OPEN LETTER TO THE VOTERS

Dear voters,

This municipal election, you will be asked to decide between several candidates for Provo City Council, both in a city-wide race, and in a district race. How you vote will determine what happens to Provo in the future.

The basis of a representative democracy is that an elected official is accountable to the voters for what he has, or has not done, while in office. If you are satisfied with the job he has done, you should re-elect the incumbent. If you are not satisfied, you should elect someone else. It is how the system is supposed to work. The voice of the people is heard best at election time.

Two of the incumbents are claiming that they are “pro-neighborhood,” that their ideas, policies, and subsequent votes are what Provo needs to preserve the “quality of life” that we all appreciate. I have been paying close attention to City Council for 10 years, I have studied the issues and the measures which the Council has taken to protect Provo, and I disagree with the claims made by Steve Turley and Midge Johnson. Those claims are NOT consistent with their voting records. I believe their records more accurately represent the “pro-business” mentality, that “government should step aside and let the free market determine things” (to quote Mr. Turley.)

I had a similar attitude in 1997 when I began attending City Council meetings. As I watched, I wondered why it was necessary for government to get so involved with all of the decisions that the Council was making. The longer I hung around, the more I learned: about the facts of what is occurring in our city, about the comparison with other cities that are experiencing the same problems Provo is facing, and about the evidence that unless government intervenes, cities are irrevocably gone. I changed my mind, based on evidence.

That evidence is irrefutable, not a guess or an opinion. Unless the City Council intervenes, much of what we love about our city will be lost. The “government should step aside” approach will abandon Provo to the people who want, above all else, to make a profit. In my opinion, that is the way Mr. Turley has voted every time, and how Mrs. Johnson has voted too often.

This election season, you will receive many colorful, and expensive, brochures from the candidates. You will pass many bright, and expensive, signs. On them, you will read some claims about what those candidates have accomplished and what they espouse. Read carefully. Ask, “what has this candidate actually done?” Research their voting records. I have made those voting records available at votemelanie.com

Please examine the records before you vote. If you agree with them, you should vote for them. If however, you see the same discrepancy that I see, that their claims do not match their records, I hope (in the case of the District #3 race), that you will consider voting for me. I have written several articles below and have been completely honest and forthcoming about my ideas and opinions. I make no claims that are not true. I present the facts. You can leave your ideas and comments on any article. If you follow the rules about posts (see above), i will post them, even if they are negative towards me.

Thank you for staying involved in the process.

DAMAGE CONTROL --THE RUMOR MILL

Dear voters,
Let’s correct some misrepresentations that have been made about me:

1. I am not a Democrat. Like 40% of the voters in Provo, I am Unaffiliated, staunchly so. I don’t like partisan politics.

2. I am not a developer. Several years ago, I subdivided the family horse pasture and sold 10 large lots for single-family homes, just what the neighborhood needed. I passed up chances to build high density housing on the land. All city approvals were complete before I ever ran for office. I made very little money. I will not develop property again.

3. I am not a landlord. I own no rental properties. I did not own any in the Provost neighborhood when, as neighborhood chair, I applied for a rezone. My purpose was to call the question about whether or not to allow accessory apartments. The neighborhood voted “no.” End of story.

4. I am not the “hand-picked candidate” of any member of the Council or the Administration. I sometimes agree with Cindy Richards, and I sometimes agree with George Stewart. I occasionally agree with Lewis Billings, and once I even agreed with Steve Turley. I am completely my own person, and have my own opinions which I readily express.

5. I am running just to...(whatever) . No one else can determine what I am thinking, what I want, or what I am trying to do. I have no hidden agenda. Everything I think, feel, or believe is stated in the articles below. I have not "adjusted" my opinions in order to make myself look better,(a practice called "image management.") What you see is exactly what you get. I think I would be a good Councilmember. I want to serve. I’m trying to do some good. Anyone who says differently is speculating.

6. I have no delusions about myself. I know what I’m good at and what I’m bad at. I do not make claims that have no basis in reality.

These are the rumors I’ve heard. There may be others. Please GET THE FACTS! Read the articles below, which are an accurate representation of my ideas, my opinions, and my positions.

If you agree with me, vote for me. If not, don’t. That’s democracy. But please do not accept rumors as truth. Please call or write if you have further questions.

WHAT I REALLY THINK ABOUT STEVE TURLEY

I always say exactly what I think. If what I think will do damage, I try to keep my mouth shut. But when the I see the possibility of even greater damage, I have to speak up. This election season there is the possibility that Steve Turley could be re-elected to Provo City Council. I believe that is a greater danger than hurting some feelings.

Steve Turley has said and done some things with which I completely disagree.

Many other people have seen and heard the same things I have, and they speculate about WHY he has done them. In our justice system, we are allowed to testify about what we have seen and heard, not about what we suspect or imagine, and NEVER about what we speculate another person's motives are. That is an unjust judgement.

I do not know why Steve has said and done some of the things he has, but he has done them. I can testify about them because I have seen him do them with my own eyes, and heard him say them with my own ears. I will not speculate about WHY he has said and done them.

But because of what I have witnessed, it is my opinion that Steve Turley should never be elected to ANY public office, ANYWHERE, EVER AGAIN.

I realize that I may be committing political suicide to say so, publicly. I am willing to do so, in the hopes that the people of Provo will pay attention!

But you may not believe me. So ask someone you trust. Ask another Council member. Ask a neighborhood chair who has worked with him. Ask a staff member who has seen him work. Ask a member of the Administration who has dealt with him:

"SHOULD STEVE TURLEY BE RE-ELECTED?"

My answer is "NO."

AN ENDORSEMENT OF COY PORTER

I received the following e-mail which I post here in the hopes that a few more people may read it.

Dear Citizens of Provo:

For a number of years, we have known and worked closely with both candidates for Provo's City-wide Council Seat. When it comes to politics, they are very different in their principles, behaviors, and ambitions . Let us tell you why we are voting for Coy Porter, and urge you to do the same.

--Coy has unflinching integrity. He wants to serve because he loves our city and knows he can make a difference. He has no extra motive that could become a conflict of interest or a stepping-stone to further any political ambitions.

--Coy knows the challenges of our neighborhoods and will continue to strengthen them. Coy is careful in his thinking and behavior. He will not minimize, politicize or sabotage the sacrifices made by those who care deeply about their neighborhoods.

--Coy works well with others in building consensus rather than polarizing. He will take a stand on important issues with a mature appreciation for the strengths of others. An effective Council needs people who can cooperate to get results.

--Coy cares about the quality of your life – not about protecting some political ideology or enhancing someone's ability to exploit Provo for gain.

--Coy is a respected veteran of public service. His professional experience as a fireman and Fire Chief has given him a broad and wise perspective toward City issues and City budgets. He solves problems without seeking the political spotlight.

--Coy is an independent thinker; he listens to the facts and will make solid decisions for the well being of our citizens. He is not influenced by well-funded special interest groups.

--Coy speaks the truth. He doesn't just 'say what you want to hear' , or massage the facts to make himself look better. He won't draw premature conclusions or sensationalize an issue out of proportion.

--Coy is a man of character and kindness, he is experienced and effective.His lifetime of service and consistent behavior demonstrates that.

--Coy is worthy of the public trust . He will serve you well.

Provo needs Coy Porter

A. LeGrand Richards (Buddy) Cindy Richards

MIDGE'S "FACTS"

All elected officials should be held accountable for what they do while in public office. Midge Johnson recently published an article on her website called "Facts on Attacks." While I am glad that Midge has finally explained her votes on these issues, once again, I see discrepancies in some of her claims:

She says:
1."My opponent has directed people to her website and has taken exception to my voting record. In her article, "Midge's Voting Record, Does Midge Walk the Talk?", she has repeatedly made assumptions as to why I voted a particular way and has strongly expressed her opinion in opposition. Here are the FACTS about the ATTACKS."

FACT: I have NOT made any assumptions about the motives behind her votes. In the article below, called, "Midge Johnson's Voting Record", I quoted WHAT SHE CLAIMED to believe, reported HOW SHE ACTUALLY VOTED, and asked her to EXPLAIN HER MOTIVES. I do not believe I have "attacked" her. Claiming to have been "attacked" in order to accuse an "attacker" is a very manipulative technique.

2."During my first campaign some neighbors were upset about certain methods used to determine who had illegal apartments, over-occupancy violations, etc. There was much strife and conflict in one neighborhood. I never took exception with a filed application for an A-Overlay. I did however, take issue with the process. The process of signing petitions, etc., has proven problematic and detrimental to good neighborhoods. It pits neighbor against neighbor. The Council has since changed the process of applying for an A-overlay."

FACT: Over 50 violations of the zoning code existed in the area that was under consideration for the A-Overlay change. Of course neighbors were upset. Some were upset that others were breaking the law, impacting the neighborhood and devaluing their property. Others were upset that they might lose their income-generating apartments. Midge contacted people on BOTH SIDES and warned them that what I was doing might harm them. She told people that I owned property in the proposal area, and would benefit personally by a zone change. That was untrue. My lawyer had to contact her and ask her to stop telling people this untruth.

The issue ended when the neighborhood weighed in, 2 to 1, AGAINST the zone change. But no action has been taken in four years to solve the problem of the many illegal apartments. Midge's solution? She painted them. She got $150k of the federal CDBG money for PIP, and painted and roofed and landscaped homes, including ones with illegal basement apartments. She shouldn't have.

3. "The second-kitchen ordinance was reviewed and discussed at length. While I fought hard to have an exception for seniors over a certain age, other council members felt it would open Pandora's box so the issue didn't have the votes to carry. I feel strongly that people should have the right to stay in their own homes as they age, and, I would like to see a provision that allows them some flexibility wherever they live. I would welcome the opportunity to revisit this issue."

