Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Residents want vote on referendum
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Forget hot dogs and potato salad. Summer fare for Riverton residents is a steady diet of civic government.

Their latest taste came Monday when several dozen people from the south valley suburb crowded the Utah Supreme Court chamber to hear oral arguments regarding a six-month battle to get a referendum on the ballot.

At issue: whether residents, who got 5,084 petition signatures certified in April, should be able to vote on a 100-acre commercial development that includes Wal-Mart and about 800 high- and medium-density housing units.

That development agreement originally cleared a lame-duck City Council Jan. 3 - prompting the petition drive. City officials then divided the project into four parcels and by four identical 3-2 votes, the new council approved zoning changes May 4 - effectively squelching the referendum effort.

"We didn't do this to be cute. We didn't do this to frustrate the petition sponsors," said David Church, Riverton city attorney, who noted the May vote was designed to correct "procedural defects" from last January. Church also pointed to Utah law that he said clearly states such zoning changes are not subject to a referendum.

"Of course, the petitioners suggest we junk it," retorted Chief Justice Christine Durham.

James Tracy, an attorney representing the petitioners, said procedural tweaks, such as carving the project into separate zones subvert voter rights and "set an unhealthy precedent in this state."

During the hearing, Justice Michael Wilkins suggested one solution is to vote out the current City Council.

Asked after hearing if she feels under pressure, council member Lisa Leonard lamented that the law in this case is unclear. She said several new council members - including herself - felt bound by the January development agreement while voting on the new ordinance in May.

"While I'm concerned about the residents' rights, and I represent them, I also represent [landowner] Cletus Hamilton," Leonard said.

A ruling from the justices is expected this month, meaning another chapter in the civics lesson.

Said primary petition sponsor Dennis Sampson: "All we're trying to do is get this to a vote."

djensen@sltrib.com

Riverton: They want to decide on a commercial development that includes Wal-Mart and about 800 housing units
Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners