Deseret News | Layton unsettled: Despite community members' pleas, council backs plan

Reader comments
Layton unsettled: Despite community members' pleas, council backs plan

Page:
1
2
Next >

Anonymous | 8:02 a.m. June 5, 2009

Why do we even have people on the city council? They don't listen to the people. Once again government "wins out" and the voice of th people is not heard. Shame on the Layton City Council.

Rich | 8:29 a.m. June 5, 2009

Nobody wants a rezone in their neighborhood. But if we as a society are going to adapt to growth, which is coming regardless of how we feel about it, we must allow development. If we want to slow down the loss of open space, we must allow a higher density of residents per acre in developments. Those are facts. Still, it's hard to see it in your neighborhood. The chief role of government involving planning and development should be what is good for the community as a whole, not just the local neighborhood.

Spectator | 8:38 a.m. June 5, 2009

The council did their job and protected property rights. It doesn't matter what "the people" want in a case like this because they have no ownership in the land. It would be like "the people" voting to knock down your house because you don't take care of your lawn. This was a property rights issue not a public vote.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 9:38 a.m. June 5, 2009

I am citizen of Layton. I feel like the vote was already decided before the meeting started. I salute Scott Freitag for standing up and saying he does not believe the rezone should be permitted. Shame on all the other members of the Layton City Council. I hope you will be able to sleep at night with decision you have made. I am very disappointed Layton City Resident. When election time comes around again. I will help anyone running against the council who voted to rezone.Remember what someone said...BUYER BEWARE...BUYER BEWARE...

Anonymous | 9:45 a.m. June 5, 2009

I hope the person who wrote that this was a property rights issue has a house around the area that this developement will be built. You will suffer with all of the other residents when something happens because of land slides, water damage and car accidents. We are concerned citizens who care about our future property. If we didn't care no one else would. We found that out last night with the vote from Layton City Council. I am really disappointed that only one council member Scott Freitag voted against the rezone. Like other citizens have written SHAME ON YOU FOR YOUR VOTE..I hope you can live with your decision.....

Jim | 9:50 a.m. June 5, 2009

The council certainly did NOT protect property rights, it simply favored one owner's rights over the rights of others. Development of this land as proposed will have serious effects on the surrounding area. The potential for landslides and flooding in adjacent areas will increase. Neighboring landowners have vested property right as well and those rights should be considered.

This was not a "not in my backyard" issue. It was an issue of whether the development is being done responsibly. Area residents recognize that development will occur - we just want it done in a responsible manner.

Anonymous | 10:04 a.m. June 5, 2009

I want to voice my opinion on last nights meeting. Layton City Council Members who voted to approve the rezone did not listen to the concerned citizens in the area around the developement. They had already made their decision before the meeting started. Land slides have happened in the area already, citizens have sub pumps because of too much water. Also look at the developement on 193 it is just sitting not being finished. Why could not LAYTON CITY purchase the property and make it into a park for all the residents to take advantage of?

Spectotor | 10:47 a.m. June 5, 2009

This is a "not in my backyard" issue. Because the points about landslides and flooding isn't even an argument. Three seperate studies have been done by 3 independent geotech companies and they all show that the development of this property will accually stabilize the homes around this site. The council did the right thing which is the same thing they did when they approved the development of the ground where your homes sit. I'm sorry that you won't have someone elses land for your view or your park but the council did the right thing.

Concerned Citizen | 8:36 p.m. June 5, 2009

For the person who wrote the above comment about this is a owners rights. Well excuse me but what about the citizen rights. We don't care about the view in our backyards or any of that information you wrote. What we care about is the SAFETY AND WELFARE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING AREA.We don't want our houses and yards to start slipping or sliding because of all of the suppose developement. No will take responsible if that happens accept the owner of the property it happens. Also about the Geotech companies one of those companies were paid by the Adams/Hawkins Developement. And a lot of holes were found in their report. We also did not ask for a park, the park was decided on because the land was not able to be developed. Also it will not be a park. It is going to be a walking trail. 16 acreas that will be developed into the trail once the developement of Adams Property is completed.

Former Layton Resident | 9:24 p.m. June 5, 2009

Layton will be the next Ogden! The city is all about growth regardless of the consequences. How did that work out for Ogden... just watch the news tonight and you will see. Drug traffic, prostitution, you name it. Leave while you can before it is too late. It is obvious the council wants this issue off their plate and one must ask if this is how every other crucial decision was made. Look at the traffic issues and and the crime that is already becoming evident. Walk around Layton during the 4th of July celebrations but I would recommend Kevlar and some other form of protection. Can anyone else see Morgan Freeman saying "This city deserves exactly what it gets"? I will watch from a few cities over!

Good luck folks as you will need it!

IQ | 4:04 a.m. June 6, 2009

It always amazes me to see people buy 1/4 of an acre and then stand back and try to dictate what happens to the 50 acres around it. I don't even live on the Wasatch front.