FACT: As land use chair for a full year, Midge set the agenda. She could have done a great deal more than 'welcome the opportunity to revisit the issue.' She hasn't.

4."I believe the current system of enforcement by complaint is adequate."

FACT: No, it isn't. The numerous violations continue, and they are increasing.

5. "I believe a stronger, more forceful, random policing of homes would be seen as unfavorable throughout the city."

FACT: How the zoning ordinances are "SEEN" does not change the fact that they are the LAW, and should be enforced.

6. "It is impossible for the city to know of many violations unless reported by our good citizens...The city has a heavy burden of proof, and it is very difficult to gather enough evidence to prevail in court."

FACT: Either the burden of proof is on the neighbors ("Enforcement by complaint is adequate"), or it is on the city ("stronger, more forceful enforcement would be ...unfavorable"). Which does Midge favor? In her previous response, she indicated that "pitting neighbor against neighbor" was a bad thing. Now she says it is necessary. Which does she believe?

The FACT is that the reason NO ONE is enforcing the law, is that EVERYONE is waiting for SOMEONE ELSE to do it. Midge has had four years to demonstrate the political will to do ANYTHING about the growing problem, and she has failed.

I AM WILLING to do the hard things and make the difficult decisions necessary to preserve our city. The burden of proof should be shared by ALL stakeholders, including realtors, homeowners associations, and property management companies, who, if they knowingly violate the law, should be fined, heavily.

7. "200 North has been designated as a collector road for over fifteen years. After discussing the issue at length with our engineering staff, I realized the need and importance of good connectivity for our city's future... Expert testimony by staff and transportation officials supported my vote and the three others who joined me...Connectivity and proper traffic flow is also very essential to preserving neighborhoods and equally important to our quality of life."

FACT: 200 North should never have been designated as a collector road. That designation was made years ago, but no one in the neighborhoods realized it had been done. When I brought it to their attention, after reviewing the Street Capital Improvement Plan, the public became involved in the discussion for the first time.

If Midge believes, as she stated previously, that "I am for neighborhoods choosing what they want their neighborhoods to be like," why did she instead listen to, and side with, the engineering staff and traffic officials? Of those neighbors who opposed the re-designation of the street through their neighborhood, Midge dismissed them as "C.A.V.E. people-- Citizen's Against Virtually Everything."

8. "I don't have a "connection" to Kevin Call. He sends his opinions and recommendations and voices disfavor or acceptance to all of us on the Council."

FACT: Kevin Call, formerly head of the Utah County Board of Realtors, invites candidates to come and address their legislative committee during every election. This year they invited every candidate except me. When I called and asked if Kevin Call was going to hold another candidate panel, which I could attend, he said, "No that won't be necessary. Midge is our candidate."

Midge's brother, Bill Brown, is one of the largest realtors in Provo. She, herself, was at one time, by her own admission, "a real-estate professional."

9. "My opponent is very misguided on the subject of Pride in Provo. She wasn't there, she didn't participate, and she certainly must not have heard the project's thorough and glowing evaluation.I invite you to read the Pride in Provo section on this web-site."

FACT": I watched ALL the discussions on the funding of Pride in Provo. I did not participate in the service projects, however, since I fundamentally disagreed with the way they were funded. I also read the "glowing evaluations." How could I help but do so, when Midge sent out almost a dozen press releases praising her own project. I suggest that you DO read that section of her website, and compare it to the news articles. Midge could have written them. On the day of the service project, she was directing the reporters about what to cover. They did not appreciate it.

10. "Ask anyone who was really involved and you'll hear a very different story." "

FACT: I did ask them. One person intimately involved with the project said, "It could never have succeeded. It was too large and unwieldly. I'm glad it did not continue." The other Council members evidently did not think enough of it to continue it.

11. "During my campaign I made a point that I didn't, and still don't, have any personal agendas or axes to grind. I simply don't have a conflict of interest in serving the city."

FACT: No, nor apparently, any coherent policies or consistent positions. Midge's votes, according to another Council member, "are all over the place." I agree. She argues for one side one week, and then votes the other way. And she has not written a single piece of legislation in four years.

12: "Steve Turley developed a piece of property next to his home that he had been working on long before he was ever on the Council. Actions from a previous Council stopped his project by changing the zone mid-project before he was able to get final approval. Mr. Turley, as a Council Member disclosed all important and necessary information, had his wife represent the project, and actually left the council chambers for the rest of us to vote. I believe a Council Member has the right to make a living and the law provides provisions where a person can disclose any conflicts and disengage in the process, which is what Mr. Turley did."

FACT: Steve Turley's initial foray into development may have been as Midge has presented. But Steve Turley has interest in other properties in Provo (near 4800 North, on South State Street), that will be impacted by decisions he has made, and may still make. Additionally, he tried to annex into Provo property he partially owns in Springville (the land behind Brand-X Burgers.) I was at the Planning Commission Meeting the night he asked Springville for a rezone of that property. He presented to the commission that his access to that property would be through Provo's Ironton project, a road that does not now exist, and may never exist as he drew it, depending on how Ironton develops. But he presented a road alignment to the Commission, showing it accessing his property. The Springville planning staffer said, "And Mr. Turley certainly knows what Provo is planning because of his position." I stood and reminded them that Mr. Turley could not speak for Provo City.

Midge needs to be careful whom she defends.

13. "I did suggest that iProvo be put to a public vote, but my recommendation met with no success."

FACT: Steve Turley, who opposed iProvo, made the motion to put iProvo on the ballot. Midge did not second that motion.

13: "I am in favor of open government, not back room deals. I will always voice my concern when I feel processes are misused and not open for all council members and/or the public."

FACT: Midge suggested that the study sessions no longer be televised. She said, "It's hard to really discuss things the way we need to when we're on TV."

No, Midge, no. I know the real facts. The way you present yourself is still inconsistent with those facts. Nice try. No cigar.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Deseret News sent me these questions. I post them here, along with my answers, FYI. The DesNews' circulation in Provo is not great, and the Daily Herald has asked no questions. They HAVE sent me a price list for placing an ad in their paper, so if I want the voters to know where I stand, it will cost me $24 an inch.

From Melanie McCoard
Candidate for Provo City Council, District #3

1. The iProvo project is expected to run a deficit again in the next fiscal year, and for a couple of years beyond that, according the projections by city staff. In the past, the City Council has covered iProvo debts two ways -- either by approving long-term loans to the project from a city surplus fund or using that year's surplus sales tax receipts. Which system should the council use for the debts expected over the next few years?

I would not have voted for the iProvo bond. I would also have liked to see the bond issue placed on the ballot for the voters to decide.

That being said, the bond DID pass, and we DO have a fiber optic network, and a $40m debt, so at this point, it must succeed. We have to fund it. If we sold it, we would get a fraction of the money out. How would I pay for the deficit? Don't know. I need to study the other alternatives. I'm open to suggestions.

2. What options should the city pursue to make iProvo profitable?

Change the perception. Join me in being positive about our wonderful, new fiber optic system! (I am NOT being sarcastic! I really mean it. We need to quit the trash talk about iProvo. It exists. We have to pay for it. We can't pay for it unless people subscribe. People won't subscribe if they keep hearing negative stories about it. Although I am tempted to capitalize on this issue during this election season, doing so would add to the problem. I want to be part of the solution. So, in order to help change the perception of the system, I will only speak positively!)

I LOVE the speed of the Internet connection. The cable TV has some kinks; but it'll work out. I'm going to hang in there, and be patient. It's a new system, so I'll make allowances. And I'll keep a perspective. So my cable TV has to reboot once in a while? So? My life will not end if I have to wait a few seconds and push an extra button or two. Let's all get on board and subscribe! How's that, Kevin Garlick? And you thought I couldn't be a team player!

3. For years, the City Council has funneled hundreds of thousands of federal dollars into downtown Provo by buying and rehabbing old homes and then selling them to first-time home-buying families who promise to live in them. What is your position on this purchase-rehab program and its stated goal of stabilizing the city's central neighborhoods?

The CDGB monies, which CAN only be used in certain areas and for certain purposes, by federal mandate, have NOT gone into Downtown Provo, but into five central neighborhoods that extend from 900 East all the way to I-15, and from East Bay to BYU, a huge chunk of the city.

I am in favor of the program. The program has been in place for seven years. It's time to re-evaluate it. Does it need to be expanded into other areas, OR removed from some areas, which, after careful study, may prove not to be viable, single-family neighborhoods any longer? (The General Plan gets a review in 2008, anyway.)

All of the residents of Provo should weigh in on this question-- "Are there areas of town that should not be reclaimed, but upzoned for redevelopment?"

The commitment to the South Joaquin neighborhood, below 500 North, must be kept. The Downtown Business Alliance should get some of the CDBG dollars. The PIP program should NOT have received any CDBG money.

4. Many BYU students are complaining that the city doesn't care about them because the City Council recently passed two ordinances that restrict their ability to park on some Provo streets. The Council is considering another ordinance that would do the same for streets directly south of campus. What is your message to BYU students?

This issue makes me so mad I could weep! This is only the latest in a long list of issues that students have misunderstood. (I could go on for an hour about how the dance ordinance was misrepresented, how the apartment licensing ordinance was misread, how the zoning enforcement regulations have been misinterpreted. OH!)

Nothing could be further from the truth. The City Council understands that many students are the victims of unscrupulous landlords who rent to too many students, charge them exorbitant rents, and fail to provide them with adequate facilities: chiefly, parking .

