From Deseret News archives:

Riverton mayor defends land deal

Published: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:48 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
RIVERTON — Mayor Mont Evans says residents need to trust that their elected officials are doing what is best for Riverton's future.

Evans said the Hamilton Land project, the largest commercial/residential development in the city's history, has its benefits.

"This provides a tax base for the future of this municipality," Evans said in a phone interview last week.

The large development, which may include a Wal-Mart, has been met with opposition by some citizens, who say the development is not welcome amid five existing public schools. Citizens also say they want to keep Riverton's rural feel for as long as possible.

"There's a positive aspect to this thing," Evans said, pointing out that the Hamilton development could produce an estimated $20 million in sales tax revenue for the city over the next 15 years, or about $1.8 million a year. Those are much-needed funds for city services and future growth, Evans said.

But the controversy over the development has spilled into the courts. Last week, a group of citizens asked the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in on a move by the City Council to, they say, thwart their referendum by rescinding the rezone and breaking the project into four parts.

Story continues below
The high court has been asked by citizens to force the city to stop granting building permits to Hamilton Land and to hold a special referendum election.

The same citizens have also filed a lawsuit against Riverton City, claiming city officials knowingly interfered with their constitutional rights to post a referendum in a special election.

Evans lauded the City Council's decision to vote in favor of the development. "I saw their vote as a courageous move on their part," he said.

In a 40-page response filed with the Utah Supreme Court Thursday, Riverton City Attorney David Church argued the referendum was "moot" because it focused upon the old ordinance being repealed and replaced with four new ordinances. Residents argued the referendum applied to the new ordinances because they are virtually identical to the original.

Church's reply suggested that even if the high court found that the referendum applied to the new ordinances, Utah law may not allow a referendum recall because the action is more "administrative" than "legislative." The state supreme court has clarified that legislative actions can be subject to referendum but administrative city actions cannot.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Maya was wronged. The trophy was stolen. The judges had to give him a 30 so...

Go Coug's I'll be there at LES and I expect a great finsh from Max Pitta and Co.

Y. focused on 10-win season

At least he won't be a stupid Junior. Has anyone played worse in the rivalry...

I was hoping they would win, but the were up against a lot of great talent....

I agree completely with your comments about Jay Leno. He goes way to far and...

I, too, think Mr. Gale does a great job with his articles. His...

We should drill more and lower the price globally for oil. Fine build nuclear...

Utahns prove love for Twilight

No I don't own a poster of shirtless Jacob - but there is a huge difference...

Gary, What nonsense! Specify the emails that "prove" deception. You...

if you guys don't think soccer is a sport? then what do you consider a sport?...

Advertisements