-- 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.