Deseret News | Reader comments: Conflict sidelines Curtis on loan talks

Reader comments
Conflict sidelines Curtis on loan talks

BBKing | 3:03 a.m. March 5, 2008

We are going to hear the normal "part-time legislature" defense.

Since they are a part-time legislature they file a disclosure form in which they state all of their potential conflicts. That has been the case for decades. Can we guess at what our fore-fathers would have considered a conflict?

Interesting FACT, up until about 1986 our fore-fathers would not even allow city and state employees to serve in the legislature because they had a conflict of interest. Think about that, for the first 90 years of Utah's existence that is how tight they were about the subject.

Now, legislator gets into business of building charter schools, runs legislation to increase funding for buildings, makes dramatic profits from his own legislation; Legislator tries to get business with health care firm for ten years, no luck. Appointed to health care task force, gets coveted contract following month; Two legislators sitting on committee that overseas Nuc power issues, start nuc power business; Current Senator, struggling CPA - elected Majority Leader and suddenly gets several high profile "consulting" contracts with firms being regulated by the State.

Curtis is no different. And we expect them to regulate themselves. We voted'em in, vote'em out!

Thank you | 6:41 a.m. March 5, 2008

Thank you Speaker Curtis for setting a high standard on this issue. The public is appreciative of your efforts.

Great job! | 6:42 a.m. March 5, 2008

I admire Curtis for being so ethical in such a hard situation. We need more leaders who work hard like him and, as this article states, go to great lengths to avoid huge conflicts of interest.

Comments continue below

Kudos | 7:17 a.m. March 5, 2008

Kudos, Speaker Curtis, for managing a tough situation with class and wisdom. This story isn't really a story thanks to the way you respected both your role as attorney for Anderson, and as a public servant. Keep up the good work, and know some folks actually appreciate the way you handled this potentially difficult situation.

A little research | 7:33 a.m. March 5, 2008

A bridge loan is interim financing for an individual or business until permanent or the next stage of financing can be obtained. Money from the new financing is generally used to "take out" (i.e. to pay back) the bridge loan, as well as other capitalization needs.

The bridge loan is for St. George not Anderson Development. The City of St. George needs the money to construct it's airport. Anderson doesn't need a dime from the State.

faithful | 8:08 a.m. March 5, 2008

Yes, there is a good explanation for every conflict of interest in this state. All our righteous leaders are pure and moral, so God lets them profit as a reward for high morality. We should all support our righteous legislators and their high morals and ethics against anyone who claims otherwise.

Jay | 8:18 a.m. March 5, 2008

Anybody else think all the soundalike "kudo" comments are written by the same person (someone from Curtis's office)?

Anonymous | 8:18 a.m. March 5, 2008

So, if I understand correctly, the state will give a $40+ million loan to St. George which it will pay back when they get the $44 million from Anderson in four or five years. With an airport that costs $200 million, will St. George have the funds to pay the interest on the loan as well or will the burden of interest fall back on the state like it did for the flood loans? Let's think about the details and appropriate use of public funds.

retired | 8:33 a.m. March 5, 2008

That's the problem with the way the D News handles posts. Anyone can log on as different names, or use someone else's.

Woo hoo! | 8:35 a.m. March 5, 2008

Sen Curtis took a clear ethical stand, and neglected to mention that giving this loan puts Utah taxpayers on the hook for up to $50 million dollars in environmental cleanup costs on the airport land before it can be transferred to the developer. Yahoo! Let's raise the sales tax again to cover it!

Jon | 9:25 a.m. March 5, 2008

For those who can't resist to make negative and accusatory comments about this loan, I'd suggest you research the facts before spouting off.

The City of St. George needs a bridge loan. The State loan isn't the only way this can be done, but it's certainly an easier and an appropriate way. The City of St. George and southern Utah is a good little economic engine for the State of Utah, and the new airport will be huge for the local economy. So it's appropriate for the state to help.

Also, there is little to no risk to the state. If Anderson failed to pay for the land, the State becomes the owner and can sell or develop it.

Finally, there will be no gaps in funding. Between Federal, City, and the old airport sale, the project will be funded. If critics did there homework, they would know this. The Legislature has done their homework.

Now all of you critics can move onto whining about another issue you no nothing about.

to jon | 9:55 a.m. March 5, 2008

the issue is good old boy net work serving corporate
interests in ways that are, or appear to be of questionable ethics, by a one party system, that plys on public trust by using the dominate church as another good old boy network alleging pure religious thinking in all matters, yet often only serves their own and their buddies long term business interests.
thus the public "whines" which by the way is the right of the public when something rotten is about.

RE: "to jon" | 10:37 a.m. March 5, 2008

all i have to say is "HUH?" i agree with JON!

Hatuletoh | 11:34 a.m. March 5, 2008

The problem with the Legislature in general, and Mr. Curtis in particular is that they've affected so many shady, unethical, self-serving deals already that we the people are overly sensitive to the slightest whiff of impropriety. I wonder if Mr. Curtis has ever been admonished to avoid the very appearance of evil? Of course, he IS a lawyer, so I'd suspect not.

Dreaming Candidate for Sandy | 11:39 a.m. March 5, 2008

I wonder, would people vote for me if I ran for the state house, on the platform of getting a bill that gets tough on conflict of interest house and senate members, and forces them to choose--legislator or current occupation!? To me, that is the number one problem with our state government....It feeds all the other stupid dilemnas that the legislators have been pulling and it needs to stop.