The parking ordinance is only ONE step that needs to be taken to address the problem. The attack must be multi-directional -- like fining the other perpetrators: the Realtors who misrepresent the correct zoning of a property, the property management companies who continue to allow over-occupancy of the condos, and the home owner's associations who raffle off the provided visitor parking places to residents, forcing visitors out into the streets, and driveways, of the neighbors.

Most of the City Council care deeply about ALL student residents (35% of Provo's students attend UVSC and 10% attend other Education Institution -- that's almost half who are NOT BYU students!) The ordinances are to HELP the students, not hurt them. Yes, it will be difficult at first. It always is when you try to undo a wrong that's being done. But the wrong is NOT being done by the City Council, but by profit-seekers attempting to earn a buck at the student's expense.

This "Provo Hates Students!" attitude has been advanced by other candidates to gain political capital. Four years ago, at a candidate forum at BYU, I watched Steve Turley stir up an audience of about 500 students by playing on this very misconception -- that Provo City is "anti-student." He used misrepresentations, innuendo, suspicion, and inflammatory rhetoric. His performance that day was one of the main reasons I oppose him now. I think he used those students as objects, props in his campaign.

My message to BYU students? Don't let yourselves be used. Get the facts. Educate yourselves, before you decide to march on City Hall.


5. Two new towers have been announced in Downtown Provo. Studies show the potential for additional businesses, retail, and residential growth. How should Provo manage this potential to ensure that the growth happens and happens in a way that will maximize it?

John Frigonese, who did those studies, said that Downtown Provo would never again be a major retail center, but could become the office, restaurant, and arts district of the City. The Administration is focusing on those goals. The Council needs to change some policies that will promote those goals, like upzoning some areas for high density, mixed-use housing.

Provo's Economic Development Department needs to place the revitalization of Downtown as it's FIRST priority. That has not happened in the past. I believe that the reason that the Downtown Alliance became necessary was because the Eco. Dev. Dept. and the Chamber of Commerce failed to adequately represent Downtown.

The Council sets the policies of the city. The administration, including ALL the bureaucrats and staff, must follow those policies. They must not be making decisions and deals that undermine those policies. I will see that they don't.

6. Studies are underway to determine what should happen with frontage roads and freeway exits before the I-15 expansion in Provo begins and to consider roads from the I-15 East Bay exit to the Provo Municipal Airport and from the airport north to Geneva Road. If elected what would you do and which plans would you support and why?

Last week, I attended a MAG Open House. MAG (Mountainlands Association of Governments) is the regional entity which administers state transportation funds and oversees improvements to state roads (I-15, Geneva Rd, future Westside Airport connector, Center Street, 300 S., etc) When I left that Open House, I felt like I had fallen through a rabbit hole!

The maps, studies, consultants, and contractors filled the gym. Plans are in the works, in various stages, for some very MAJOR, and very IMPACTFUL changes to Provo City streets. Widening Center Street from Geneva to I-15 to 4 lanes? Widening Center Street from I-15 to 500 West to 6 lanes? Widening 820 North from Geneva to University Avenue to 4 lanes? A $1 million grant to study where in the wetlands the airport road should go? PR firms hired to get the project through the public process? I pay attention, but I was stunned to realize how far advanced some of these projects are.

Get involved! There is another open house in Vineyard in November. Go to the MAG website. Read the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan). If you want the facts, you need to go get them. Provo citizens, especially west-side residents, YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION!

7. Synchronized traffic lights on University Avenue help traffic flow north and south in Provo. What could be done to improve east-west traffic flow in the city as the City Council has and is expected to approve large new developments on the west side?

Put 600 South on the top of the list for Capital Improvement Projects. Lobby MAG for the underpasses at 600 South and 900 South to be moved to the top of their CIP lists. Change the policies that gave priority to the road in north-east Provo (a four-lane 4800 North to Riverwoods? Given the LACK of development occurring in NE Provo? When almost 1000 new units have been built on the west side, and another 2000 are anticipated? And expecting the infrastructure costs to be paid by the developers and the homeowners along 600 South? No.)

We are a COMMUNITY! The idea of community is that we ALL contribute for the common good. The costs of improvements to the west side should be shared by the entire city, from the Capital Improvement Budgets of the City, as they were for the beautiful, new, four-lane road at 4800 North. That is fair.

I will restore equity to the process.

8. The City Council has created strong rules restricting home rentals in many neighborhoods to three single people, not more, and added new teeth to zoning enforcement efforts. Do you support these initiatives and why or why not?

I absolutely support this initiative. I think it should be city-wide.

I understand that the ordinance looks discriminatory, and there IS a loophole in it, at present, that favors married people. That needs to be fixed, because the issue is not single vs. married, it is occupant-owned vs. investor-owned. Anyone who OWNS a home and LIVES IN IT for at least 3 years contributes to the stability of a neighborhood, whether they are single or married, student or non-student, brown or white or yellow or green! Home-ownership is the end of poverty. Home-ownership is the end of "urban flight." Home ownership is theremedy for "blight", run-down property conditions. Home-ownership is the basis of a healthy community.

When investors buy up the homes, and then rent them to too many people, who come and go every year, the neighborhood deteriorates. Families cannot compete with the prices that such investors can pay, so the families leave. Cities are lost. The studies have shown OVER and OVER again, that that trend does not stop unless government intervenes. FACT!

The restrictions the Council has passed, including the "3 to 2 ordinance", are to provide disincentives to the investors who see our homes in terms of "positive cash flow", our neighborhoods as places to make a profit, and our city as a means to line their pockets. Provo is not a business opportunity. It's our HOME!

9. Many Provoans have clamored for years for a new recreation center. What is your position?

Let's get it built! The plans were done years ago! Has anyone seen them? They are wonderful! I personally need that warm-water exercise pool!

How will we pay for it? Two ways that I can think of at the moment do not raise any taxes:
1. --THE "PROVO ROUND UP"-- All utility bills are rounded up to the nearest dollar. No one ever pays more that $.99 on any given month, and may pay as little as $.01 a month. The bill would automatically be rounded, but if you object to it, you could call and get the exact amount -- a universal opt-out policy. Roger Thomas proposed this when he was hired as parks and recreation director, but it was never instituted. It's a great idea! And it would raise thousands of dollars towards a new Rec Center.
2.-- "EARMARK CELL PHONE FEES" -- Every cell phone provider in Provo pays the city a lease when it puts it's equipment on a Provo City power pole. At the present time, that money goes into the Energy Department's budget. They don't need it. They already are getting generous revenues from all of us, and have huge reserves. Let's pass an ordinance designating ALL lease fees go towards the construction of the new Rec Center.

Those ideas are the ones in my head right now. Give me a few hours and I'll come up with some other ways to fund this worthy project. Or better still, let's form a Rec Center Commission and draft ALL interested parties in the city to work on this project!

And for that matter, how about a "Children's Museum" (The displays created, donated, and maintained by local organizations and companies, like DUP or Novell, etc. Get BYU and UVU students who need community service hours as docents. Ask a non-profit organization, like Timpanogos Community Network, to coordinate proposals.)

Also, how about a "Biosphere Education Center " at Bicentennial Park (wetland, grassland, mountainland! What a great science field trip that would be!) Can we get some grants for development of the program? Who knows how to write a grant proposal? And we need a "Utah Lake Day" for all Provo City school children, and..., and..., and...

I have DOZENS of ideas. I know other people do, too. We need to foster good ideas. We need to empower people. We need to NETWORK!

This is what I do best-- promote good ideas and bring like-minded people together to get stuff done. But I really need to be on the Council so I can be in a position to do so. It would be SO much easier.


10. Provo, like many Utah cities, has enjoyed budget surpluses in recent years because of booming sales tax revenues. Some of the anticipated surplus for this fiscal year has already been earmarked for use by the City Council. What should the Council use future surpluses for, if they materialize?

Three things:
1. Rec center (see above)
2. Bridging the insurance gap for Provo City employees. It isn't right that after giving 30 years service to our community, our valued employees retire without medical insurance coverage, or at the very least, an affordable option for buying it.
3. Parks landbank. The City needs to buy, at a good price, land to save for open space. If we don't do it now, it will be sold for development, and then it will be too late. All owners of empty property need to be educated about the tax benefits of "Conservation Easements" a legal way to put aside land, and avoid huge capital gains taxes when they sell the family farm.

11. The Provo City Council had no impact on the Legislature's decision to provide school vouchers or on the ballot referendum that will decide the fate of vouchers in Utah. However, the issue has been raised in the debates during the four City Council races this fall and many candidates have responded. You may share your position on
school vouchers in this forum if you wish to do so.

Honestly, I don't know. I am not just refusing to answer in order to "reduce the target" during this election season. I need to study this more, and I don't have the time, since I am campaigning right now. I attended the open house of legislators in favor of vouchers -- they made a compelling argument. The League of Women's Voters sent me an equally compelling e-mail. I just don't know. Sorry.

REQUEST FOR HELP

Dear Neighbors,

Thank you for voting in the Primary Election. I got through the Primary, even though I had done almost no campaigning. Now the real work starts.

I want to be of service to our community. I have many ideas about what needs to happen, and I will pursue them whether or not I am elected to the Council. But it will be a whole lot easier to get them done from a seat ON the Council. I really need to get elected.

Please read the articles below.( Do you know where I stand on the issues? Are you sure? What you may have heard about my positions may have been misrepresented. If you do not agree with me, that's OK. But please make sure that you have an accurate idea of my opinions.)

