| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 article he wrote for the Deseret News Progress Edition, Governor Leavitt gave his support to the Quality Growth Act saying, As governor during very prosperous times, I have wrestled with the issue of growth and all of the challenges that come with it The essence of our public debate includes questions such as: How can we provide affordable housing to growing young families? How should the land be used? And who possesses jurisdiction and accountability for planning in Utah? This year, I have partnered with legislative leaders to support legislation that will become one of my administration's greatest legacies. The Quality Growth Act of 1999...[is] the first in Utah history designed specifically for the preservation of open lands and agricultural lands, as well as addressing issues such as offering incentives to reduce urban sprawl, creating affordable housing and efficiently providing the necessary infrastructure to accommodate growth (1999). The many factors that divided individuals and organizations, also, in fact, divided legislators on the appropriate action to take regarding growth legislation. As with any major issue brought before the state legislature, there were varying degrees of support and opposition. The Quality Growth Act was unique, in that it was not a partisan issue. It therefore did not match political parties against each other; instead it matched different interest groups and different legislators' viewpoints against one another and with one another. The key players in the creation and bringing forth of the proposed Quality Growth Act to the legislature included individual legislators, representatives from the Governor's office, and representatives of growth organizations and interest groups. Nearly three years went into planning this legislation. Growth meetings were held on a regular basis, especially during 1998, and on through the 1999 Session of the Utah Legislature. This allowed all interested parties to actively participate in the bill's development process. Representative Garn (R-Layton), the bill's sponsor, Representative Susan ]. Koehn (R-Woods Cross), Representative Ralph Becker (D-Salt Lake), and Representative Patrice M. Arent (D-Salt Lake) were the key legislators involved in the creation of the bill. Along with these individuals, representatives from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Utah Home Builders Association, the Nature Conservancy, the Utah Association of Realtors, Envision Utah, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, the Utah Association of Counties, and many others were involved in the process, sharing their opinions and ideas, and making suggestions. During the entire process, the Growth Act faced significant opposition. The Utah Association of Realtors (UAR) posed an especially difficult challenge to the Growth Act, since future decisions made by the Quality Growth Commission are likely to have a great impact on its members' business. UAR members and leaders had many opportunities to work out their concerns during the growth meetings and seemed to be nearing contentment as the 1999 legislative session began. But, when the time came close to the introducing of House Bill 119, the UAR stepped forward in strong opposition to the bill, calling for a long list of changes before it could support the measure. In a packet released to legislators, the media, and other growth interest groups, the UAR strongly opposed the bill, saying, "Utah REALTORS support quality growth and the preservation^] creation and enhancement of open spaces that add value to Utah's communities [,] which is why we support [certain other proposals]...[,] but REALTORS OPPOSE H.B.I 19-Quality Growth Act of 1999 as it is currently drafted." Among other things, the UAR asserted (1) that the bill would create a commission that would work against the private sector and the free market in creating solutions to growth; (2) that it would not protect open space, since open land is given a limited definition within the bill; and (3) that funding to purchase developable land would be overlooked by the public and the legislature. The UAR, therefore, urged legislators to vote no until the bill was changed. Its representatives insisted that the bill include as members on the Quality Growth Commission, a majority from the private sector and only a few elected officials; that the bill broaden the definition of "open land" to allow the Commission to fund the creation and enhancement of open spaces; and that the bill limit in advance the amount of state money available to the Commission. As stated earlier, the Quality Growth Commission is made up of thirteen members, two from the state level, six elected officials from the local government level, and five from the "profit and non-profit private sector, no more than three of whom may be from the same political party and one of whom shall be from the residential construction industry, nominated by the Utah Home Builders Association, and one of whom shall be from the real estate industry, nominated by the Utah Association of Realtors" (HB119). The UAR insisted, in its memorandum, that the composition of the Commission should be changed to two elected persons from state government (one state representative and one state senator), two elected persons from municipal government, two elected persons from county government, one person from the non-profit community, one person from agriculture (Utah Farm Bureau), one person from finance (Utah Bankers Association), one person from the insurance community, one person from real estate (UAR), one person from residential construction (Utah Home Builders Association), and one person from general contracting (Utah Association of General Contractors of America). Such an amended commission structure would completely eliminate from it the executive branch of Utah state government. The Utah League of Cities and Towns said that if the composition of the commission were changed in this way, which would diminish the role of local government, it would vigorously oppose the Act. The Davis County Council of Government also opposed changes to the Commission. Davis County Economic Development Director, Wilf Sommerkorn, said, :"9 |
