Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Sandy Referendum: Council should place development on November ballot
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Thanks to a decision by the Utah Supreme Court, the showdown over the redevelopment of a Sandy gravel pit will be decided by the voters. The City Council should schedule the referendum to coincide with the November municipal election to enhance voter participation.

Though we were sceptical last December that the future of the 107-acre site should be decided by a vote of the people, rather than by the City Council alone, we are persuaded by the court that the referendum is a good idea.

The future of the former gravel pit at 9400 South and 1000 East has ignited furious debate within the city. Last year the City Council voted 5-2 to approve a new zoning law for the property that would allow construction of two big-box stores, a Super Wal-Mart and a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, together with smaller retailers and 400 units of housing.

Hundreds of residents turned out at hearings to debate the merits of the project. Proponents argued that the city needed the big-box retailers to secure its tax base, even though both already operate stores in the city. Opponents replied that the retailers could and would continue to serve Sandy without this site, that the new development would harm existing competitors and create traffic congestion, and that the gravel pit should be a park.

After the City Council acted, a group called Save Our Communities rallied support for a petition drive to place that decision on a referendum ballot. The group collected 6,425 valid signatures, but the city recorder ruled that this number was not sufficient to meet the threshold under Utah law to submit a decision on a land-use law to a referendum.

Last week, the Utah Supreme Court ruled otherwise. It held that the Utah Constitution guarantees the right of Sandy residents to refer the City Council's decision to local voters, and that the zoning law in question is not a land-use law within the meaning of the statute. The number of signatures was adequate to meet the lower referendum threshold for other laws, so the voters will get a chance to approve or rescind the City Council's decision.

We don't believe that every city zoning decision should be subject to referendum, but this one isn't just any decision. Besides, requirements for petition signatures are high enough to prevent frivolous referendums.

This issue holds tremendous consequences for Sandy. It is right that voters will decide.

Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners