Lege foiled again
Utah's power elite (a.k.a. the Legislature) apparently has failed in its latest attempt to concentrate all decision making on Capitol Hill. A "housekeeping" bill (SB53), passed in the last session, would block citizens from voting directly on land-use decisions is probably unconstitutional.
The Tribune obtained a letter to Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre from Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts that says there is:
"a serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."A hardcore group of grassroots revolutionaries, Right to Vote Committee in Sevier County, forced the issue by successfully getting a bunch of their neighbors to sign a petition to force a proposed coal-fired power plant to a public vote this November.
5 Comments:
FWIW, SB 53 was run by a Democrat.
So was SB 54 which further erodes referendum and initiative rights of the public. It passed almost unanimously, except for a stunt No vote by Greg Curtis, defender of the right of developers to make their own cities, even if the residents don't want to join.
The one issue that gains bipartisan support is the right of the legislators to do what they want without fear of public interference.
So if they vote yes they are bought and paid for and if they vote no it's a stunt.
We should allow our legislators to vote "maybe".
Generally a good point anon. It's easy to spin things against whomever you don't like. But Curtis has a track record of supporting developers (current silly land buy in willow Canyon, the last minute bill in '07 that allowed Ruby's Inn and Powder Mountain to become their own towns and avoid taxes/zoning laws, various laws to benefit Wendall Gibby, Anderson's airport loan, etc) and ignoring the public (anti-referendum law for Gibby, SB 53, vouchers, etc.).
His unique vote against an anonymously supported measure, SB54, that only benefits politicians qualifies as a stunt.
Thanks for pointing out the SB53 was sponsored by a Democrat. I suspected as much when the Tribune decided not to mention the sponsor. Had Hughes or Morley been the sponsor, that would have been noted.
Post a Comment
<< Home