-- 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

-- TAKING CREDIT-- A POLITICAL TACTIC

Every election, incumbants make a list of everything that they have "accomplished" during their term in office. A comman practice is to list absolutely everything that occurred during the four years, and then imply that they were the "movers" behind the events. Mark Hathaway did this every election, claiming to have been instrumental in things that I know all he actually did was raise his hand and vote for the thing.

Here is a link to Midge Johnson's website:http://www.midgejohnson.com/views.html
Her list is entitled, "While I have been in office" It includes,

* No tax increases
* No power rate increases
* General fund balances have increased, are healthy and are reaching record highs
* Wells Fargo Building was completed
* Mountain Vista Business Park is accepting new tenants
* Provo Arts Center was completed
* Budgeted number of trained police officers were increased and the department has been fortified
* A Citizen's Academy for the Provo Police Department was created
* Equipment and vehicles for fire and police department have been upgraded
* Impact fees were created and increased to help pay for new development and growth
* Funding for designing and building three new parks(Sherwood Hills, Joaquin and Lakeview) and the for upgrading others
* A Slate Canyon study area was created to preserve and improve the Bi-Centennial Park and the surrounding neighborhoods
* New technology was approved for more efficiency at the library.
* A city-wide fiber to the home network, iProvo, was built out and has been offered to our citizens
* Splash pool at North Park was completed
* A regional convention center study was conducted and was approved
* Pride in Provo was created
* Provo Senior Games were created
* An airport tower was completed and staffed
* Airport traffic was rerouted to protect neighborhoods
* Neighborhood revitalization efforts have continued
* Downtown revitalization efforts have increased
* Parking permit programs have been created to protect neighborhoods

The question we need to ask Midge is, just exactly what did you have to do with these accomplishments? How does the list jive with what you said you would do (see posts titled "Midge's Answer to ProvoCitizens" and "Midge Johnson--Does she walk the talk?"

As I review the list, I agree that Midge was in some way instrumental in a few of these items. Turn on your bogus meters, people! Examine her claims, her actual actions, and now this list. Compare all three. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not accept all claims, implied or otherwise.

-- ANSWERS TO PROVOCITIZENS

In 2003, the following survey was done by the libertarian group, provocitizens. I post Midge's answers just as they appeared:

Provo City Council candidates
Candidate:

Question: Midge Johnson
District: 3
phone: 377-2444

What is the most pressing issue facing Provo today, and how would you address it?

Declining school enrollment, rental units out-numbering owner occupied housing, apathy, too much government restrictions and control. I believe we should enforce laws that are already on the books and be prudent in creating new laws and restrictions that burden families, home owners and businesses. I think we should foster a feeling of good will and not divisness over zoning issues. We all want to live in great neighborhoods and there are other ways to accomplish the sense of community we all desire without giving away our freedoms and over regulating citizens.

An attempt has been made to alleviate parking problems in Provo by delegating parking authority to the individual neighborhoods. Do you support this ordinance? Are there other areas where you would delegate such authority?

I haven't heard of this ordinance. On the surface it sounds like there may be some merit to it. I like the fact that neighborhoods can control their own destiny and solve some of their own problems.

How would you have voted (did you vote) on the council's proposal earlier this year to restrict non-owner-occupied properties, regardless of size, to 2 renters in all residential zones in Provo? Please explain your rationale.

I understand the Council's well-meaning intent with the 3 to 2 ordinance. I am not satisfied that they represented the option completely or fairly and therefore am leary of the neighborhoods voice in opting "in" to the ordinance. I am pleased that each neighborhood has the right to opt "out" as well. I think that if a home can support more than three renters with it's available amenities i.e. parking, etc. then they ought to be able to rent to it's capacity. I don't think there is anything magical about 3 to 2, (except the incentive to rent a house goes down with less rentals, which is just what the current City Council is hoping for.) I think they should enforce laws on the books if there is a specific problem area. I am not for enactng laws that control and restrict us.

