Land-use bill raises ethics questions

A measure once described as a "developers' dream bill" is raising questions about ethics, influence peddling on Utah's Capitol Hill and possible conflicts of interest among state lawmakers.

The bill, known as SB170, failed to win approval during the recent legislative session. But its repercussions are still being felt in relationships between local governments and development groups.

The bill would have changed municipal land-use decisions to benefit individual landowners.

"It was a lot of crap thrown at the wall," said Jodi Hoffman, attorney and lobbyist for the Utah League of Cities and Towns. "What we have at the end of this is a trust issue."

Hoffman was one of four panelists who spoke Tuesday during a debate sponsored by the Urban Land Institute of Utah. The discussion centered around SB170 and other land-use bills that either passed or failed during the 2006 session.

No one during the debate spoke openly about issues of power and influence that have surrounded SB170. But Hoffman and other attendees, in later conversations, questioned the effect of special-interest groups on land-use discussions in Utah, particularly in the creation of SB170.

Proponents of the bill deny any overriding influence by developers on the decisions of lawmakers. Even so, state financial-disclosure forms show significant contributions to lawmakers by developers and realtor groups. A quick tally of lawmakers and their listed professions showed at least 20 have have been involved in land development or real estate.

The bill was partially written by an attorney, Michael Hutchings, who represents Anderson Development, a Sandy company. Records from lobbyists for Anderson Development show contributions made to at least 25 Utah lawmakers.

Hutchings' law firm — Hutchings, Baird and Jones — also employs House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy. Last year, Curtis received a $7,500 donation from the Utah Association of Realtors and a $1,000 donation from The Home Builders Association of the State of Utah, according to state records.

Curtis said Tuesday that while he had "definitely supported" certain parts of SB170, he saw no conflict of interest in having accepted the donations.