If you do agree with me, I need help.
--I need places for signs (your yard, friend's yards, acquaintance's yards, especially on major roads, etc.)
--I need endorsement statements (ONLY if you are comfortable disclosing your support publicly.)
--I need candidate forums (you host a meeting, fireside, or open house and invite the neighbors.)
--I need publicity for the website (word-of mouth, telephoning, leafletting, "honk and wave".)
--I need money (Begging is humiliating, but I have to do it -- "Brother, can you spare a dime?")
--Any other help, support, ideas, or encouragement that you can give.

This election is important to the future of Provo, our families, and our neighborhoods. Please pay attention. Please get involved. And if you are willing and able, please HELP. --Melanie McCoard, 373-1192, stonewife@iveracity.com

ALERT! IMPORTANT MEETING!!

The Mountainland Association of Governments will be holding a special open house on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. in the Orem Senior Friendship Center at 93 North 400 East in Orem. You are invited to come out and learn about air quality, road and highway improvements, new community development proposals, and transit plans and how they affect you. Information will be available on the planned Mountain View Corridor, I-15 Reconstruction, the Lehi East-West Connector, Commuter Rail, SR-92 improvements, the Vineyard Connector, Bus Rapid Transit, Geneva Road, the Provo Westside Connector and State Street improvements. Representatives from Mountainland, UDOT, UTA and Utah County communities will be available to answer questions about transportation and community development in Utah Valley.

SELF-PROMOTION

Political campaigns are a great deal like high school. Some of the things that occur are just nonsense! Having to promote yourself is particularly unpleasant.

And when candidates makes claims about themselves, how does a voter know whether or not those claims have any basis in reality? Are they delusional or dishonest or just playing politics? Do their claims jive with their voting records? Are voters discerning enough to compare the candidate's history with their claims? When a candidate claims a stance or position or skill, is it so? Do voters notice anything more than signs and expensive brochures? Is an election more than a popularity contest? So many questions...

I will be to-the bone honest, here. I have no delusions about myself. I know what I am good at, and what I am bad at. I do not alter my opinions based on whom I am speaking to at the moment. I say exactly what I think, and if I'm proved wrong, I admit it. I remember almost everything that I hear or read. I am firmly grounded in correct principles. I have an almost unlimited appetite for discussion. I am curious, tenacious, and smart.

But, let's face it, I am not prom queen material. I'm not cute. I am too tough, too opinionated, and more than a little pushy. I sometimes provoke people. My body is a wreck. And for some strange reason, I am interested in politics.(I list that as a minus, not a plus, because it just might mean that I have a mental problem.)

Will you allow me to serve you? Can you look past the flaws and see my intent? I have some skills and experience and information that I would very much like to put to use for my friends, my neighbors, and my city. I have written the articles below and have laid out, very candidly, my opinions about the issues in Provo. If you agree with me, I need your help, your support, and most of all, your vote!

I encourage all of you to pay close attention to the claims made by the candidates about themselves and their policies. Check their voting records (below). Call someone you trust. Ask questions. Use your best discernment. This election is important. Provo's future is at stake.

STEVE TURLEY'S VOTING RECORD

Steve Turley’s voting record:
Mar 2004: Had to recuse himself from voting on a Pro-Zone redevelopment on 5200 N University Avenue.
May 2004: Voted against appointing an auditor to conduct an independent audit of the city.
May 2004: Voted against the creation of the Utah Central Business Economic Development District.
November 2004: Voted for a resolution opening 300 North between 900 East and Seven Peaks Boulevard.
January 2004: Voted for rezoning 19 acres of land at 5485 N 250 West from Agricultural to Public Facilities.
April 2004: Voted against an ordinance amending the Provo City Code to adopt minimum standards for various types of airport operations and activities.
June 2004: Voted against authorizing the Mayor to adopt regulations governing Freedom Festival Parades.
July 2004: Voted against strengthening minimum parking requirements for rental dwellings.
September 2004: Voted against an amendment to the Minimum Parking requirements regarding rental dwellings.
October 2004: Abstained from voting on the update of Provo City School Board Districts to reapportion school district boundaries.
December 2004: Voted against an amendment to the Provo City Code which amended the definition of kitchen and repeal of “wet bar and snack bar.” 7th Sept.
December 7th, 2004: Voted against an ordinance amending section 14.34.440 regarding location and number of kitchens permitted in one-family dwellings and accessory buildings.
February 3rd, 2004: Voted against purchasing 398 East 400 South (Maeser) for the purchase rehabilitation program.
March 2nd, 2004: Abstained from voting for the purchase of 412 West 500 South for the purchase rehabilitation program using Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Funds. (Franklin)
April 6th, 2004: Voted against purchasing 371 North 400 West (Dixon) for the purchase-rehabilitation program.
April 20th, 2004: Voted against purchasing 368 North 400 East, and 444 East 400 North for the purchase rehabilitation program or a future park for the Joaquin neighborhood.
May 4th, 2004: Voted against purchasing 398 East 400 South (Maeser) using Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Funds.
May 4th, 2004: Voted against appropriating $135,000 from the Rental Rehabilitation fund to purchase and rehabilitate property at 386 North 400 East (Joaquin)
September 21st, 2004: Voted against using Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Funds to purchase and rehabilitate 591 West 300 North (Dixon)
October 5th, 2004: Voted against funding the purchase and rehabilitation of 510 and 532 South 400 West (Franklin)
November 23rd, 2004: Voted against using Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Funds to purchase 258 East 300 North for the Purchase and Rehabilitation program.
November 23rd, 2004: Voted against a resolution to submit an application to HUD (Housing and Urban Development) for participation in the Asset Control Area Program.
January 18th, 2005: Recused himself from voting on a zone change from RC to R3 (Medium Multiple Residential) for 8.2 acres of property at 826 East 950 South (Spring Creek)
January 18th, 2005: Voted against appointing John Borget and Dave Knecht to the Taxing Entity Committee for all redevelopment, economic development, and education housing development project areas in the city. (6 to 1)
January 18th, 2005: Voted against a resolution adopting a municipal council meeting schedule for 2005
February 15th, 2005: Voted against appointing Terry A. Harward as Executive Director of the City Council.
April 5th, 2005: Voted against approving the Home Program, the American Dream Down-Payment Initiative, and the Community Development Block Grant Program for the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year.
May 3rd, 2005: Voted against a resolution approving the 2005 Five Year Consolidated Plan.
2005: Voted against changing the General Plan Designation on 200 North from Collector road to a neighborhood street.
June 21st, 2005: Voted against the 2005-2006 Budget Resolution
October 11th, 2005: Abstained from voting on a resolution amending the Provo City General Plan which amended key land use policies for property located generally along the west side of South State Street from 1140 South to 1860 South.
December 20th, 2005: voted against a resolution accepting the annual audit and audit report.
January 4th, 2005: Voted against authorizing a loan from the Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Fund to NHS for rehabilitation expenses on 356 West 200 North.
January 4th, 2005: Voted against a grant of $75,750 from HOME funds to the rural housing development corporation for upgrading the exterior of 12 single family homes to be constructed on the Maeser School site. The funds were to add brick, or fiber-cement siding to the homes, to make them blend into the neighborhood’s existing homes.
March 1st, 2005: Voted against using Central Neighborhood Revitalization Funds to allow NHS to purchase and rehabilitate a home located at 746 East 200 North. (Joaquin)
March 1st, 2005: Voted against a resolution approving the purchase and resale of a house at 1045 West 300 North for the purchase rehabilitation program.
June 21st, 2005: Voted against the annual budget resolution for the Redevelopment Agency for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
July 19th, 2005: Voted against the use of Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving funds to purchase and rehabilitate 704 West 400 North (Dixon)
December 20th, 2005: Voted against the use of Central Neighborhood Revitalization Revolving Funds to purchase and rehabilitate 541 East 300 North. (Joaquin)
June 20th 2006: Voted against the 2006 Action Plan for submittal to HUD (Housing and Urban Development).
February 7th, 2006: Voted against rezoning 2.23 acres of property at 3620 North Canyon Road from Agricultural to R1.10 (Single Family Homes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.)
April 18th, 2006: Voted against enacting temporary zoning regulations to limit lot coverage in one-family residential, and residential conservation zones.
August 8th, 2006: Voted against an ordinance which required zoning disclosures be provided during residential property transfers and leases.
February 21st, 2006: Voted against a resolution authorizing the Executive Committee of the Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase and sale or purchase & rehabilitation of properties.
July 18th, 2006: Voted against using Congressional Grant funds (Economic development initiative) to provide Neighborhood Housing Services with the money to acquire and redevelop property located at 631, 637 & 659 East 350 North. (Joaquin Neighborhood)
March 21st, 2006: Voted against a resolution approving the HOME program, the American Dream Down-payment Initiative, and the Community Development Block Grant Program for the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE A POLITICIAN

About two dozen people have told me that if I'm going to get involved with politics, I have to become a politician. In other words, I have to stop saying what I think, and start saying things that make people feel good. I must not be too negative, or too technical, or too honest. If I want to get elected, I have to tell warm fuzzy stories, and make claims about myself that may or may not be accurate, and adjust my message depending on the audience that I am addressing.

What I want to know is, IS THAT TRUE? Are voters no more discerning than to vote for a smile, or an anecdote, and an overblown promise?

I can't accept that. I want to believe that people are responsible citizens. I trust that they will actually determine whether or not a candidate is someone with whom they agree. I hope that they will pay attention to the issues and the voting records and the facts.

For my part, I am going to continue to say exactly what I think. If you agree with me, I'd like your vote. Please read any or all of the articles below. I have been completely candid about my positions. I guess I am not much of a politician.

BRIEF STATEMENTS OF MY POSITIONS

Several people have asked me to post a brief statement of my positions and proposals about various important issues. These are the basics...

