A History of Summit County

Politics and power plays

CHAPTER 10 POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS I, .n September 1850, Congress established the Territory of Utah, with borders stretching from California to the summit of the Rocky Mountains. This territory included all of present-day Nevada as well as parts of Wyoming and Colorado. At this point there were few settlers beyond the valleys west of the Wasatch Mountains. However, in March 1852 the Legislative Assembly of Utah voted to divide the entire territory into twelve large counties. Northeastern Utah was included in the newly created Green River County. Brigham Young had a particular interest in the Green River Valley because of the thousands of travelers who passed through the area each year.1 On 13 January 1854, the Utah Legislative Assembly voted to carve a new county out of the western end of Green River County. The new county, which included the summit of the watershed sepa­rating the Green River drainage and the Great Basin, was to be known as Summit County. But because so few people had moved into the area, all of the new county's election, revenue, and judicial functions were conducted by Great Salt Lake County until 1861.2 The boundaries of Summit County in 1854 bear little resem- 216 POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 217 blance to the boundaries of the county today. Between 1854 and 1880, the size and shape of the county changed several times. In the early 1860s, other portions of Green River County were transferred to Summit County. In 1872, Summit's boundaries were extended eastward into the Uinta Basin, incorporating a final chunk of the old Green River County. However, in 1879 Summit County lost the east­ernmost portion of that territory to the newly created Uintah County.3 Since Utah became a state in 1896, Summit County's boundaries have changed little. However, in the early 1900s, its joint boundary with Rich County-including a portion of Echo Canyon-became the focus of a dispute that lasted almost two decades. Both counties wanted the tax revenue from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that ran down the canyon from Castle Rock to Echo. The dispute flared up in 1914 when the state board of equalization ruled that Rich County was entitled to tax revenues from 5.8 miles of track that pre­viously had gone to Summit County. The board later reversed its decision, and Summit County's claim to the taxes was upheld by the Utah Supreme Court in November 1916. But Rich County was intent on getting richer, and managed to push a bill through the 1917 Utah Legislature changing the bound­ary line to include the disputed section of track. Governor Simon Bamberger signed the bill into law, and its legality was upheld in Third District Court. However, once again the Utah Supreme Court came to Summit County's defense, ruling in 1921 that the action of the legislature was unconstitutional. The battle over the disputed section of track continued in the courts for several more years, and was rekindled in 1931 when a Rich County lawmaker made another attempt to legislate a boundary change. However, that attempt failed and the dispute ultimately was resolved in Summit County's favor.4 Today, Summit County covers about 1,860 square miles, of which about 55 percent is in private hands, another 44 percent is owned by the federal government, and about 1 percent is owned by the state.5 County Government In 1861, the first Summit County government included a probate 218 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY judge and three selectmen, who regulated the distribution of land and natural resources. Their duties included granting residents per­mission to herd cattle on public land, cut timber from public forests, and haul logs to mills.6 Historically, the selectmen also oversaw the county infrastructure-building and maintaining roads and bridges, collecting fees for the use of public irrigation systems and land, granting licenses, and regulating the interaction among community members. They also acted as judges, ruling on legal matters that, in future generations, would become matters for the courts. According to the minutes, the selectmen dealt with numerous legal cases: prop­erty and inheritance disputes as well as criminal and civil matters. More than half the defendants who appeared before the court were acquitted.7 The selectmen also spent some time planning for the future. It was in March 1871 that they first began to discuss the idea of build­ing a courthouse. Reluctant to forge ahead without a good idea of what it would cost, Selectman R.R. Rogers proposed hiring an archi­tect to draw up plans and then sending out the plans for bids before making a final decision on whether to build. The selectmen expressed a certain vision of an appropriately impressive building; they hoped it would have "stone lintels and a solid wall laid in courses."8 Before they had staff of their own, county officials often con­tracted out special services, especially law enforcement. The select­men often received bills from officers who had transported prisoners from Coalville to Park City or other venues and from town jails that had housed prisoners. In one instance, there was a claim from the ter­ritorial institution for housing a county resident. Law enforcement responsibilities also kept the selectmen busy. The commission min­utes are full of accounts of arrests, trials, and the pursuit of crimi­nals- enough to convey a sense of the frontier nature of the fledgling county. Another important concern of the commission was the care of the poor. Many times, the selectmen were asked to supply a casket for an indigent person or to provide for families with no homes or income.9 During the first few decades after its creation, county govern­ment grew to include several other elected officials, including a POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 219 county recorder and clerk and a justice of the peace. Others, such as a coroner, surveyor, notary public, poundkeeper, and a person in charge of weed control, were appointed by the selectmen to adminis­ter local projects. In addition, and perhaps most importantly during the early decades, the selectmen appointed a road commissioner who oversaw a team of road supervisors who came from each of the county's towns. These men inspected local roads to ensure that they were passable regardless of the weather; they also proposed new roads and organized work teams to make necessary improvements. A