Do you believe it is the job of the city government to decide how a property may look, who may live there, and other issues relating to private property rights? Are there any areas where the city may not interfere? What are they?

No I do not believe that is the role of city government. I do believe that some people exercise their freedom and property rights to the detriment of others' rights and that is when I believe government may need to enforce certain zoning restrictions.

Provo has a new apartment rental licensing ordinance. Would you have voted(did you vote) in favor of its passage? Would you vote for a repeal? Why or why not?

I probably would not have voted for it. Again I think it's a way to control our lives. They want the information that comes from such a registry to serve special interest groups. I think the administration of such an ordinance will prove overwhelming and the revenue will be minimal if it is designed to just cover those administration costs.

In what way are your positions/policies different from your opponents'? Why should we elect you?

I am the best candidate in the district #3 race. I believe Theron Harmon has some good ideas, they are too conservative for mainstream voters and I don't believe he has the life experience to do as well as I will. I believe Melanie McCoard also has some good ideas but I believe she has made up her mind on every issue confronting the voters. I don't believe she leaves room for their voice as she has her own agenda that coincides nicely with the trends of the current administration.

Would you vote to maintain, strengthen, weaken, or eliminate the city's current dance ordinance? MAINTAIN

Would you support an expansion of city administration to increase enforcement of zoning violations? NO

Would you vote in favor of a tax increase to pay for increased zoning enforcement? NO

Do you think student involvement in local politics is too great, too small, or about right? Too SMALL

Would you support an aggressive voter registration drive to increase student involvement? YES

Do you believe it is the job of the city council to decide on the renter/owner-occupant mix in Provo? NO

Do you believe the city council has done a good job of overseeing this mix? NO

Should Provo's government set a minimum house size for the city? NO

Will you sign a pledge to refrain from any and all negative campaigning on issues not related to your opponents' voting record or stated positions? YES

Elaborate on one of the short question answers and/or share anything else: www.midgejohnson.com will provide a picture for you.

Please compare Midge's answers THEN to her subsequent actions and votes over the past 4 years AND to her claims of position on her website this year.

-- THE TROUBLE WITH LIBERTARIANS

Several years ago, I visited a home in Provo, an older pioneer home, which the landlord had divided into 5 apartments. The old house had no steps to get onto the porch; two milk crates had been overturned to serve as steps. The ground floor was home to 15 Hispanic men; the ceiling drooped into the room and dripped brown water. The staircase to the upper level was so narrow that both my shoulders touched the walls as I ascended; it could never have been been built with a building permit. The floor in one apartment was covered in mismatched carpet scraps; it could not be vaccuumed or cleaned. The bedroom in one "apartment" was exactly the size of the bed; there was no room for a door on the bedroom. There were mouse droppings on every surface. The large backyard was used as a dump for material taken from the landlord's other units-- almost 1000 in Provo -- and the garbage pile was nearly as tall as the house, full of wood, windows, broken appliances, etc. The neighbors complained that the dump harbored rats. The landlord replied that the pile was not visible from the street, so the city had no cause to intervene.

Why on earth do I recount this story? Because it demonstrates the trouble with the libertarian mentality-- less government regulation, less government restrictions, less government. I believe that thinking denies the existence of men like the landlord. It is naiive at best, delusional at worst. The rhetoric sounds good, but it has no basis in reality. There ARE wicked people out there, and they can, and DO, take advantage of every opportunity, of every hole in the law. As they get worse-- greedier, craftier, more vocal-- it will be necessary to match their volume. They will force us to have not less government, but probably more government.

We lose our liberty through wickedness, and that wickedness is not necessarily our own.

A book I read recently analyzed the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He had a vision in his mind of how the people should behave -- women in veils, men at prayer, etc. -- and set about to make everyone comply. That his vision had no basis in reality was beside the point. He dreamed it, so be it.

