OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 Local planners and officials are so busy dealing with day to day activity in their respective jurisdictions, they have little time to step back and see what effects their collective actions have. My hope is that the Quality Growth Commission will serve as a platform to evaluate us sufficiently to be able to address problems that are difficult for small local units of government to deal with on their own. Local government officials, who have the primary responsibility of dealing with and managing growth, also have the largest number of seats on the Quality Growth Commission. They will actively engage in a comprehensive state-level policy examination of growth in cities and counties and make recommendations back to the State Legislature. The Utah League of Cities & Towns released in its Legislative Update on February 19, 1999, its position in strong support of the Quality Growth Act of 1999. Its leaders foresee the Act bringing much needed order and effectiveness to the planning process and growth management. Some legislators were unwilling to allow growth management to take place because they believed it to be the first step toward state control of local planning processes. "They say that community planning is a dubious activity at best, and giving it legitimacy through state discussions should not be done because it interferes with private property rights" (Sommerkorn 1999). But local planning already exists, because the state allows local governments to do it. The division among legislators became obvious on the House floor when the Rural Caucus, consisting of very conservative legislators, began challenging House Bill 119. A few days prior to its introduction, forty-two of the seventy-five legislators in the House of Representatives signed onto the bill as co-sponsors. The rural legislators, however, seemed to believe the bill was about state government interfering in local planning and zoning, where the control would take away the rights of land owners. Representative Katherine Bryson (R-Orem), said she had '"first hand experience with government land controls in southern Utah and northern California....I have seen environmentalists usurp the power of the people....I vow to fight the bill1" (Fahys and Walsh 1999). Other opponents suggested the bill would allow government too much money to buy the land that it wants. Representative Garn said, '"The bill hopes to protect property rights, prevent a decline in total private ownership of real estate, and protect property tax revenues. It also is aimed at breaking down barriers to affordable housing or high-density housing"1 (Wakley 1999). He also added that the bill will allow the free market system to function and that the Quality Growth Commission does not and will not exercise any regulatory authority. By the end of the two-hour debate it seemed to the author as if rural legislators were putting up barricades to a phrase, growth management, and putting no effort into understanding the purposes of this specific bill. At one point in the debate, the opposing side was charged with creating bogymen, or problems that did not exist and were not relevant, in order to stop the progression of the bill. When the vote was finally called for, House Bill 119 passed the House with 47 yes votes and 23 no votes. Republicans: 28 yes, 22 no, 4 absent; Democrats: 19 yes, 1 no, 1 absent. After its easy passage in the Senate, 24 yes votes and 5 no votes, the bill came back to the House of Representatives for final approval, or concurrence. The conservative caucus once again attempted to stop its passage. Representative Melvin Brown, R-Murray, former Speaker of the House, told the legislature that "ignorance is bliss," and said that the bill was about statewide planning and contrary to individual property rights. He then suggested that the bill be delayed and studied for a year. At this point Speaker of the House, Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, stepped down from the Speaker's chair onto the House floor to speak in favor of the bill and express his disagreement with the views of the opposition. It was clear to Speaker Stephens that, as Representative Garn had said earlier, "this bill is all about enhancing and preserving the quality of life that all of us have come to know and love," and not about state control (Garn 1999a). The Quality Growth Act, after few modifications, passed in the House 51 to 23, and it was signed into law by Governor Michael Leavitt just a week after its passage. Opposition to the bill had come from various people and organizations, but most notable and strongest were the efforts made by the Utah Association of Realtors and the Rural Caucus. Many organizations and interest groups also stepped forward and voiced their support for the bill during its creation and debate at the legislature. It is worth noting, here, some of the organizations who supported it. The Utah Chapter of the American Planning Association released a statement (1999) strongly supporting HB 119. Within the statement it said, In response to growing public concern about growth and related issues, the 1999 House of Representatives...have worked with the Governor's Office, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Utah Association of Counties, private business interest groups and others to prepare a bill that will help citizens and local governments take a fresh look at the problems of growth in Utah and begin a dialog on possible solutions....We applaud and endorse the establishment of the Quality Growth Commission....For the first time, a diverse group of people would be formally charged with the responsibility of looking at growth issues from a joint perspective....The Association heartily endorses the concepts embodied in the proposed Quality Growth Act. Within its statement the Utah APA Chapter referred to other organizations which supported the Growth Act. Among other supporters not mentioned previously in the article were the Utah Foundation, a private nonprofit research group; and the Proterra Companies, developers. These organizations wrote and distributed statements in favor of the Growth Act. Both sides of the issue made strong cases either for or against the bill, but ultimately those in favor of the legislation 11 |