superintendent of schools, board of trustees, and local school prin­cipals regulated education under the umbrella of county government. The structure of power in the early political environment is strik­ing. During the nineteenth century, selectmen often served their terms, moved to other arenas of public service, then reappeared in county government later, serving as selectmen and judges several times during their lifetimes. Apparently, the actual group of men who regularly governed the county was relatively small. By the 1920s, county government had increased in complexity; added was an attorney, treasurer, assessor, deputy clerk, and two deputy sheriffs. The commission still had to worry about roads and tax assessment; however, by this time, the commission's agenda had diversified, as it dealt with additional matters, including the county fair and social welfare concerns. On 5 May 1919 the commission took a step toward progressive reform by no longer allowing children under eighteen to work on county roads. The county also paid for the services of physicians and nurses, for quarantines, and for the collec­tion of vital statistics.10 The Great Depression greatly impacted the budget for the indi­gent. In 1933, the county spent $15,000 in caring for indigents, the same amount appropriated to state and county roads. On top of that, the county allocated $10,000 for the care of widowed mothers. Balancing such a budget wasn't easy. At the same time that these wel­fare expenses were rising, assessed values of property were dropping. Long lists of delinquent taxpayers appeared in local papers, and the numbers of individuals petitioning the commission for tax relief or begging to be included on indigent rolls increased significantly. In 1938, energized by funds offered by the federal Public Works 220 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY Administration, the county commission started planning for two new county buildings, a community center in Park City and a hospi­tal in Coalville. Labor for both projects came from the welfare rolls, primarily Park City miners who were on strike and were willing to work temporarily on a construction project. The construction of the Park City community center, the War Veterans Memorial Building, was plagued by problems from the beginning. There were problems with the site, materials didn't get delivered on time, and the supervisor had a hard time maintaining a stable work force. But, despite delays, the building was finally com­pleted in lanuary 1940. It included basketball courts, a bowling alley, locker rooms, and a rifle range.11 The Summit County Hospital, which opened the same month in Coalville, provided a central location for all county health concerns. The supervisor of the hospital reported monthly on the operation of the facility and made requests for supplies and funds.12 The fourteen-bed hospital served the county for more than four decades. However, by the mid-1970s, it was clear that local residents were losing confi­dence in the facility. Occupancy rates had dropped below 35 percent, and county residents outside the Coalville area were increasingly unwilling to use the hospital, preferring to go to Wasatch County or to facilities along the Wasatch Front. Even in Coalville itself, less than 20 percent of residents said they would use the local hospital. "Physicians and patients alike have provided evidence that the Summit County Hospital is considered to be a facility where services are limited in nature and scope," said a 1980 study. "A physician sur­vey showed a reluctance on the part of the county physicians to admit complicated cases to the Summit County Hospital for a variety of reasons. Chief among these reasons was that hospital equipment and instruments are not adequate. Physician perception of the hos­pital was also manifest in a reluctance to have some lab work per­formed at the hospital."13 In lune 1982 the Summit County Commission announced that the hospital would close. Officials blamed the demise on the physical condition of the forty-three-year-old building and the ease with which residents could travel to Wasatch Front hospitals. The county leased the building to Salt Lake City-based Holy Cross Hospital to be POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 221 used as an outpatient emergency health-care center. In the process, about forty members of the hospital staff found themselves out of work.14 In the fifteen years that have passed since the hospital was closed, there have been several proposals to build new hospitals in Summit County. In the spring of 1995, a Wyoming group announced plans to build a two-story facility near the leremy Ranch subdivision.15 However, none of these plans has yet materialized. In the meantime, outpatient facilities have proliferated, particularly in western Summit County, which has seen most of the county's recent population growth. The Gentleman s Agreement In 1972, Utah legislation provided that counties could determine their own organizational structure.16 Summit chose a three-person commission, supposedly each elected at large. But a certain amount of competition had always existed among the three major areas of the county-North Summit, South Summit, and Park City-separated as they were geographically and, to a greater or lesser degree, cultur­ally. This competition was alleviated somewhat by an unofficial "gen­tleman's agreement" that for a time ensured that each area of the county would have a representative on the commission. That agree­ment lasted until 1990, when Park City area resident Gene Moser filed for the "non-Park City seat" and won. Moser said of himself, "I was the un-gentleman who broke the agreement."17 In recent years, county services have become increasingly spe­cialized and more concerned with regulating growth. Planning issues have increasingly absorbed the attention of the county commission and planning commission, which reviews plans for subdivisions, landfills, roads, water supply and distribution, and a host of other ser­vices required by the area's growth and demanded by new residents. Fire protection, one of these services, is provided within three dis­tricts corresponding to the county's school districts. The county library board oversees local libraries and a bookmobile system. An increased number of social programs have been established, includ­ing ambulance services and alcohol and drug education, affordable housing, animal control, and senior-citizen programs. 