"Shall Ordinance No. 04-45 be approved?"

Good gracious. Have you ever read such government gobbledygook?

Absent a change, this will be the wording of a referendum that Sandy residents will see when they go to the polls on Nov. 8 to resolve a divisive land-use issue in their city. They also will select city leaders.

It's understood that drafters of referenda need to dot their "I's" and cross their "T's," legally speaking. After the months-long battle among the grass-roots organization Save Our Communities, Sandy city and developer The Boyer Co., voters deserve a succinct referendum. How about something that balances the legalese with some plain speak?

As it stands, voters run the risk of either falling asleep in the voting booth or becoming hopelessly confused. Neither is an optimal condition on Election Day.

While an admitted oversimplification, the issue basically boils down to this: "Should the gravel pit become a mixed-use development?" or "Should the gravel pit become a park?"

Our concern is for voters who go to the polls Nov. 8 to choose a mayor and city council. They may be caught flat-footed with a referendum that asks them whether they should approve Ordinance 04-45. Will they understand what that means?

Save Our Communities wants the Utah Supreme Court to take yet another look at the issue. Earlier this summer the court ruled that Sandy must hold a referendum on the proposed zoning change, to the objections of Sandy city and The Boyer Co. The latter sought a rehearing of the case, but the court has not yet responded.

It's August. The court has enough time left to review this one more time. In the interest of clarity and good government, we hope the Utah Supreme Court will review this language and take appropriate action.