StDenis | 6:12 a.m. June 6, 2009

I imagine that when one is "eeking" out their sleep, they must be screaming about the terrifying decision just made by the council. :-)

Anonymous | 7:10 a.m. June 6, 2009

Cool, let's ignore the will of the citizens, try and rezone a section of property that is prone to disaster, all in the face of the most staggering economy since the 1930's. I love the idea, I can't imagine why anyone would even be opposed to it. And I don't even live there.

Are you aware?? | 8:03 a.m. June 6, 2009

The owner of property has the right to develop it if it meets the proper zoning ordinances, meets the water needs for the number of homes, passes necessary geological tests and any other city mandated requirements.
If the city says NO after the owner has met all of the conditions set by ordinance and law then the owner of the property has grounds for a LAWSUIT and can SUE the city for damages.Do you realize how many subdivisions that are built because when the vote is taken the developer has his ATTORNEYS waiting for a NO vote????
Fruit Heights City was forced to approve a subdivision sitting over an area known to have springs and water in wet years and nothing in dry years but after the required STUDIES WERE MADE, it was determined there was not a problem.When the City balked a LAWSUIT was filed. To keep the city from being destroyed because they knew they would LOSE IN COURT,approved the subdivision. RESULT?? They have had some water problems but the real result will come with time.
SAD DECISION??? Yes--- Right decision??? Legally, YES-- but in the long run I'm betting it was wrong.

GET NEW LEADERSHIP | 8:28 a.m. June 6, 2009

Sounds like Layton residents need to vote out some of their Council Members!

Representative government? | 9:11 a.m. June 6, 2009

Sandy City's planning commission did a similar thing a couple years ago with a proposed development that borders Sandy and Cottonwood Heights. They wouldn't listen to residents who voiced their opinions about this property--which also has a history of landslides. It was as if the council had been bought off by the developer. Fortunately, the project has been at a halt for the last year. Maybe common sense will triumph.

Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. June 6, 2009

I'm sure Adams Company paid off the city council right? Of course the Geotech study was paid for by Adams company, who else would pay for it. If you didn't like the study pay for one yourself. I'm sure the entire hill will slide upwards into the surounding neighborhood. HEALTH and SAFETY, I'm sure the neighbors who read the geotech study was qualified to understand it, and the city of Layton, who employs planners and engineers completely dismissed safety issues so they can get a few more property taxes. Sounds like something they do all the time. Dream on and get over it.

Robert - St. George | 9:41 a.m. June 6, 2009

Property rights are important and yes they should be considered like Rich, and others, said. But at the cost of safety???? Are we so caught up in development and money that we don't care about the human beings and families who will live there? Wow, this is so Washington. Again, this is an example of people with power forgetting they are supposed to represent the people. If the people have information on safety why wasn't anyone listening to this advice? Sad day in Layton.

Milo P Otis | 9:44 a.m. June 6, 2009

There shoudl be some Council Members up for re-election this fall. Rid yourselves of them. Buyer beware.

geedub | 9:45 a.m. June 6, 2009

Build it. If the neighbors don't like it they can either move or buy the land from the current owners. The grading of the land will stabilize it. This kind of work is done all the time in Southern California. I should know, I'm a geological engineer practicing in San Diego. I applaud the City Consul for listening to reason rather than emotion.

Phoebe | 9:48 a.m. June 6, 2009

If you want to figure out why the City Council voted the way it did, just follow the money

Anonymous | 9:55 a.m. June 6, 2009

The will of the citizens? This was the will of a few select citizens. The residents of east Layton are snobs and they don't want townhomes or any other form of high density homes next to them. This has nothing to do with landslides or flooding. They just want an open field next to them. If you deny a property owner the right to develop and give them no options, you have in effect robbed that property owner of all the value of that property. It is a constitutional taking. The Layton City Council did the right thing.

John Marx | 10:14 a.m. June 6, 2009

The Layton city council is a government of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.

Tyranny of the Majority | 10:16 a.m. June 6, 2009

This is exactly why a democratic representative republic form of governement is so useful. If the majority were able to trampple the rights of the minority, it would be tyranny.

If this is so much an issue of safety and public welfare, then each and every argument against the rezoning would also be support to condemn the existing houses and tear them down.

The community would be much better off if the existing houses were condemned and torn down because of the large landslide possibility-it would save insurance claims and disaster cleanup; the community welfare would be much better without all of the current houses on the sensitive lands,etc. Lets restore the sensitive lands to what they used to be and then protect them for our children!

This is rampant pride and "King of the hill" mentality: I've got my house, and you don't get yours. Worse than a bunch of crabs getting boiled in a pot. Horrible that this even exists in Utah much less people loudly proclaiming such despicable pride.

Tim | 10:17 a.m. June 6, 2009

Layton needs a Tea Party! City Council members are supposed to protect the individual rights of their constituency and hear their voice. Sounds like Marxism is in full force in Layton, trickling down from Obama-Nation. Why does the city council in Layton even hold public hearings? They should just put on their Gestapo uniforms and make decisions behind closed doors.

