While the continued persistence of Evans and other city officials to allow a Super Wal-Mart, other big-box retailers and 800 high-density housing units into this quiet suburb over the dogged objections of a large number of residents may not be sneaky, or illegal, it smells of bad government.

The Utah Supreme Court will decide whether these residents - more than 5,000 of whom signed a petition for a referendum on the January zoning decision - can put the issue to a citywide vote. The legal sticking point is whether this is the type of land-use decision that is subject to a referendum.

State law says individual zoning ordinances are not, but comprehensive zoning plans are. The size and potential effects of this zone change may put it in the latter category.

Legalities aside, the residents have not been treated fairly.

The new City Council thwarted their referendum in May when, at the urging of developers and against the unanimous opposition of the Planning Commission, it sliced the property into four parts and passed the same new zoning ordinance for each, negating the original ordinance and the petition to put it on the ballot.

Sneaky? Unconstitutional?

Maybe not, but the council clearly acted to appease the developers and nearly derailed the referendum effort. In fact, the city waited until two weeks after the new ordinances were passed before telling the residents that their petition was void and they would need signatures on four petitions instead of one.

Although the referendum proponents had lost 14 of the 45 days state law allows, they got 3,500 signatures, 600 more than they needed.

Then they rightly took their case to the state Supreme Court.

The residents backing a referendum are concerned about traffic, noise, light pollution and child safety at nearby schools.

City officials say the tax revenue from the development is desperately needed, and that the naysayers exemplify a shortsighted, "not in my back yard" attitude. Some City Council members feel obligated by the vote of the previous council and say they fear a lawsuit if the original deal were rejected by voters. But two have consistently sided with the residents.

Whatever the court decides, Riverton's elected leadership has damaged its credibility with many residents.

Only the next municipal election will determine just how severely.