222 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY Politics: Mormons and Gentiles During the first two decades of settlement, secular and ecclesias­tical government were essentially the same. Latter-day Saint religious leaders organized the distribution of land, water, and resources. Mormon bishops, for example, organized many of the early irriga­tion companies. They also settled disputes-informally or in church courts-between neighbors and punished those accused of crimes. This changed during the late 1870s when the settlers began to sepa­rate into political parties. The emergence of political parties-the Mormon People's party and the non-Mormon Liberal party-sig­naled a big change in what had been the consensual, cooperative communities settled by the pioneers. With a new generation came new ideas, and the communities became more diversified and indi­vidualistic, populated by strong-minded men and women. Of course, in a place like Park City, politics were exciting from the beginning. But then, Park City just never did quite fit the "kingdom of God" vision that the Mormons brought with them to Summit County. Neither did the Mormon ways appeal to many of the residents of that eclectic mining town. The two groups were just different, not only in choice of religion but in their goals, lifestyles, and underlying values. Not surprisingly, Mormons and gentiles (as non-Mormons were often called) have had their conflicts through the decades, sometimes subtle, and sometimes dramatic and even vicious. Maybe the biggest difference between Mormons and gentiles was their reason for being in Utah. The Mormons came to seek religious sanctuary and to build their Zion; the gentiles came to make a liv­ing- or perhaps, if they were lucky, to get rich. Brigham Young had an inkling of what a gold and silver frenzy would do to a community of would-be saints and, in an attempt to maintain the Mormons' iso­lation in the mountains, he prohibited all but a select group of his followers from mining. When he did so, he was defining an ideolog­ical gulf between his group and all outsiders. Young preached from the Bowery on Temple Square in October 1863: It is a fearful deception . . . that gold is wealth. . . . Instead of its bringing us wealth and independence, it would weld upon our necks chains of slavery, groveling dependence and utter overthrow. POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 223 Can you not see that gold and silver rank among the things we are the least in want of? We want an abundance of wheat and fine flour, of wine and oil, and of every choice fruit that will grow in our climate; we want silk, wool, cotton, flax and other textile sub­stances of which cloth can be made; we want vegetables . . . and the products of flocks and herds; we want the coal and iron that are concealed in these ancient mountains, the lumber from our saw mills, and the rock from our quarries. . . . If we had all the gold in these mountains run into ingots and piled up in one huge heap, what good would it do us now ? None, and we cannot form any calculation as to the amount of harm it would do us.18 Despite Young's efforts to keep Utah "pure," t h e non-Mormon strongholds in Summit County of Park City, Echo, a n d Wahsatch attracted people of widely varying ethnic, religious, occupational, and political backgrounds. The Mormons had varied backgrounds too, b u t their differences weren't as s t r o n g as t h e i r c o m m o n beliefs. Besides, t h e Mormons had arrived in Summit County first, and they had a certain sense of ownership which the later-arriving outsiders infringed upon. When silver was discovered in Park City in the late 1860s, nearly all the county's political offices were held by Mormon church lead­ers. The miners who followed the silver entered into this theocracy, a place where any separation of church and state was more pretended than real. Non-Mormons had their own opinions and political needs; but, when they tried to enter politics, they often found their goals col­liding with those of the dominant political group/religion. This led to some heated arguments and a lot of gentile complaining about the "Utah Problem." A historian of Coalville's early years summarized the problem: While the gentiles composed only 10 to 15 percent of the popula­tion, they viewed with suspicion and resentment any ecclesiastical interference in political, economic or educational affairs. The minority group found that Church leaders controlled elections and local political appointments, dictated economic policies, and pro­moted parochial instead of public schools. As their numbers increased, the gentiles were determined to break the Church 224 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY monopoly and formed the Gentile League of Utah, which with apostate Mormons, evolved into the Liberal Party.19 Although the Snyderville area was initially settled by Mormons, relatively few Mormons settled in Park City or worked in the mines. By 1879, however, enough Latter-day Saints lived in town to justify establishing a branch, the smallest ecclesiastical unit of the church. Eventually, some Mormons began to express their beliefs in public, eliciting this response from the Park Record: For a long time past it has been generally known that several scores of adherents to the Church of lesus Christ of Latter day Saints resided in the Park, but many of them took good care to conceal the fact. Recently the Saints, who were evidently ashamed of their faith, have been properly "sized up" by the community. . . . The Saints say that God, through his mouthpieces, is declaring Himself; he must be heard; his enemies put to flight, and His kingdom built in Park City, the only Gentile town in Utah.20 Despite the infiltration of the Latter-day Saints, the local gentiles kept fighting their losing political battles. Park City delegates to con­ventions were instructed to vote only for gentiles, who were always either members of the Liberal party or independents. But the effort was generally futile. Although gentiles usually won municipal elec­tions in Park City, they had n o chance in the county races unless Park City voters voted in unison. The opinionated citizenry of Park City could hardly be counted on to agree on anything-so the Mormon People's party candidates repeatedly won the county offices. Still, the gentiles kept trying. The Park Record admonished, "Let each liberal remember that his staying away from the polls will count one more vote for the Mormons, while on the other hand, if he casts his vote, it counts two against the Mormons."21 A week later, after the elections, the forlorn editor of the Record reported the outcome, lamenting that, "By a look over the returns it will be seen that the Mormons have elected their entire ticket, possibly with the exception of the coroner." The editor chided t h a t " . . . some Liberals (God save the mark) even went so far as to put self before principle, and worked for their favorites on the Church Ticket."22 Wounds from repeated defeats were aggravated by the election of POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 225 a Mormon as Park City mayor in May 1885. Mayor Edward Kimball, of the well-known Mormon family of Kimballs, filled the office cred­ibly, making numerous improvements in city government that included the construction of the still-extant city hall-all within a single, one-year term. However, Kimball was not re-elected in May 1886. Later that year, when he ran for county selectman, the Record made no secret of its allegiance: "It surprises us a little to see that the Ex Mayor of t h e only Gentile town in Utah permits his name to appear as a candidate for office on the Mormon ticket. Such is the case, however. . . . Wm. H. Stevens, of Peoa, is the candidate for the same office on the Liberal ticket. Vote for Stevens."23 In spite of the Record's best efforts, the Liberals received a sting­ing defeat in the county elections. In September, a smug letter from a correspondent in Coalville taunted Park City residents, nicknamed Parkites: For all these blessings [an abundance of farm crops] we are truly thankful, but no less so that we have a most desirable market of our farm product at Park City. We can thus get hold of a big share of Gentile money, thereby help the church along in its fight against the Government. . . . The People's party officers are overly joyful at their recent success at the polls. The fanatics believe the Lord had a hand in the defeat of the Liberal Party. May be so. . . . You Liberals in the Park are paying the fiddler but we are dancing.24 The gentiles were frustrated. In October 1886 the Record reported: A "Territorial convention of the People's" or Mormon party is called to convene at Salt Lake City Monday, Oct. 11th, to nomi­nate a delegate to the fiftieth Congress. In Summit county, as with the other counties, the central committees of the "People's" party will take steps to choose the delegates to the convention. We know not yet who the delegates from Summit county will be, but we feel assured from past observations that they will be chosen by the first presidency of the Mormon church. It will be the same with the other counties, and in the mode of electing the Congressional del­egate-- all will be done under the bidding of the Mormon leaders. Their will must be done, not the people's. The Mormon represen­tative at the nation's capital will, this term, as has been the case 226 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY since the very first, work for the church and do all in his power to ward off legislation that would be of great benefit to all the people and all the country. The Mormon delegate to Congress directly and indirectly does much to keep back Utah's advancement in the rank of Statehood. . . . The Gentiles of Utah should have a delegate in Washington this winter, well equipped, to fight the battle on behalf of the Loyal League, and by presenting facts (and there is no scant of them) seek to obtain remedies for the evils in our fair and promising Territory.25 As it became clear that the gentiles could not achieve representa­t i o n outside their own cities, their frustration grew into a virulent anger. Park Record editor Sam Raddon advocated the expulsion of all Mormons from Park City so that it would truly become "the only Gentile town in Utah." Spurred on by his rhetoric, the local "Loyal Legion" moved into action. On a Sunday in 1886, while local Mormons were holding a church meeting, the Legion wrecked the house of Gad Davis, the LDS presiding elder.26 The Legion, or Utah Loyal League, was a non-Mormon vigilante organization with from 3,000 to 4,000 Utah members. It was formed to "eradicate, by peaceable means, but through lawful force, the doc­trines of the Mormons."27 A large branch of the League was active in Park City. At one of its meetings in late 1886, Robert Craig Chambers, general manager of the Ontario Mine, proposed that all citizens of Park City sign a roster in opposition to the Mormons.28 Interested especially in protecting its mining interests in the territory, t h e League was i n s t r u m e n t a l in getting Mormons removed from employment in mines and mills.29 The League received a moral boost from two prominent judges, R.N. Baskin and C .W Bennett of Salt Lake City. Baskin approved of the group's endeavor to "help consummate the end of the redemp­t i o n and regeneration of Utah Territory." A reporter summarized Baskin's key points: He referred to the dissimilarity in Utah of American institutions, civilization and governments compared with the rest of this great free land. This state of affairs and the Mormons building up a gov­ernment within a government he attributed to the power of the obnoxious priesthood. He related how the Mormon kings monop- POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 227 olized everything in Utah to the exclusion of law-abiding American citizens In Utah there exists an Asiatic form of gov­ernment, which is inimical to the welfare of all the people in this part of the country. The nastiness of Mormon practices and the dark pall that hovers around were faithfully depicted. The ungrate­fulness of the Saints toward the mining industry, which really gives them their money and commercial life, was referred to. . . . The speaker further rehearsed the tactics of the Mormon despots and the Saintly slaves and urged all to do their duty in the redemption work of Utah.30 In early 1887, the Park Record listed the city's assets in an article entitled, "What has Park City got?" Item 9 listed "thirteen saloons, three churches and a Mormon rendezvous," while number 23 boasted of "A model and moral Gentile community...." 