The libertarian arguments are persuasive, they sound so good, but they also have no basis in reality. Good men believe the world to be one way, and want to enact legislation (or repeal legislation, actually) based on that belief. It's a delusion. We must work with the world as it really is, not how we would like it to be.

There are good men who are libertarians. But, unfortunately, bad men also espouse the libertarian party line, in order not to preserve their rights, but to protect their profits. -- mel

-- SLATE CANYON, AGAIN

The Slate Canyon SDP, (Specific Development Plan) was passed last week. The option which the Council chose would allow only low density housing east of Bicentennial Park. The study of options for the area was done by Landmarks Design (here's the link-- http://www.ldi-ut.com/pdf%20files/Slate%20Canyon%20Draft%20Final.pdf)

That study cost us over $50,000. And it told us that we wanted what we have said we wanted for the last 12 years.

In 1992, Taskforce 2000 was created. It was a citizen's committee that helped develop Provo's Master Plan, the document that determines how Provo will develop. The committee studied for 5 years. Notable members included Cindy Richards, Dave Knecht, and Tim Brough. They discovered that a healthy neighborhood did not contain over 30-40% high density housing. Since Steve Stewart's project was already approved, our neighborhood was projecting a rate more like 60% high density housing. Taskforce 2000 recommended that no more high density housing be approved in the Provost and Provost South neighborhoods. In 1997, that plan was adopted.

For many years Dennis Poulsen had been fighting to get the city to build the softball and soccer fields at Bicentennial park, as had been promised. However, the proposal began floating around to MOVE Bicentennial Park up the hill to the drainage basin out of Bulkley Draw, since the Army Corps of Engineers had determined that nothing could ever be build there due to avalanche and mudslide danger. The park, however, was nice flat ground, and since it was on the west side of the canal (the boundary line for any high-density housing) the city considered building on the park , and putting the park on the hill. (Of course, you can't build ball fields on a slope.) Dennis argued aggressively for the park to remain as it was, and to build it out as promised.

In 2003, the Master Plan was revisited (it has to be reviewed every 5 years) Again, all neighborhood activists insisted that the park remain as-is, and that no more high-density housing be permitted on city-owned land. Stan Lockhart was especially vocal, and when the city acquired the County Jail property, Stan worked hard to get the school and church built there, in preparation for more single-family housing.

In 2005, Dave Knecht put froward a proposal to fix these Master Plan recommendations for the record -- park in place, with ballfields, low-density housing elsewhere. He needed four votes for the measure to pass. He did not get them. Midge Johnson voted with Mayor Billings to conduct the SDP study. It took two years, cost over $50,000, and as I said, revealed that what everyone in the neighborhood had already decided, was, indeed, the best course of action.

Midge said, when she voted for the study, "We don't know what a good developer could do with that property."

Regardless of what a developer wanted to do, the neighborhood did not want more high-density housing, or commercial or mixed use development along Slate Canyon drive, or the park to be moved. (technically the park cannot be moved , both because of the geological faults which cause springs to pop out of the hillside, and because the land was donated as a park, and state law prohibits land that has been donated as a park from ever being developed.)

Midge voted to waste $50,000 of our money, and to discount the recommendations of the residents of Provo. Once again, reinventing the wheel.

-- LEWIS BILLINGS

I believe Lewis Billings is a good man. I respect him for the service he gives and for the competent manner in which he gives it.

Lewis is at his best when he lays all his goals, plans and methods out on the table and tries to help people understand them. I have seen him do this, at a Council retreat once, and at an impromptu meeting with the residents of Grandview hill. He can be open, forthcoming, and totally candid. It's a great thing to watch.

Unfortunately, Lewis doesn't always take that approach.

Lewis is a master at lining up ducks -- getting each small detail in place in order to accomplish a much bigger goal. And he lines those ducks up years before any of the rest of us are even aware of needing a line of ducks. And he doesn't always foreclose why he's putting those ducks into such a carefully constructed line.

