Development's foes lose legal round

The Utah Supreme Court dealt a blow Friday to a citizen effort to take a controversial commercial development to a public vote.

A group of residents charged that the Riverton City Council and Mayor Mont Evans had thwarted their efforts to reverse a zoning ordinance in the Hamilton Land Development project by petitioning for an election via the referendum process. However, just after the Salt Lake County Clerk verified there were enough signatures to put the referendum to a vote, the Riverton City Council voted to repeal the controversial zoning ordinance, splitting the project into four separate and new zoning ordinances.

The project is seen as one of the biggest developments in Riverton's history and includes many big retail outlets, such as Wal-Mart. In several public hearings, many residents packed gymnasiums, protesting the move as an attack on their rural lifestyle.

According to the residents' petition to the court, they accused the council and mayor of passing the new ordinances to thwart their referendum effort.

The Utah Supreme Court, however, found that there were marked differences between the first ordinance and the four new ordinances, making the plans "more flexible" in addressing citizen concerns.

The high court ultimately ruled that the residents failed to show that the City Council acted in bad faith in passing the new ordinances and could not prove with undisputed fact that the council passed the ordinances to sabotage the referendum effort.

One state representative, who has led the charge on the citizen referendum, said he is severely disappointed in Friday's ruling, adding he feels it will have serious ramifications in other cities where councils face a citizen referendum over big development.

"It's really disappointing," said state Rep. David Hogue, R-Riverton. "I believe this opens the door. You'll see other cities doing exactly the same thing and will open the floodgates. It will open the way to big developers."

Speaking from California, Evans said he had not read the court's ruling but said he felt the decision vindicated the city's position that it was acting for the good of the community.

"This is a good project for the city of Riverton," Evans said. "It provides much-needed tax revenue so we can provide services for today and into the future."