31 The persecution of Mormons had the desired effect. Mormon church meetings were suspended in 1887 and the presiding LDS elder, John Holmberg, moved away. Although as many as two hun­dred Latter-day Saints remained in town, they held no religious ser­vices in Park City for approximately the next eight years. Socially ostracized and somewhat invisible during this period, Park City Mormons sank even further in the eyes of their neighbors. According to one account, "On a social scale, they were at about the same level as the Chinese, and the Chinese were certainly not at the top of the scale. Derogatory statements about the Mormons appeared from time to time, such as 'Chinamen, like the Mormons, know nothing when one of their number is in trouble.'"32 As the local Saints diminished in influence, the gentile popula­tion grew bolder, actively supporting the federal anti-polygamy Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker bills in the 1880s and refusing to fly the flag on Pioneer Day. The famous 1890 "Manifesto" by LDS church president Wilford Woodruff, which began the process of end­ing the official practice of polygamy, helped to lessen tensions between gentile and Mormon populations. But the Manifesto didn't wash away all the social, political, economic, and religious differences between the groups. The "Utah Problem"-or, perhaps more accurately, the "Mormon Problem"-came to a head in Summit County over the 228 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY location of the county seat. Beginning in 1880, Parkites started agi­tating to move the county seat from Coalville to Park City-an idea that was naturally unthinkable to the county's LDS majority. However, in 1895, Park City boosters introduced a formal proposal to move the county seat. At the centerpiece of their proposal was the design for an impressive two-story county courthouse. In an 1895 Park Record article, the local "Finance Committee" published a pic­ture of the design, accompanied by tall, bold type addressed to "VOT­ERS OF SUMMIT CO." The accompanying article invited voters to consider "A few Solid Reasons Why the County Seat Should be Moved to Park City."33 The committee had come up with eight rea­sons, such as Park City's greater population, its tax base and eco­nomic strength, and the fact that the city was offering to "erect and give to the county a building suitable for county purposes, to cost not less than $10,000."34 J.H. Deming, head of the committee, certified that his group would deposit the money in the First National Bank of Park City as soon as the county seat was moved. The county's Mormons weren't persuaded; these eight reasons didn't hold much weight with the older, smaller, agricultural, more religious-oriented communities. And the building was no tempta­tion. It would take more than a "mess of pottage" to persuade Mormons to give up the centerpiece of their political status and influence. When the measure was put to a countywide vote, it was narrowly defeated, in large part because each of the 267 votes cast in Coalville was against the proposal. Park City's disappointment in not obtaining the county seat was eased a little when Utah was made a state in lanuary 1896. Statehood brought new politicians, laws, and policies that furthered the "Americanization of Utah." But Park City residents wouldn't give up easily. Most of the county tax revenue came from the Park City area, they argued, and having the courthouse in Park City would better serve the needs of a majority of the people. Seven years later they managed to get the issue back on the ballot. In October 1902, the editor of the Coalville Times, recalling the disastrous Park City fire of 1898, urged local vot­ers not to allow the courthouse to be moved to such an unstable community: POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 229 Summit County Courthouse, early 1900s. (Brigham Young University, George Beard collection) Supposing that through your votes, or failure on your part to vote, you are compelled to pay fifty or sixty thousand dollars to erect new county buildings, with furnishings, in the business por­tion of Park City, surrounded, as it would be, by skeleton wooden buildings, closely built, and a fire, such as the one that destroyed the town four years ago, break[s] out; would not the buildings, with all their costly furnishings, be destroyed, as were a number of valuable and substantial buildings at that time? It may be claimed that greater precautions will be taken. It is conceded, however, that the majority of the new buildings erected since the fire are temporary baloon [sic] wooden structures, with less substantial permanent buildings. If the town is considered so permanent, with such a bright future claimed by the advocates of removal, why is it that the leading merchants and hotel proprietors have not erected substantial fire-proof buildings? Has not the fact that it is a mining town and the fear of a lack of permanence detered them from making anything but temporary buildings?35 Although Coalville residents voted 491 to 1 against moving the county seat, in the countywide vote they were overwhelmed by advo- 230 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY cates of the move. The final margin was 2,649 to 1,385. However, the total was still about 120 votes short of the two-thirds majority required for such a move. Coalville remained the county seat.36 In May 1903, county commissioners voted to build a new county courthouse on Main Street in Coalville. The two-story sandstone structure was completed in 1904 at a cost of about $20,000. "This will effectually dispose of the county seat question and keep it at Coalville for all time," said an article in the Park City Miner that was reprinted in the Coalville Times.i7 However, the building did nothing to win over the residents of Park City and Parley's Park, who still had to travel up to twenty-five miles to Coalville to conduct much of their county business. After that time, animosity between Mormons and gentiles dwindled, and a period of accommodation brought the disparate groups into a more peaceful coexistence. Eventually, Mormons and non-Mormons made some limited attempts at cooperation-for instance, in co-financing some mining, building, and transportation projects. However, that animosity never entirely vanished. In 1977, when it became clear that the old courthouse could no longer meet the needs of the growing county, voters were asked to approve a bond issue to build a $1.2 million annex. Although the annex was approved by a countywide vote of 586 to 365, Park City residents expressed their opposition to the proposal by a margin of 139 to 22.38 Schools In Summit County, schools were more than just classrooms. They were shapers of community, the scene of social and cultural activities, educational contests and events, and other community assemblies. Schools helped to Americanize new immigrants and pre­pare