Lewis associates with other duck herders -- men with their own visions of what Provo should look like in say, 20, 30, or 50 years. These men are way ahead of us, people.
And if we are not attentive, they will get all the little ducks to line up, just the way they want them. They are good men, too. But how Provo proceeds is not their decision. It's a decision all of us must make.

I understand why Lewis chooses to work on his goals without disclosing everything he intends. There are lou-lous out there, who hate ducks just on principle. Lewis may be trying to avoid conflict, sidestep public clamour, and protect his city.

But here's my problem with that particular form of confidentiality. It's disrespectful. It implies that we are not trustworthy enough to know his plans, OR not capable of understanding his plans, or irrelevent to his plans. I am not suggesting that he does not respect the right of the public to weigh in on important issues, I'm just saying that when he finally has to put his plans out on the table, he ladles on a whole lot of sauce-- public relations campaigns, expert studies, hand-picked advisory committees,, etc. I always get suspicious when I see that much sauce; maybe what is underneath it isn't all that tasty.

I don't fault Lewis for holding his cards close to the vest. Politics is brutal, and maybe he figures it's the only way to get anything done. Or maybe he's overly avoidant of contention. Or maybe he is just one defensive puppy.

I am mixing my metaphors, now; ducks,food service, poker and puppies. Let's add one more--slings and arrows. It is true that no arrow or stone that anyone ever shoots at you can possibly hit you. You must choose to pluck it out of the air and stab it into your own heart. You can choose to let it fly harmlessly past. The disadvantage of letting the arrow go by is that you never get to stop it and check it out, to see if the arrow has any validity, truth, or merit. In other words, if you ignore the opposition, (by leaving them out of the loop), you miss what the opposition has to offer.

Politicians cannot avoid opposition; the system was designed to include it. Paul Warner often said, when he was on the City Council, "We're all on the same team, here." No, Paul, we're not. Our form of government specifies two teams, separate and equal. If Lewis feels that he must keep his plans confidential from the public, then he must disclose early, openly, and fully to the City Council.

What I would say to Lewis is, trust somebody, buddy. We may surprise you.

-- STEVE TURLEY and ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT

This very interesting article, dated January 24th, 2007, was posted at :

http://www.andersondevelopmentonline.com/blog/?p=62

"...the Edgemont project has not proven to be an economically viable proposition, so, this project is currently in transition. We believe that the success of the project is dependent upon entering into a joint development agreement with The Canyon Oaks project and possibly Provo city councilman Steven Turley. We are in communication with Steven Turley regarding our ongoing negotiations of the sale of the Smith property. Steven has indicated interest in purchasing the property and entering into a joint development agreement with Anderson Development. Pending the outcome of these negotiations, we will determine which direction to take on the planning and engineering of this project. Anderson’s original vision for the development was high-end residential on Provo’s east bench (above Riverwoods), currently the property is pretty steep ‘mountain’ terrain."

-- THAT INFAMOUS REZONING APPLICATION

When I was serving as chair of the Provost neighborhood, I applied to rezone a portion of my neighborhood from an R-1-8 (Residential-Single Family-8000 sf lots) to an R-1-A (Residential-Single Family-Accessory Apartment.) I filed this application, NOT because I wanted to see the zone changed, but because I wanted to "call the question." I did NOT own property in the area propsed for rezone. I did NOT live there. I did NOT want to rent my own basement. I did NOT want to get a better price for my home.

There were, in the proposed area, over 50 homes with illegal basement apartments. The city was not enforcing the law, the neighborhood was deteriorating, many homes were going up for sale as the population aged or moved up, realtors were advertising properties in the area as duplexes, and absentee landlords, who previously had been buying homes for rentals in the Maeser, Joaquin, and Dixon neighborhoods, had targeted our neighborhood after protective ordinances were passed in those areas of the central city. I had learned that in order to force the City to address the problem, all I needed to do was file an official application. I wanted the discussion to begin.

The process worked. The neighbors were polled. The majority did NOT want to have the area rezoned. The Council voted to deny the request. End of story.