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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
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
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
Thursday, August 23, 2007
-- 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.
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.
Friday, August 17, 2007
-- 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
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
-- 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!
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
-- 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.
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.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
-- 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:
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)