HOME OWNERSHIP -- Home ownership is the foundation of a healthy city, but Provo’s ratio of owner-occupied homes to rental homes is seriously out of balance, even for a university town. Every reasonable effort should be made to increase owner-occupancy. I support the Council’s recent actions in this effort, and will vote to expand them.

ZONING ENFORCEMENT -- It’s the law. If it no longer meets the needs of the neighborhood, the law should be changed, not ignored or circumvented. Provo needs an amendment to the recent caretaker ordinance that would allow our seniors, widows, and disabled residents to have a legal basement apartment. I will demand that all homes that receive city money be legally occupied.

DEVELOPMENT -- Provo has done much to “raise the bar” to promote good development, including development agreements, the PRO zone, and enforcing parking standards. I agree with those measures. But more needs to be done, especially on the west side. Infrastructure (roads, sewers, storm drains, sidewalks, parks, etc.) needs to be in place for anticipated growth. “Holes in the program”, which cost developers unnecessarily, need to be filled. I will meet with developers to do that. I applaud those developers who have “hit the mark!”

BUDGET -- Policy-making begins with money-allocating. The Council has the responsibility to oversee, thoroughly, the Mayor’s budget, and by watching carefully where we spend our money, we could save more. I have several ideas on how to get the cash for needed programs, WITHOUT raising taxes!

AIRPORT -- Plans are in the works to make Provo’s airport a “regional facility.” The Airport Master Plan demonstrated the need for the expansion. But landowners around the airport have not been treated fairly, and the Council has not been informed completely of airport developments (including the cost of all off-site improvements.) I will seek appointment to the Airport Board.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS -- Why is Provo building streets and waterlines and parks in some areas of the city, and other areas, which are in much greater need, are going without necessary services? I will review the priorities of all of the CIP
Schedules. I believe the price of that infrastructure should be shared by developers, neighborhoods, and the entire community.

ENERGY DEPARTMENT -- We need a Performance Audit of each division within the Energy Department. Since Provo Power is a public utility, we are the stockholders. We need a better accounting of where the money is going.

GROWTH -- Provo’s General Plan is an inspired document. I will follow it. I will seek public discussion for the 2008 General Plan Update hearings about just how big Provo should get, and where it makes sense to put more development.

SUSTAINABILITY -- I will call for a “Sustainability Forecast” to see where Provo stands with regards to air quality, water conservation, traffic control, open space preservation, recycling participation, and watershed protection. The first step towards improvement is assessment. I will start these important discussions.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -- Business is essential. Government should not compete with private enterprise. The business community needs to organize a “grass-roots” commission that will advise the Council on all Economic Development issues. All members of the administration need to comply with the policies which the Council, the elected policy-making body, has outlined.

BALANCE OF GOVERNMENT -- Provo’s form of government has TWO separate and equal teams, who should check and balance each other, not rubber stamp decisions.

WORKING WITH OTHERS -- People with sound egos can handle conflict. I trust the other Council members and the Administration. And I’m not afraid of a little controversy. But I will not alienate anybody.

EMPOWERING CITIZENS -- Sympathy and a listening ear are not enough. A Council member has to educate residents with problems about where to go, what to do, and how to do it. The more people are involved, the better the outcome. If you call me with a problem, I will get you involved in the solution.

PIP--PRIDE IN PROVO

The PIP program was the "brain child" of my opponent, Midge Johnson. It was a worthy project. Many neighbors gave valuable service. Much good work was done in the Provost and Carterville Neighborhoods. But the program had some fundamental flaws.

1. It was redundant. The Neighborhood Housing Service (NHS) was already doing this work. (The "Paint Your Heart Out" program has had great success in several neighborhoods for many years.) The Timpanogos Community Network (TCN) already brings together neighborhood, church, business, and student groups to accomplish large-scale service projects anytime they are asked. Provo's Neighborhood Program has "matching grant" money available every year for such projects. PIP re-invented the wheel.

2. It was not the best use of tax dollars. After the 2005 project, a woman came to the Council to thank them. She stated," We could have afforded a new roof, but thanks to Provo City, we got one for free!" Is that really the best use of tax dollars?

3. It had no legal occupancy requirements. Several of the homes that were refurbished have illegal basement apartments. In a neighborhood that is zoned for single-family residences ONLY, it is NOT appropriate to be painting and repairing homes that are violating the law.

4. It was not necessary. Midge even called the project "a face-lift for the neighborhood." Last time I checked, face-lifts were considered elective surgery.

5. It was ineffective.. The projects DID make the neighborhood look better, but studies have shown that the only factor which really affects the health and stability of a neighborhood is home-ownership. Only programs which genuinely increase home-ownership have any lasting value. No follow-up was ever done to see if owner-occuoancy was increased by PIP.

6. It took money from the programs proven to increase home-ownership.

7. PIP was too big. PIP did not survive. The Council voted to cease funding it, when it became clear to everyone, including Midge, that the program had to have staff to administer it.

What needs to occur is that the existing programs that are available to the 5 Central Neighborhoods (the CNRCC)-- the rehab loans, the down-payment loans, the service projects, the historical restoration grants, etc., need to be expanded to include several other neighborhoods -- Foothills (east of 900 E. and north of Center St.), Provost (east of 900 E. and south of Center St.) and North Park (west of 500 W. and north of 500 N.) I intend to take care of that.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE --"OVER THE LINE"

Provo's population is largely LDS. The Church encourages all its members to get involved in politics, but it does not endorse any candidate or party, and it does not allow its meetinghouses, events, or resources to be used in a campaign for political office.

Four years ago, at a Stake picnic, I introduced myself to people, mentioning that I was a candidate for City Council. That was a mistake. My ecclesiastical leader reminded me of the Church's position, and I ceased doing anything like it, afterwards.

I have been extra-cautious during this campaign. Since becoming a candidate, I have refrained from talking politics at any church function. If anyone else initiates the conversation, I politely explain "I don't talk politics at church." One brother did tell me about the chicken running around in his neighborhood, and asked about the law pertaining to livestock in residential areas, but other than that, I have been assiduous.

I have NOT talked politics at church. I have NOT used the stake list to make calls.

Such behavior is "over the line". I suggest that all the candidates be very careful.

ZONING-- GOOD FENCES FOR PROVO

Good fences make good neighbors.

Creating a "zone" within a city tells people what can happen there. And what cannot. (The proverbial example that is often used is "Do you want a pig farm next to your house?")I am NOT suggesting that higher-density and rental properties are "pig farms" (so do not extrapolate that quote, Roger and Jeremiah) It is meant to illustrate that how one person uses his property effects his neighbors. Cities have the right and responsibility to determine the USE that certain areas will have. It is not unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court judge who said so was from Utah.)

Zoning is one of the tools a city may use to combat "urban flight," the phenomenon of homeowners/occupants leaving a city. Studies show that the basis of a stable population is the long-term, owner-occupant. The dynamic that causes "urban flight" is a complicated one -- decreased "quality of life", declining neighborhood conditions, and decreased property value in their homes, and increased prices of new homes. A healthy city, even a university city, is 60-70% single-family housing. Because Provo is a two-university town (many UVSC students live in Provo to have the "BYU experience"), the percentage is much less. The rest is higher-density (more than one family in a home or building) rentals.

In Provo, we have set aside areas for single-family use,(an R-1 designation). It does not matter if the occupant is single, widowed, divorced or separated-- if they own the home, and stay for longer than four years, they are an asset to neighborhood stability, according to the demographic studies. (No R&J, Provo is NOT "anti-singles!" )

Higher-density housing is important. It's more affordable, it's more efficient. But it never pays for itself; apartments and condos generate more demand on the systems-- streets, parking, water, sewer, garbage, utilities, etc.-- than the tax dollars they supply. Higher density housing is less likely to contribute to "quality of life" issues -- long-term residence, involvement in neighborhood programs, school enrollment, etc. NOT unlikely, just less likely. (That is not just my opinion -- read the reports!)

There is a place for higher-density housing. Some areas cannot be saved as R-1 neighborhoods; they obviously are NOT viable low-density areas anymore, and never will be, and should be "up-zoned". Some of those include portions of neighborhoods that are already predominantly apartment complexes, and some areas along major thoroughfares, for example.

Where city planners have been forward-thinking, every neighborhood has its fair share of higher-density housing. In Provo, there are neighborhoods that have NO higher-density housing. The need should be equally shouldered by everyone in the community. That's what a community is -- every individual doing their part to help the whole. (Some neighborhoods have NO commercial development, either. Residents must drive across town to get to a store. This is bad planning. It creates more traffic, more air pollution, and more demand on family resources. Every neighborhood should have services located nearby, just as every neighborhood should designate someplace for higher-density housing.)

Some neighborhoods have far more than their share of higher-density housing. The Provost South Neighborhood, on the southeast side of town, was at one time 63% higher-density housing. That figure did NOT include the dozens of illegal, and thus uncountable, apartments in the basements of what are supposed to be R-1 homes. When a city-commissioned study suggested still MORE high-density housing on the land east of Bicentennial Park, the neighborhood spoke clearly--"We cannot bear any more high- density!"

But in areas that ARE designated, and zoned for R-1 housing, THE LAW SHOULD BE ENFORCED. Several neighborhoods have seen the effects of NOT enforcing the zoning laws. Wasatch Neighborhood, (the tree streets), east of BYU, witnessed first-hand the impact as investors bought up homes and converted them into student rentals, and long-term residents "flew" to escape the effects. Those "urban flight" participants could not sell to owner-occupants, (who wants to live in a neighborhood where the population suddenly trebles or quadruples; where cars line the streets day and night; where yards and houses deteriorate; where residents move in and out every year; where local school enrollment(and thus, school funding) drops; where church congregations diminish (and occasionally disappear); where owner-occupants who want to buy a house have to compete with investors who can always pay more (4 students to a house x $250 rent each is $1000 a month; but if the landlord puts 2 beds in each room its 8 x $250 = $2000, a positive cash flow); where family homes are decreasing in value because next door is a student complex (decreased by as much as $25k and that's a whole lot of forbearance to ask of the neighbors-- unless, of course, they also sells out to an investor. Result -- end of neighborhood as we know it.) In Wasatch Neighborhood, as well as dozens of others, the trend developed: investors converting ever more homes into over-occupied rentals. The perception of the neighborhood changed. Homeowners grew hopeless. It took government intervention to reverse it.

