the bill is not difficult to understand and I am astounded that our representatives have fallen for the weak explanation as to the “intent” of this bill.
SB53 is the first “flaxen cord” that will bind the people to the whims of the government, when the government should be bound by iron cuffs to the desires of the people. I cannot idly stand by and let this bill just breeze on in, unnoticed. This will require the efforts of many,many concerned Citizens.
First Substitute S.B. 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 LONG TITLE
10 General Description:
11 This bill modifies the Election Code relating to initiatives and referenda.
12 Highlighted Provisions:
13 This bill:
14 . prohibits the use of local initiatives for land use ordinances or changes in land use
15 ordinances; and
16 . prohibits voters from requiring the implementation of a land use ordinance to be
17 submitted to voters.
18 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
19 None
20 Other Special Clauses:
21 None
22 Utah Code Sections Affected:
23 AMENDS:
24 20A-7-401, as last amended by Laws of Utah 1994, Chapter 272
25
26 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
27 Section 1. Section 20A-7-401 is amended to read:
28 20A-7-401. Limitation — Land use ordinances and budgets.
29 (1) The legal voters of any county, city, or town may not initiate [
30 (a) a budget or [
31 (b) a land use ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance.
32 (2) The legal voters of any county, city, or town may not require any budget adopted by
33 the local legislative body or the implementation of a land use ordinance adopted by the local
34 legislative body to be submitted to the voters.