Signature-gatherers, he said after the court hearing, "went through heck" to muster support for the referendum in cold, snowy January weather.

But Church said Sharon and Cletus Hamilton, who own the land parcel and are intervenors in the case, sought the ordinance change because opponents were upset about procedural issues in the council's passing of the January ordinance, including the fact that it was an outgoing council and that it met on a Saturday morning without proper public notice. They wanted a clean slate before they got started with development, he said.

When a newly elected council looked at the issue again and still felt the former farmland should become commercial for the good of the city, residents should have been comfortable with that, he said.

Development opponents say they want to slow the fast growth in their southern Salt Lake County suburb as much as possible and will gather more signatures to get the May ordinances on the ballot if they have to, though that would mean gathering four times as many signatures — 35 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election for each of the four ordinances — and that could be tough.

"The average person can't understand, 'Why are we collecting signatures four times?' " Tracy told justices.

But Church said after the hearing that it's an issue of "not in my back yard" mentality and the urge to rig city zoning at the expense of poorer residents.

The high court will take the issue under advisement. Rulings on election-related issues often take priority in the court's schedule.

---

E-mail: dsmeath@desnews.com