WHY is this occurring? Several reasons. Increased enrollment at UVSC. Tax breaks fro "kiddie condos." And a series of very important, unnoticed, events.

A decade ago, after Provo was declared "the most livable city in America," the vacancy rates for apartments was at 1%. The "Get-Rich-In-Real-Estate" late-night infomercials declared Provo a top market in the nation for investment rental property. The Olympics were coming. Rents on existing apartments had increased enormously. Everybody saw dollar signs. And Provo became the target for out-of-town investors seeking to buy up the single-family housing stock.

Many local people also got on the wagon. In-town investors usually maintain their properties well, but some of the tax breaks do not apply to local landlords, and being a landlord is tough, so many sold out to big investors, who did not keep up the properties, or violated the occupancy laws. There was one slumlord (see the post entitled "the Trouble with Libertarians") who owned almost 1000 units in town; all of them could be classified as "unfit premises". He sold out and left town when the City Council began to make laws that impacted him.

The measures that the Council took to reverse the trends were multi-directional. There was no single, quick answer. Those measures included: The Neighborhood Program (which encourages grass-roots involvement in neighborhood issues), the CNRCC (which uses federal money to rehabilitate the older neighborhoods in the city), the 80-20 program (which offers loans to first-time buyers), the A-overlay zone (which makes a owning a home affordable), the Neighborhood Housing Service (NHS, which is a non-profit organization that coordinates grants and loans and volunteer projects) the Apartment Licensing Ordinance (which requires that all rented premises be fit to live in, and funds the enforcement of those standards), the South Campus Area Plan (which encourages more in-fill or replacement building just for students), the "3 to 2" ordinance (which defines who can claim to be a "family" for occupancy purposes), the Orem-Provo alliance (which encourages our sister city to house more of its own student population), the Student Housing Approval changes (which removes BYU-approved status from some areas of the city), the Development Agreements Requirements (which raises the bar on what developers can build with regards to parking standards, occupancy, ownership, etc.), the PRO zone (which gives latitude and flexibility for re-developing older sections of town), the Landmarks Commission (which identifies buildings with historical significance that should not be demolished for re-development), and others. The Council has been tough and comprehensive and proactive.

Most of these measures were instituted before the term of the present Council. In the last four years, however, SIX important issues have come to the agenda which would further protect families, preserve neighborhoods, encourage long-term home ownership, and stabilize the city. Two Council members, Midge Johnson and Steve Turley, voted AGAINST those issues. Regardless of what they profess in debates or in their campaign literature, when the rubber met the road, they did not vote accordingly.

I am in favor of the Council's past actions in these regards, and I will endorse further actions.

12 ACTION POINTS

Several people have asked me to summarize what I will do on the Council. I have dozens of ideas! Here are a few that will cost no money, and can be initiated immediately.

My 12 Action Points

1. Ask for a “Sustainability Forecast”-- How is Provo doing in regards to air quality, water conservation, recycling participation, open space preservation, watershed protection?
2. Create an Economic Development Board to serve as a grass-roots business advisory committee -- What do local businesses say?
3. Review the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budgets and schedules of every city department (streets, energy, water, parks, etc.) -- What are the priorities?
4. Call for a Performance Audit of the Energy Department -- Where is the money going?
5. Institute a workable “Employee Recommendation System”-- What do the employees suggest?
6. Develop a complaint file for developers to document recurring problems that occur in the development process -- What are the “holes in the program”
7. Educate all landowners along Provo River about the benefits of protecting the Provo River Parkway -- Have they considered “conservation easements?”
8. Have a serious discussion, including the public, about just how big Provo should get-- Would less be more?
9. Designate a process and timetable for other neighborhoods to be included in the measures to preserve and rehabilitate the older neighborhoods of Provo --What are the opportunities?
10. Review the Professional Performance Plan (PPP) for our top level administrators -- Is at least one council member aware of all compensation?
11. Hold a meeting with every neighborhood to educate the residents of the demographic changes occurring in Provo, and of the necessity to enforce zoning laws -- What is "urban Flight" and how do we stop it?
12. Improve communication between Provo and the public and other city stakeholders -- What is going on in Provo?

Are these specific enough? If not, call me. We'll talk about it. --mel

-- AIRPORT DEALS

Several years ago, when the Airport Master Plan was being passed, the city held public hearings about whether or not, and how, the airport should expand. The FAA required that process before ANY improvements could be made to the existing airport.

Many important concerns were raised during that process, among them what should happen to the farm land which borders the airport. An Airport Protection Area was anticipated, a zone which would limit development around the facility.

Neighbors of the airport wondered at that time, whether or not that "zone", with the restrictions on what kind of building would ever be allowed there, would limit the amount of money their land would be worth. They also wondered who would ever want to buy land next to a runway.

On Tuesday night, Provo City voted to exercise options on aver 50 acres adjacent to the airport. We paid the owners $35k an acre for the land, the market value of agricultural land. As the airport develops, as some city planners have already decided that it will, certain commercial and industrial and air-related services can be built there. Then the land will be worth more, perhaps as much as $100k an acre.

Steve Gleason, the airport director,reminded me that the city cannot, by law, pay more than fair market value. And Tara Riddle, the city's property coordinator, obtained two different appraisals. Also, these were willing sellers, who came TO the city, not visa versa. But I still am uncomfortable with the deal.

It does not seem fair to pay agricultural prices for land that is limited in its value because of a regulation we placed on it. If Provo develops that property with facilities that only we can use, and makes a great deal of profit from that development, there should be some way to reimburse the original owners for some of that difference. Share the wealth.

Tuesday night, at Council meeting, I said so. I reminded everyone of the concerns, and assurances, that were expressed seven years ago. Unfortunately, everyone convinced me that there was really nothing to be done. But I tried.

Suggestion to any other owner with property in the Airport protection Area-- HANG ONTO IT. It'll be worth a bucketload someday.

-- ATTENTION PROVO CITY EMPLOYEES!!!

This is a contribution from Dave Knecht. It has a link to a video:

So you think you need a raise?

It features the Council's former Budget Chair Mr.
Turley and myself talking about whether our City
employees should get a COLA
or Cost of Living Adjustment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okR-3ZxrXwk

Please share this with your friends,
Thanks, Dave

-- NO MORE "-ITES" or "-ANS" or "-ATS"

I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not an Independent or a Libertarian or a Green. My voter registration card reads "UNA"-- unaffiliated. And I am proud and vocal about it.

The rabid partisanship in politics is tearing the nation apart. The stranglehold that the parties have on certain areas of the country and state are bad for democracy.

In Utah, that hold is held by the Republican party, and over the years, the more ultra- conservative elements have gained greater control of the party. They are attempting to gain more.

The state legislature voted to limit Primary elections to registered voters IN that party. Now only voters who declare their allegiance to the party are allowed to cast a ballot. That means that those of us who believe in political anonymity are disenfranchised. And in Utah, that means the republican party leadership chooses our representatives.

The gerrymandering of the congressional districts by the legislature was another example of attempts to determine which party rules. Salt Lake, the only area of the state that could possibly be a non-Republican voting block, was carved into pieces to prevent that. A Democrat was elected anyway. I laughed. And I laughed when Joe Leiberman won as an independent after his party abandoned him.

Our representatives to the state legislature are now trying to make ALL races in the state into partisan races, even City Council and School Board. WHY?

I have voted for Republicans. I have voted for Democrats. I have even voted for a third party candidate. I read. I pay attention. I do research. I elect the person, and refuse to be dictated to by any party. That makes me dangerous. That also makes me in harmony with 40% of the voters, who feel the same way. Power to the people! No more power to the back room boys!

And, for the record, despite any rumors you may have heard, I am not a communist.

-- ENDORSEMENTS--WHO'S ON YOUR LIST?

Every election year, candidates pull out their lists of "important" people. One year, a mayoral candidate took out a whole page ad in the paper, with the names of everyone he knew, apparently. First on the list were all the LDS stake presidents in town. I was appalled.

Incumbent Midge Johnson posts a lengthy list on her website. http://www.midgejohnson.com/support.html

Some people on that list genuinely want to support Midge's candidacy. Good, they have every right to do so. I am not hurt or offended that friends agree with her, and disagree with me. But some people did NOT know they were there. At least one asked to have his name removed. Some are on the list because Midge is a friend and she asked them, so out of friendship, they agreed to let her use their names. Some are NOT even be aware of what an endorsement means.

To put your name on a candidate's literature means that you agree with her, that you approve of her policies, her words and actions, and especially, her votes. You publicly acknowledge that.

An endorsement is supposed to carry weight. Voters are supposed to read the list, recognize a name, and say, "Well, if so-and-so is for her, I guess I should be,too."

When I ran against Midge four years ago, people called me and apologized to me that their name appeared on her list. "I am so sorry, Mel. She wouldn't let me off the phone until I agreed." The one that bothered me was the man who called to say he was declining to endorse anyone, to preserve neighborhood unity, and then his name showed up on Midge's literature. If you want to stay out of the fray, do so.