all children for their roles in the community. In school, foreign-born children learned the English language, American history and laws, and social mores and folkways. Local-born farm children learned the same things, attending school for as much of the year as their work schedule permitted. At first, Summit County schools were private enterprises held in town buildings, private homes, or church buildings. Sarah Hewlett POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 231 Wilde, Coalville's first teacher, held school in her log cabin. Oakley's first school, a one-room log building with one small window, was typical of small-town facilities. Seats cut from rough-hewn timber, a small stove, and a dirt floor were all the furnishings the struggling community could afford. At age sixteen, Albert White was the oldest child to attend this school, and he reportedly stood almost as tall as his teacher, Thomas D. Moore. Twenty children attended this school sporadically, when they weren't needed at home or in the fields. After the first years of private education, the county became the decision-making body for area schools. In 1862, the county select­men divided Summit County into school districts; at the time, schools were funded in part by a toll collected by the territorial gov­ernment on the Brizzee Bridge across the Weber River.39 On 26 April 1865, the county court allotted a fifty-dollar annual salary for Alonzo Winters as the new county superintendent of schools for four years. Thomas Bullock, Redden A. Allred, and Hans Young formed a board of examiners for schoolteachers. Generally, each town comprised a district of its own, with its own number: Henneferville, No. 1; Coalville, No. 2; Wanship, No. 3; Peoa, No. 4; Kamas, No. 5; Park, No. 6; Upton, No. 7; and Hoytsville, No. 8. These districts weren't small enough for some; on 23 September 1871, Ward E. Pack and thirty-three other residents petitioned the county to divide the Kamas district into two. The pattern of small school districts, which first originated in New England, was particu­larly effective in a place like Summit County, where individual settle­ments were scattered across the valleys and traveling from one town to another was difficult. The principal school officer in Summit County was the appointed superintendent.40 Each individual school district had its own three-member board of trustees, which allocated funds and oversaw the building of schools, hired teachers, and furnished equip­ment such as books and desks. Traditionally, books were owned by families, who passed them down the line as each child advanced to a higher level; it wasn't until after 1900 that the district offered school books. As towns grew, they built bigger school buildings or added rooms to existing buildings. In 1892, Mormon church president Wilford Woodruff authorized a charter for the Summit Stake 232 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY Academy, a c h u r c h - r u n secondary school. J.G. Nelson and his wife t a u g h t classes in t h e u p p e r r o om of t h e co-op store b u i l d i n g on Coalville's Main Street until the Academy purchased its own build­ing in 1905. The school offered two courses: a preparatory course for older students who had not yet finished the eighth grade but who were older t h a n the average students, and a high school course open to graduates of the eighth grade. Students took classes in mechanical arts and domestic economy and participated in debate groups, glee clubs, and literary societies. The school also sponsored a lecture series for the community at large. During the 1870s a movement had begun for the consolidation of schools i n t o larger d i s t r i c t s with stronger boards of trustees. Territorial school superintendent O.H. Riggs voiced his concerns in a biennial report for 1874-75: The cities, towns, villages, and settlements of our Territory are well adapted for the establishment of the system of graded schools. Places that now have two, three, four or five small school houses, and as many mixed schools in which but little comparatively can be accomplished, should have but one large commodious public school house in a central location, and containing a sufficient number of rooms that all the children of the place could be admit­ted into the grades for which they are qualified. I, therefore, earnestly recommend the adoption of this system throughout the Territory, wherever consistent with the school population, not only as a matter of accommodation to all the children, and a secu­rity to their much more rapid advancement, but also as a matter of economy."41 A final advantage was territorial homogeneity in the school system. "By t h e adoption of this system," he continued, "our entire school p o p u l a t i o n could be i n s t r u c t e d in t h e graded schools at b u t little more expense than we now have to educate forty-five per cent." In 1905 the state legislature passed a law permitting school dis­tricts to consolidate into county-wide districts. Summit County took that step in 1911, forming two districts; the next year, a district school was built in Coalville for $37,000. The building was 144 feet by 66 feet and was two stories high. Ten classrooms, an assembly hall, and office POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 233 space offered the most up-to-date school facilities available in the county. In 1913, a group of citizens raised a new proposal: the creation of three separate high school districts. The group felt that their plan would better meet the needs of the county's children. They proposed that Park City, separated as it was geographically and socially from the rest of the county, continue running its own high school. They also proposed to split the Summit School District into a north and south district. The idea gathered considerable local support. The 539 children of South Summit, where area property had an assessed val­uation of $1,600,000, would have their own school, and North Summit, with a school population of 903 and an assessed area prop­erty valuation of $1,800,000, would have a high school as well. However, when wind of the plan reached the Utah State Board of Education, the board tried to prevent it. In the board's opinion, the plan was illegal; the consolidation laws of 1911 seemed to preclude further subdivision of districts into smaller districts. The Summit County Board of Education disagreed, concluding that "the time was ripe for Summit county, with its 2,586 children to have three high schools"42 