| OCR Text |
Show Growing in Utah: The Quality Growth Act of 1999 JillM. Burton '"How can a state policy commission on this issue be dominated by the development community?1" (Dillon 1999a). As defined in HB119, the Quality Growth Act, (9)(a) "Open land" means land that is: (i) preserved in or restored to a predominantly natural, open, and undeveloped condition; and (ii) used for: (A) wildlife habitat; (B) cultural or recreational use; (C) watershed protection; or (D) another use consistent with the preservation of the land in or restoration of the land to a predominantly natural, open, and undeveloped condition. (b) (i)"Open land" does not include land whose predominant use is as a developed facility for active recreational activities, including baseball, tennis, soccer, golf, or other sporting or similar activity. (ii) The condition of land does not change from a natural, open, and undeveloped condition because of the development or presence on the land of facilities, including trails, waterways, and grassy areas, that: (A) enhance the natural, scenic, or aesthetic qualities of the land; or (B) facilitate the public's access to or use of the land for the enjoyment of its natural, scenic, or aesthetic qualities and for compatible recreational activities (lines 123-140). The UAR wanted the definition of "open land" to read, (a) preserved predominantly in open condition, and/or (b) land used for: (i) wildlife habitat; (ii) cultural or recreational use; (iii) water source protection; or (iv) another use consistent with the preservation of the land in a predominantly open condition. The UAR's definition of "open land" seems less clear and might cause problems for the Quality Growth Commission as it moves toward creation or enhancement of open space. For instance, the Act begins its definition using the words, under section (a)(I), "preserved in or restored to a predominantly natural, open, and undeveloped condition...," whereas the UAR would use, under its section (a), only the words "preserved predominantly in open condition...." Again, in section (ii)(D) the Act uses the wording "preservation of the land in or restoration of the land to a predomi- nantly natural, open, and undeveloped condition," but the UAR chooses to only use "preservation of the land in a predominantly open condition." Another significant difference in the definition is that the Act has section (b)(I), which further explains the definition of "open land," while the UAR would cut out this section entirely. These contrasts in the definition of open land are rather obvious; however the implications the contrasting definitions might have for the Commission and its purpose may not be as clear. Representative Garn spent many hours meeting and deliberating with the UAR representatives; however, he could not support its desires and the UAR remained opposed to the bill. '"After all the coordination, after all the inclu-sion-with the Association of Counties, conservation groups, with the American Planning Association, the architects, local governments, even the Home Builders...on board-it is one interest group, the Realtors, who are destroying this process,"1 said Brad Barber of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (Dillon 1999a). The UAR then took its position to the Senate, whose President, Lane Beattie (R-West Bountiful), and Assistant Majority Whip, L. Alma Mansell (R-Sandy), are realtors by profession. One might easily have supposed that the Senate leadership would put a stop to the bill's progress until the UARs' desires were met. However, when Representatives Garn and Becker met with the Senate Leadership, the former assured the latter that the Growth Act would not assume local planning authority and would not threaten private property rights. Only a few small changes were made to the bill and it passed easily through the Senate. The UAR in its opposition to the legislation, lobbied extensively and received a lot of media attention. Its efforts seemed well rounded, not pointing directly toward favoring the realtor profession, though others often saw that as an underlying purpose for UAR's unwillingness to support the Growth Act. In the end, the composition of the Quality Growth Commission and the definition of "open space" were not changed. Representative Garn said, regarding home ownership and growth management, in a speech on the House floor, "There is nothing more fundamental than housing and home ownership to our citizens. Home ownership is part of the American Dream....[T]he current system is not working. We have a system where property rights are often an afterthought....[W]e need to act now so that we can preserve our quality of life." Local governments are usually cautious about supporting initiatives that might suggest a statewide mandate for planning, since what might look like a good plan for one area may not be beneficial or relevant to another. The leaders of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, obviously, were leery in the beginning about supporting growth legislation. As the bill developed, it became clear that the purpose was not to make statewide mandates. The bill will aid local governments in their efforts to manage growth. Wilf Sommerkorn, a local government planning director in Davis County, said (1999) in support of the bill, 10 |