Prominent people have offered to endorse me. Ironically, one famous politico said he would add his name ONLY if another infamous politico was omitted. And the decision of who is "important enough" for publication is horrifying.

Here's what I decided. I am asking for NO ENDORSEMENTS. I will accept any that are offered, but I will not ask my friends to publicly declare what side they are on in what should be a private decision. There is a reason our voting system is anonymous -- to avoid untenable situations just like this. Midge and I have lived in the same neighborhood for over 30 years. I just cannot put my neighbors in this position.

If your name is on her list, and you don't want to have it there, call her and ask to have it removed. Or call me, and I'll be the designated nasty person.

I am my own endorsement. I do not claim affiliation with ANY special interest group, organization, or sect. My articles here on this blog are the leverage I want to use. The words here accurately reflect my positions.

I believe this decision about endorsements is the right thing to do. "Do what is right, let the consequences follow." To subscribe ANY other motive to my decision is incorrect.

-- PRINCIPLE-BASED GOVERNMENT

When I was 17, I read a paper written by then-presidential candidate, Eugene McGovern. It talked about the absolute necessity of measuring ALL decisions we make in government by the principles we believe in.

A friend, commenting about this blog, said that I had used a great deal of space criticizing the incumbant, and very little space actually explaining my points of view.
He was right. Here's my criteria that I will use making decisions on the City Council:

1. Does it need to be done? Governemnt should only do what really needs to be done. Even cities must differentiate between wants and needs. What determines if a thing is a need? Many things, but the final determination can NEVER BE MONEY! By that I mean, if we are only doing it to get money, or not doing it because it costs money, we need to reconsider. There has to be a higher purpose, or need, than the dollar.

2. Is no one else doing it? If it needs to be done, and there really is no one else to do it, then we have to. Simple. See what is needed, do it.

3. Can we do it better than anyone else? If someone IS doing it, and they could actually do a better job than we could, we should let them.

How does this look in real life? Let's take the example of the $40 million iProvo deal. Had I been on the Council when the decision was made, I would have answered the previous questions like this:

1. Does Provo need a fiber optic network? Certainly, some people consider a high-speed internet connection a necessity. When electricity was first offered to the public, people probably said, "We don't need that!" Now, we cannot exist without it. The world is changing. Perhaps iProvo was a need. Answer to question #1 -- maybe.

2. Is no one else building a fiber optic network? Well, not at the time. In hindsight, we now know that UTOPIA came along just months after we passed the bond. But when we passed it, five other companies had agreed to build the network, and then not done so. But eventually someone would have. So the answer to question #2 is, -- eventually.

3. Can we do it better than anyone else? No. Private enterprise could. UTOPIA got an incredible bonding rate because of the shared liability. # 3-- no.

"Maybe", "eventually", and "no" are not good enough answers to justify $40m. And ultimately, money WAS the bottom line. It was a possible revenue stream for the city.

That being said, I was NOT on the Council, and so the deed was done. And that brings me to rule #4. Try not to do damage. We do have a fiber optic network, and it must succeed. Nay saying, second-guessing, and recriminations will not help. So I will keep my mouth shut, and keep my iProvo subscription. I will hang in there with the program. Let's be grateful for what we have. I do love the high-speed connection!

-- CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

In the 80's the Provo Chamber of Commerce merged with the Orem Chamber of Commerce. Gary Ashby was the architect of that merger. Since that time, the chamber's membership has declined. And the Chamber's influence on city decisions has waned. What should be the organization that advises the city's economic development decisions, has lost much of its power.

Provo has an Economic Development advisory board. A few local businessmen, chosen by the Mayor, serve on it. I do not know who they are. I do not know when they meet. I do not know what is on their agenda. And I do not know what policies they are following. No mention has been made of them in any public meeting I have attended in 10 years, and no mention is made of them on the city's website.

In 2000, when Lewis Billings was elected, he created 15 citizen committees to examine every city department, to make recommendations for change. The reports from those committees were available to the public upon request. I think I am the only citizen who actually read them.

The report from the committee on Economic Development was particularly intriguing. Leland Gammett spoke about several ongoing commercial development projects that, as far as I could see, were in contradiction to the policies set by the City Council, who are the people responsible for setting policy.

And where is the voice of the business community in all this? Unless the area businesses organize themselves, (as in the case of the Downtown Business Alliance or the East bay Merchants Association), they have no voice.

Provo's Neighborhood Program is an attempt to get people involved at a grass-roots level. The Council has empowered residents of the city to organize, discuss, and act on the issues that impact their specific geographical areas of town. The business community should be empowered the same way, by ordinance.

A grass-roots committee from the business neighborhoods should be formed, established geographically. The East Bay Merchants should have one representative. The Downtown Alliance should have another. As I look at a map, I can see about six or seven other distinct commercial districts that should be designated. A representative from each of these areas, CHOSEN BY THE BUSINESSES, (plus another two from BYU and IHC, the two largest "businesses' in the city) should comprise the Economic Advisory Board to the Mayor, the Economic Development Department, and the City Council.

The City Council has the right, by state law, to form any boards or commissions it deems necessary for good government. It should form this one, and help take back the
power that the Chamber has lost, for the business community of Provo.

-- MONEY AND POLITICS

Common wisdom says that the candidate who spends the most money will win the election.

According to Stephen Leavitt, in his book "Freakonomics," the most physically attractive and charismatic candidate raises the most money, therefore spends the most money. And he will win the election. An unattractive, uncharismatic candidate will NOT win the election, no matter how much he spends.

Campaigns are expensive. Records sums were spent by Mark Sumsion and George Stewart two years ago in their race for Provo City Council. Four years ago, Steve Turley raised, and spent, a small fortune to defeat incumbant Stan Lockhart. This year promises to be even worse.

The questions of development and zoning in Provo have made the stakes very high, and some of the stakeholders, the developers and realtors, are anxious to fund the candidates whom they believe are sympathetic to their interests -- Midge Johnson and Steve Turley. The Utah County Board of Realtors has been especially generous to them in the past.

A single lawn sign, the smallest available, costs about $1.50. Larger signs cost $25. A small ad in the Daily Herald will run several hundred dollars, and a bulk mailing of campaign brochures runs in the thousands.

So, can an election be bought? Even in Provo? Are the voters no more discerning than that? Do people really NOT pay attention to the issues and the voting records? Are they just swayed by the image, which can be manufactured?

We'll see.

-- MIDGE JOHNSON'S CONTRADICTORY VOTE

Last night, at City Council, Midge Johnson voted to deny the application of Anderson Development to amend the General Plan on 34 acres in west Provo, from Agricultural to Residential. The developer was proposing to build 72 homes on 34 acres of farmland and wetland. Mrs. Johnson argued aggressively to stop the motion.

This is the second time that Anderson Development has applied to amend the General Plan so that they could rezone and build on the property. Three other previous developers have tried to do the same thing, starting in 1998. Each time the Council has said "no."

Their reasons are always the same. The infrastructure cannot bear any more development-- the road is insufficiently improved, the traffic is over the limit, the groundwater is too high, and the sewer and storm drain systems are inadequate.

These same concerns were present in June,2005, the last time this developer tried for a Plan change. Except that in 2005, they wanted to build 117 houses on the same land. And in 2005, Mrs. Johnson was IN FAVOR of the proposal.

From the minutes of that meeting:

Ms. Johnson, Land Use Chair, said the Land Use Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and believes the amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and noted the need for traffic issues to be addressed when the property develops and a Development Agreement is presented.

There was no response to the invitation for public comment. Councilmember Johnson moved to approve the amendment to the General Plan Map and text, an action seconded by Councilmember Warner.

Ms. Johnson said the applicant and neighborhood have addressed traffic mitigation. However, when the project comes for rezone, Engineering may have additional things to add/change. She supports the Planning Commission and the neighborhood recommendation for approval. This is a chance to help the neighborhood by providing larger homes to area residents.

Ms. Johnson reminded the Council that it was a last moment decision in the General Plan process to move this property back to the agricultural designation from residential. Ms. Richards said the General Plan language said the neighborhood supported a change based on the applicant and, if that applicant could not perform, the neighborhood wanted the property reverted back to agricultural. The General Plan honored that agreement.

The vote on the motion to approve the proposed General Plan amendment was 3:4 with
Councilmembers Johnson, Turley and Warner in favor and Councilmembers Dayton, Knecht, Richards and Sandstrom opposed.

For the complete staff report and meeting minutes go to :

http://www.provo.org/downloads/comdev/pc_staff_report_october_26_2005_item_4_web.pdf

-- MIDGE JOHNSON'S VOTING RECORD

MIDGE JOHNSON SEEKS RE-ELECTION-- DOES SHE WALK THE TALK?

In 2003, Midge Johnson won the District 3 seat on the Provo City Council. Now, four years later, she is running again. There are discrepancies between what she said she would do four years ago, and what she has actually done. She has NOT walked the talk. A few examples:

In 2003, Midge Johnson took exception with the fact that I had, as chair of the Provost neighborhood, filed an application to rezone a part of the neighborhood (from Center Street to 460 south) with an A-overlay zone, which would allow accessory apartments in owner-occupied homes.( For the real reason I made that application see the article below, "THAT INFAMOUS ZONING APPLIXCATION") At debates and forums, in her campaign literature, and during door-to-door canvassing, Mrs. Johnson criticized the application. Three years later, these same issues came to the fore in the Pleasantview neighborhood, the area around the BYU stadium. Long-time residents argued against applying the A-overlay zone to their neighborhood. They asked the Council not to abandon Pleasantview to investors/landlords. They contended that Pleasantview was still a viable, single-family neighborhood, and should be protected. She voted for the rezone. WHY? That vote in favor of the A-overlay zone was inconsistent with the arguments she employed against the A-overlay zone during the election.