Interestingly, the debate foreshadowed future discussions over federal intervention in county business. Local citizens believed this was their decision to make; to them, the state's idea of consoli­dation didn't fit their particular set of circumstances. In a subsequent ruling on the matter, the state attorney general gave the opinion that Summit County's proposal was illegal because it didn't follow the protocol outlined in the 1911 law. In order to be legal, the attorney general said, the county needed to organize a board of education that included representatives from each of the three areas. This board then could decide on the appropriateness of the idea. By 1915 the proper steps had been completed, and on 10 April the county commission adopted a motion to create the North High School District of Summit County, which included Rockport, Wanship, Hoytsville, Coalville, Upton, Castle Rock, Echo, and Henefer. The South High School District included Peoa, Oakley, Marion, Kamas, Francis, and Woodland. The Park City District, which already had its own high school, remained as it was. That wasn't the end of the matter, however. From time to time, 234 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY the idea of reconsolidating the county's school districts has resur­faced. In 1954, E. Allen Bateman, the state school superintendent, proposed school consolidation in three rural counties, including Summit County. Bateman stated that Utah "has made commendable progress in eliminating needlessly small districts but no further action has been taken since 1915."43 Nothing happened at that time, though. Consolidation of the three Summit County districts almost became a reality in 1965 when the Utah House of Representatives passed a bill requiring unification by 1967. However, the bill was tabled by the Utah Senate, at the request of Summit County Senator lohn Lambert. "Superintendents of the three schools have agreed that consolidation is inevitable but were not prepared for such fast action," the Summit County Bee reported.44 But residents weren't nearly as compliant. Many opposed consolidation, for a number of reasons. According to the Summit County Bee, some Coalville resi­dents feared they would lose their high school-on the heels of the loss of two prime agricultural sites to reservoirs "and the loss of the heart of the valley to a poorly engineered highway development [Interstate 80]." Parents didn't want their children bussed long dis­tances. Again, the "county's rights" issue was raised by the Summit County Bee: "The parents right to have a say in the education of their child is one which should be guarded closely as part of our heritage from our wise forefathers who gave us this right."45 Meetings continued on the issue. Local groups divided up the separate issues and studied the possible implications of consolidation on each. Among these issues were transportation, social activities, the economic and social impact of the move on various communities as well as on family home life and work, and the use of school buildings by civic and religious groups. A letter-writing campaign got under way in opposition to consolidation.46 After the 1965 Utah State Legislature deferred action on the issue, the boards of the three Summit County school districts commis­sioned an independent study by Dr. J.C. Moffitt, former superinten­dent of Provo schools. In December 1965 Moffitt presented his recommendation: consolidation at the earliest possible time. Consolidating would significantly decrease educational costs, he said, POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 235 providing students with a better education. It would "completely eliminate the rather extreme differences in the assessed wealth per child, and thereby provide more equity of paying the costs of educa­tion by all the people of the county."47 By that December the opposition had a more clear sense of focus. In lobbying the state senate, opponents of consolidation pointed out that bussing students over great distances would waste time and money. They questioned the wisdom of building new buildings while perfectly good buildings went vacant, and they also declared that consolidation would weaken the sense of community: "High school activities which serve as an important nucleus around which the community develops social autonomy would no longer serve this purpose."48 Besides, extracurricular activities would be more difficult to organize for a population spread out over several miles. The oppo­sition won the day when the Utah Senate defeated the measure. When a very similar bill passed the Utah House in 1967, the debate began again. One Summit County resident, Mrs. Arthur Overlade, illustrated a continuing rift within the county when she stressed the differences between the rural areas and Park City. lames Ivers, president of United Park City Mines, also based his arguments to the Senate Education Committee on Park City's separateness. Comparing Park City to Aspen, Colorado, in its early days as a resort area, Ivers reminded the committee that the Park City area was expected to become heavily populated by people who worked in Salt Lake City. "It would be more logical to tie Park City schools in with a Salt Lake district than with the rest of Summit County," Ivers said, calling Summit County a "geological accident" with three "distinctly different geographic areas."49 Informal comments were more direct. "The people outside Summit County have got a lot of guts running our business for us,"50 one resident said; and informal surveys indicated that at least 80 per­cent of Summit County residents opposed consolidation.51 Again, the Utah Senate defeated the bill. In the early 1980s, the champions of consolidation raised the issue a few more times but never succeeded in winning the fight. 