Kudos Comment my First | 12:12 p.m. March 5, 2008

No, I wasn't posting multiple times. This is only my second post on the subject, as can be confirmed by the moderator by my IP address.

You may not like that some people actually understand why and how the Speaker (not Sen Curtis, as one ignorant poster put it) did what he did, but apparently I'm not the only one. Ethics required Curtis to avoid disclosing his client's bid, while as soon as the bid became public, immediately recusing himself. He did exactly as he should have.

And some people just don't get the bridge loan. But I suppose that's what you get when Bob Bernick writes the story. Check the Tribune for a much more easily understood description of what all of this means.

sob | 1:05 p.m. March 5, 2008

the tribune story alludes to an over all questionable pattern by mr curtis if you read
the entire article

MC | 2:10 p.m. March 5, 2008

It appears to me that the bid price for the St George airport by Anderson is peanuts compared to what the city of St. George should get for this prime property. I would really like to see what the appraisal for this property is for the citizens of St George to judge . This smells of collusion with some of the affected parties. I doubt 44M is for the best use of the land especially the taxes derived from it.

Nice Ethics | 3:36 p.m. March 5, 2008

And I'm sure Curtis doesn't have other lawmakers doing his dirty work for him. I'll help you get that seat you want on that committee if you help push this bill that will make my friends and me a lot of cash.

Is there any way voters in Utah could start electing officials who have some good ethics?

Get It Straight! | 3:51 p.m. March 5, 2008

Part time or full time legislating is not the issue and is totally irrelevant to the issue and problem.

Fact is all elected officials are servants of the public, not the other way around. This is also in issue about trust, confidence and integrity of not only the individuals being elected, but of the very institutions themselves, again, part time of full time not withstanding!

Right now people like Curtis, and he's not the only one in this kind of mess with the residents of Utah who elected him and he represents, need to understand that they can't have their cake and eat it to. If they're so interested in campaigning and running for an elected office, they also can't claim to be part-timers about conflict-of-interest issues. Either they're in or they're out... to which it looks like we can't expect our elected officials to comply by the force of their own integrity (or lack thereof), so we probably should put the issue on the ballot, since the 'part-timer' legislatures seem ambivalent towards making it law from their end.

Sad, sad, sad.

Smell Test | 4:42 p.m. March 5, 2008

If this was the only case with similar undertones, then Curtis's "who me?" might be given the benefit of the doubt. However, this is just more of the same....... dishonest, duplicitous, and disgusting. Let's review: Energy Solutions sweetheart deal last year, citizen referendum change this year, omnibus bill, charter school building graft, nuclear waste, soccer stadium, school district splits... The hits just keep coming !!

If you care do something | 5:18 p.m. March 5, 2008

While all this was going on behind closed doors Curtis' 2006 opponent (who lost by only 20 votes) and ran on a platform of bringing integrity back to Capitol Hill was announcing he was running against Curtis again this year. He came within 20 votes even though he was outspent 7 to 1. If you care, do what you can to support Curtis' opponent this year. Curtis has raised over 300K already this year and he is just getting started, he will be able to out spend 10 to 1 this year. Fortunately, these seats go up for election not up for auction.

You can bet Curtis, in addition to the interests of his law firm, is beholding to several interests other than those of the people that voted him in.

As Speaker in a legislature as lopsided as Utah's, he can cause grief for all of Utah's citizens. We should all care about and be involved in this race.

Kudos | 6:26 p.m. March 5, 2008

Nicely done, Dad (oops) I mean Your Honor (um) I mean Greg.

Greg | 8:25 p.m. March 5, 2008

Is anybody paying attentio. Curtis is a felon and by the is our Speaker of the House. What this man is lacking in shame, he makes up for in audacity. The only real question is why is he getting away with it? Power is the only answer I can come up with. He is one of the sadest chapters in Utah legislative history that I have witnessed. I am 55 year old, and thought I had seen it all. Did anyone happen to notice his influence on UDOT and how it helped his develpment in Utah County. Hello Govenor?????

Duh..!! | 10:36 p.m. March 5, 2008

The governor said the state didn't have the money to buy the property (and probably make a nice profit) but they have nearly the same amount laying around to make a loan for 4-5 years. In 4-5 years their 44 million dollar purchase would probably net more than their loan with interest...

Eldodes | 12:10 a.m. March 6, 2008

RE: Do your research.

This whole post if verrryyyy intresting. The comment that I like the most is from "do your research" about bridge loans.

If Anderson does not need a dime from the State why the bridge loan? Why not pony up the 44 mill now. It's because they DONT have the $$$

Do YOUR research and see that Anderson has 45Mill note on Geneva that they can't pawn of as paper lots to builders or other developers.

It all works out though, bridge loan 42 million to Anderson to pay of Pettitt on Geneva. And pay under value on ST. Airport. NICE......

something smells | 12:19 p.m. March 24, 2008

There are many dots that need to be connected: UDOT, Pleasant Grove interchange, Anderson Development, Hub location changes, Geneva steel, St George airport, Big land deals that continually get primed, positioned and greased through the system. The relation of our public officials who provide the priming, positioning and greasing for the private sectors needs some exposure. If it passes some better disclosure or exposure and is in the better interest of the public, Great! Currently it I don't think its passing the smell test. Somethings fishy.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.