In 2003, Midge Johnson campaigned that a change was needed in the zoning ordinance that would allow elderly and disabled residents to rent their basements in order to supplement their retirement income, thus allowing them to stay in their homes longer. She said, "They have lived in their homes and they want to die in their homes; this issue is a priority with me." In four years, the Council has taken no action towards that goal. The second kitchen ordinance, the "grandfathering" ordinance, and the caretaker ordinance were discussed at length. Nothing has occurred. WHY? Her inaction on the issue is inconsistent with her "priorities" espoused during the election.

In 2003, Midge Johnson was very vocal about increased zoning enforcement. She claimed that the city's policy turned neighbor against neighbor, and created disharmony in local congregations and neighborhoods. After the election, she said, "additional help in zoning enforcement will go a long way in pushing that goal(owner-occupancy). So we feel good about that...enforcement of some of the rules and some of the ordinances that we put into place." Midge took an oath to obey ALL the rules. She committed to change the ineffective ones. During her term in office, she did vote to fund four more zoning enforcement positions, but has not made any legislative proposals to correct the dozens, if not hundreds, of zoning violations in her district. The process for reporting zoning violations, with the burden on the neighbors, has not been changed. Legislation, imposing fines on realtors, property managers, and homeowner's association who violate zoning codes, has been unaddressed. WHY? She has been sending confusing and mixed messages about her stand on zoning enforcement.

In 2003, Midge Johnson ran on the platform of preserving neighborhoods. During the Master Plan hearings, she noted that 200 North was designated to become a "collector road", a capacity threshold of over 7500 car trips per day. She stated, "we need to fix that," meaning re-designate it in the Plan as a "local road", since it runs through residential neighborhoods and since 1400 school children cross it every school day.When the residents of three downtown neighborhoods applied, and overwhelmingly supported, redesignating 200 North as a local street instead of a collector, Mrs. Johnson voted to designate the street as a collector --siding with realtors and developers who wanted the higher designation so that they could build denser housing along 200 North. She also voted to open 300 North to Seven peaks traffic, abandoning a promise made to that neighborhood that it would not become a thoroughfare for waterpark and condo traffic. WHY? Controlling traffic on local streets is essential to preserving neighborhoods.

In 2003, Midge Johnson stated she would listen to the wants, needs, and concerns of the people, and represent them and not any special interest groups. For several years, the Council has been trying to solve the problem of the disproportionate number of starter homes being built on the west side. Developers buy up the farmland, and build very small homes on small lots in order to maximize their profits. During her term, Mrs. Johnson served as the land use chair, and conducted the discussions on the idea of having a minimum home size, (1500-1750 square feet). Mrs. Johnson supported, even championed, the idea, and the Council and city staff drafted the ordinance, conducted the required investigations, and brought it to a vote (a lengthy, complicated and expensive process. When the ordinance came to the Council, she voted against it. The ordinance passed anyway, but Mayor Billings vetoed it. Mrs. Johnson voted NOT to overturn his veto. She said his arguments were "eloquent" and changed her mind. WHY? The wants, needs, and concerns of the people would have been better represented by a "yes" vote.

In 2003, Midge Johnson stated, "I believe less government is better government. I believe in giving control to government only of those things that we cannot or do not want to do ourselves." After she was elected, she pushed for $150,000 of federal CDBG money to fund her "Pride in Provo" project-- PIP --which took taxpayer dollars to repair fences, resurface driveways, fix roofs, etc. on private homes. Her neighborhood, Provost, was supposed to be the first of many neighborhoods targeted by PIP, but PIP did not survive. After funding the project for two years (that's money that did not go to other city programs), the Council voted to pull its support. At the time, Mrs. Johnson was pushing for more funding to hire an administrator for the project.

That taxpayers should not be paying for private home repairs was discussed. That PIP was a REDUNDANT program was not discussed. NHS, (Neighborhood Housing Service), a non-profit organization, is already doing this work in Provo, for those who meet income and need requirements. (The Provost neighborhood chair was working on getting the NHS board to include the older portion of Provost neighborhood in its scope. When PIP was enacted, that proposal was shelved.) Provo City's redevelopment office has low and no-interest loans for home repairs; for seniors, that loan does not have to be repaid until the home is sold. Mountain Fuel has loan and grant programs for energy-saving repairs. BYU's Service Learning foundation coordinates student service projects anywhere they are asked. TCN, the Timpanogas Community Network, is a multi-sided network of organizations that bring education, neighborhood, religious, government, and business together to accomplish service goals. PIP was a duplicate effort which cost the city unnecessarily. WHY? The PIP program did NOT demonstrate less government. The PIP program was NOT something the government needed to control. The PIP program was NOT something that we could not do for ourselves.

In 2003, Midge Johnson pointed out, at several debate and public forums, that she was not a developer, emphasizing that I was. She speculated that since I was developing property in Provo, I had a conflict of interest. (The fact that my one and only project was completely through all city approvals was not mentioned.) But after Mrs. Johnson was elected, she defended Steve Turley against conflict of interest allegations when he developed land during his tenure on the Council. WHY? Her subsequent defense of Mr. Turley was NOT in harmony with her earlier allegations about me.

In 2003, Midge Johnson promised to listen to and represent the residents in her district. In an editorial she wrote in Jan 2005, she said, "I believe in giving people a voice. Government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people should determine the extent of government and the services they want the city to provide." During Mrs. Johnson's tenure, several opportunities have arisen for people to have a voice. For the $40 million iProvo deal, she did not support the suggestion that the bond proposal be sent to a referendum vote by the residents. And when Dave Knecht proposed a citizen's committee to recommend how federal funds should be allocated to the neighborhoods, she said, "Some representation from the neighborhood would be a good thing, but I don't know if they would have an idea of where to start. We live in a representative government, and hopefully that's what we're doing. In some ways I feel that (a citizen's committee) is passing the buck." No such committee was formed. WHY? If she wanted to give people a voice, she should have let them speak about these important subjects.

In 2003, Midge Johnson's campaign promise was that she would be a team player and a peacemaker and a consensus builder. In Jan 2005, she accused the other Council members of trying to "railroad" through a nomination for Council chair. She lobbied hard for the position, herself. She complained that the committee assignments were unfair, and kept complaining until she got the one she wanted-- land use. She complained that Council Chair George Stewart had threatened her, "I was told I wouldn't be invited to any parties," she said. On several other occasions, she has made claims and statements during meetings that have caused the other Council members to blanch, gasp, and even erupt. WHY? Being a peacemaker and team player and consensus builder should look different.

The criteria for all things political should be: Is it right? Is it right to examine the actions of our elected officials, compare them to what they professed during the campaign, and see if the two jive? I believe that is the basis of our democratic system, to hold our elected officials accountable with our votes.

I do not think that Midge Johnson's actions are consistent with what she professes.

-- CROSSING THE LINE

The following article, written by Dave Knecht, was sent to :

http://www.utahpolitics.org/

Crossing the Line

When does a City Council member, who is also a
Developer, cross the line?

When Mr. Steve Turley, Provo City-Wide Councilman, ran
for office he wanted to be know as a businessman
rather than a budding developer.
As Mr. Turley took office we were in the midst of a 5
year review/update of our cities General Plan. Steve
became vocal and animated about how our Plan was too
specific and that the land use boundaries should not
follow property lines, but should be general and
fuzzy. He even climbed on top of our work table to
try and make his points.
One area he focused on was our North East bench by
Provo Canyon. It is steep and environmentally
sensitive. He lobbied us to change the General Plan
to allow more development. He even advocated the City
building a new road to access the next level up the
hillside.
At the time it seemed odd, but not self serving or
otherwise a conflict of interest. Although we later
learned of his owning property in this same area.
http://ims2.co.utah.ut.us/website/realtime%20parcel/realtimegis.asp?left=1598086.71504458&bottom=7280312.16382093&right=1598336.30041452&top=7280529.1945774&cmd=setscale&clickx=0&clicky=0&img=0&dat=7%2F24%2F2007&rds=1&scl=400&par=200140038&buf=0&cty=Utah+County&qtr=0&sec=1&twn=3&rng=3W
Since I left the Council more facts have come to light
about his involvement in trying to develop this part
of Provo. In particular his interest in entering into
a joint development agreement with Anderson
Developments.
http://www.andersondevelopmentonline.com/blog/?p=62

This is not the only incident that bothers me.
Steve, along with one of his associates, tried to get
a Springville body shop owner to de-annex from
Springville so that Provo's boundary would then extend
all the way to the corner of a busy intersection of
State Street. This would have allowed all the
adjacent property to redevelop, including Steve's
friends property.
The body shop owner, a friend of mine, could not see
how it was in his best interest to sell out/redevelop
his family business just so the vacant property next
door could be developed.
While what Steve was pushing for would have benefited
his friend, it would also have required Provo to
change it's Annexation Policy, General Plan and
Zoning, all of which must be approved by the City
Council.

I believe Mr. Turley would have done well to follow
our Mayor's example. Mayor Billing has put the
properties he could develop into a blind trust, and
our Mayor has not brought his own projects before the
Council as Mr. Turley has done.
See items E4 and E5
http://www.provo.org/downloads/council/7-19-05.pdf
(item E3 was also Mr. Turley's Realty company applying
to amend our General Plan.)

While it is fine to have different points of view
represented on the Council, it is not appropriate or
ethical when a Councilman/Developer mixes his personal
Business with his Politics.

This conflict of interest is just one of the reasons I
can't support Mr. Turley in his bid to be re-elected
to the Provo City Council this year.

Dave Knecht, Former City Wide Councilman Provo 2002-5