236 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY Twentieth-Century County Issues and Debates Perhaps the most controversial and divisive battles in Summit County in the second half of the twentieth century have been fought over land use. Starting in the late 1950s, the Summit County Commission made the decision to allow urbanization of unincorpo­rated areas when it began approving large residential developments such as Summit Park. Since then, large unincorporated developments including Pinebrook, leremy Ranch, Highland Estates, Silver Creek Estates, and Silver Springs have changed the face of the Snyderville Basin. At the same time, the county has continually revised its plan­ning ordinances, mostly by a process of trial and error that was influ­enced by some big battles over various developments. Growth, more than any other political issue, has shaped county-wide politics in recent decades. Voters judge candidates by what they say about growth and what they promise to do about it. And when developers propose obtrusive or landscape-changing projects, citizen activists galvanize the opposition. Crowds have kept public hearings running late, both in the county and in Park City, as they have spoken out against developments like United Park City Mines' proposed Flagstaff Mountain project, the Kearns-Tribune development in Park Meadows, a K-Mart store, and the 211,000-square-foot Landmark Plaza factory outlet at Kimball's lunction. These developments came at a time of explosive growth in the Park City area. The county commission and planning commission, in response, crafted a new development plan that recognizes the inevitability of growth, yet aims at managing it, reducing its fiscal and environmental impacts, and making it "pay its way." However, devel­opers and landowners resent what they see as too much government interference. Calling the county's development restrictions an infringement of private property rights, some have criticized the county master plan for its provisions which dictate when develop­ment may occur on a particular piece of land. Park City has responded to the controversy by sponsoring small and large meetings where citizens of all persuasions can discuss plan­ning issues. Such discussion not only has helped citizens gain a sense of participation in the problem of growth but has helped them to see POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 237 the complexity of the problem. At the time of this writing, the county and its towns continue to grapple with the issue of development, which in many areas is quickly changing the very nature of the phys­ical and social landscape and will alter Summit County in the decades to come. ENDNOTES 1. lames B. Allen, "The Evolution of County Boundaries in Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 23 (Summer 1955): 261. 2. Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials, . . . (1853), 259-60, Utah State Archives. 3. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials, . . . (1872), 28; and (1880), 11, Utah State Archives.. 4. Park Record, 24 April 1915; 31 luly 1915; 24 November 1916; 23 March 1917; 21 lanuary 1921; 19 lanuary 1923; 22 February 1924; 20 February 1931; 27 February 1931; 6 March 1931. 5. Summit County, County Economic Facts, 1978 edition, Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 6. Summit County Commission minutes, 15 April 1867, 6 September 1875, Summit County Courthouse, Coalville. 7. Summit County Commission minutes, 12 December 1880. 8. Summit County Commission minutes, 7 March 1871. 9. Summit County Commission minutes, 28 lune 1882. 10. Summit County Commission minutes, 1900-1930. 11. Park Record, 27 October 1938, 8 December 1938, 12 lanuary 1939, 25 lanuary, 1940. 12. Morgan County News, 4 November 1938. 13. Barbara Louise Weidner, "An Assessment of Factors Contributing to Hospital Utilization and a Look at Deficiencies in the Utah Projection Process of Hospital Bed Demand" (Master's thesis, University of Utah, 1980). 14. The (Park City) Newspaper, 1 luly 1982. 15. Deseret News, 10 April 1995. 16. The Utah Constitution was amended in 1972 to say: "The Legislature shall, by general law, prescribe optional forms of county gov­ernment and shall allow each county to select, subject to referendum in the manner provided by law, the prescribed optional form which best serves its needs, and by general laws shall provide for precinct and township organi- 238 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY zations." Before 1972, the legislature was given the responsibility to estab­lish a uniform system of county government throughout the state. 17. Salt Lake Tribune, 25 December 1994. 18. Brigham Young, fournal of Discourses, vol. 10 (London: n.p., 1865), 271. 19. Norma Eileen Pyper Thompson, "A Community Study of Coalville, Utah, 1859-1914" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1980), 126. 20. Park Record, 31 luly 1886. 21. Park Record, 4 August 1883. 22. Park Record, 11 August 1883. 23. Park Record, 31 luly 1886. 24. Park Record, 11 September 1886. 25. Park Record, 2 October 1886. 26. Marie H. Nelson, ed., Mountain Memories: A Book of Remembrance, 1848-1986 (Kamas, Utah: Kamas LDS Stake, 1986), 150. 27. William M. McPhie, The Trail of the Leprechaun: Early History of a Utah Mining Camp (Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press. 1977), 93. 28. Ibid. 29. Nelson, Mountain Memories, 150. 30. Park Record, 26 March 1887. 31. McPhie, Trail of the Leprechaun, 128-29. 32. Ibid., 93. 33. Park Record, 26 October 1895. 34. Ibid. 35. Coalville Times, 31 October 1902. 36. Coalville Times, 7 November 1902, 14 November 1902. 37. Coalville Times, 15 May 1903. 38. Summit County Bee, 16 December 1977. In February 1997, a group of Park City-area residents proposed that Summit County be divided. They called for a new county to be created from Park City and the unincoporated areas in and around the Snyderville Basin (Parley's Park). By state law, such a division would require the approval of at least 25 percent of the voters on each side of the county, and a simple majority overall, in a special election. To date, the proposal has not gone to a vote. 39. Interestingly, the county granted the right to build the bridge on 6 March 1865, but the territory took over the maintenance and collection of tolls. 40. Summit County superintendents include: Alonzo Winters, lohn Boyden, Charles Mills, E.H. Rhead (1883-84); A.S. Seward (1885-86); F.E. POLITICS AND POWER PLAYS 239 Merrill (1887-88); O.C. Lockhart (1889-90); Charles A. Short (1891-92); D.S.L. McCorkle (1893-98); Frank Evans (1899-1900), Clarence Blocker (1901-02), Walter M. Boyden (1903-06); Oscar Wilkins (1908-11), and George Cooper (who filled the unexpired term of Oscar Wilkins and lames Kearns from 1912 to 1913, at which time the county was divided into three districts). 41. O.H. Riggs, Territorial School Report, 1874-75, Utah State Archives. 42. Park Record, 10 May 1913. 43. Summit County Bee, 25 November 1954. 44. Summit County Bee, 11 March 1965. 45. Summit County Bee, 25 March 1965. 46. Summit County Bee, 27 October 1966. 47. Summit County Bee, 8 December 1966. 48.Ibid. 49. Summit County Bee, 23 lanuary 1969. 50. Summit County Bee, 13 February 1969. 51. Ibid.