Resident of Layton City | 10:56 a.m. June 6, 2009

I am Layton City Resident who lives on the ridge. I do not care about the view or the 16 acres park that was donated to Layton City. My concern is the Safety and Welfare of the community. We have already had lots of people in Hidden Hollow that have sub pumps due to much water. Houses on Sunset have fallen and sunk due to landslides. Heather homes gone because the land slid. Take a ride on Beechwood street some back yards are gone, lands are dropping 3 feet. Go drive and look at Sunset street look at Heather street. Is this what Layton City Council wants to happen to the residents who live near the new developement? I agree the council members except Scott Feitag went for the owner rights and developers and did not ever consider the residents complaints. There decision was already made before the meeting on June 4. I wonder who was paid off by the Developer and the owner of Adams Property??? I hope other concerned citizen will keep involved that are against the development and maybe we can do appeal on their decission by REFERENDUM PROCESS BALLOT .......

CB | 11:00 a.m. June 6, 2009

Moved into our area 11 years ago, surrounded by open fields we could walk through. All gone now to the development of mega houses. Would I prefer they never came. YES.
The homes, however, are well kept, have added value to my own property and there are some very nice people living in them. That's called development. Those complaining now are living in homes that intruded on someone else's 'open fields' at one time.

Lee | 11:04 a.m. June 6, 2009

You want to see development, come to Riverside CA.
WE have lost our view of the lovely hills, nothing but crappy condo's gone in, hills leveled to build homes, etc, Now the cost of selling these places is not happening, so they sit empty, becoming complete eye sores etc. yes follow the mney, people do not count.

EXCUSE ME | 11:41 a.m. June 6, 2009

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OPEN LAND AROUND US. WE ARE TALKING AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO SO MUCH DENSISTY. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LANDSLIDES ISSUES, UNSTABLE GROUNDS, TOO MUCH WATER. READ WHAT SCOTT FREITAG SAID WHEN HE VOTED NO ON THE REZONE ISSUE. HE DID NOT FEEL SAFE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT EITHER. OUR PROPERTY VALUE WOULD DECREASE A LOT IF THE DEVELOPMENT FELL APART OR STARTED HAVING COMPLICATIONS WITH THE LAND AFTER STARTING THE PROJECT. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN SALT LAKE CITY, LAYTON ON HEATHER DRIVE AND SUNSET AND THE PROPLEMS ON BEECHWOOD STREET AND MORGAN.ARE THE RESIDENTS WILLING TO LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN TO OTHER RESIDENTS. I SURE HOPE NOT. WE MUST ALL STAND TOGETHER AND TRY TO FIGHT THIS APPROVAL OF REZONE...WE ARE CITIZENS OF LAYTON. WE NEED TO HAVE OUR VOICES FINALLY HEARD BY CITIZENS WHO WOULD LISTEN TO EACH SIDE AND THEN SEE WHAT THEY THINK...LAYTON CITY COUNCIL SURE DID NOT LISTEN. THEY RAN SCARED...EXCEPT FREITAG....

Layton resident | 11:56 a.m. June 6, 2009

I don't know anybody against this who doesn't live in the neighborhood next to the development. You say the vote was against what the citizens of Layton wanted but really it is a handful of people living next to the property. The rest of us don't have an issue with it because there is no emotion in it for us.

DO WHAT | 12:10 p.m. June 6, 2009

IF IT WAS ONLY A HANDFUL OF RESIDENTS WHY DID WE HAVE ALMOST 160 RESIDENTS ATTEND THE LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGAINST THE REZONE DEVELOPMENT.
SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. WELL THIS COULD BE HAPPENING IN YOUR BACK YARD. WOULD YOU WANT THEM TAKING A CHANCE ON BUILDING ON PROPERTY LIKE THIS NEAR YOU. YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF YOUR LITTLE WORLD AND GO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY. THERE IS SO MUCH WRONG WITH IT.

Layton Resident | 12:12 p.m. June 6, 2009

First off, using all caps just makes most people ignore your entire post, it is harder to read, not more emphatic.

Second, as many have said, the council is just following the law. Public comment is sought in many government actions and is listened to. However, unless you have some well laid-out, scientific and/or legal proof that something illegal may happen due to the council's decision, they cannot throw out the law.

It is difficult to accept sometimes, but you really do need more than emotionally based objections. If your fears are founded in reality, you must prove it.

Have any of you provided the council with professional geotechnical reports that back your theories? If not, they cannot just listen to fears that may prove to be unfounded.

All they can base their decision on is the information they have at hand, and they must rely on information that is professionally prepared and based on cold, hard facts.

I am sorry for all of your work that you feel was not listened to, but if you want changes, work to change the laws, or as Councilman Freitag suggested, to update the city's development plan.

Layton citizen | 12:13 p.m. June 6, 2009

Very dissapointed in Layton City coucils decision!!

Layton Citizen Resident | 12:27 p.m. June 6, 2009

I will help any person who runs against any of the council members who voted yes on the approval of the rezone of Adams Property. We need more Layton City Council people like Scott Freitag who actually listened to both sides and made the right decision against the rezone of Adams Property. I think the other City Council members voted the way they did because they are afraid of the city getting a possible lawsuit from the developer if it was not approved. Shame on them! Run scared! It's too bad none of you have property around this. Maybe then you would of understood more about how the residents of this area feels about the rezone issue. It was not only a emotional issue it was also a concerned citizens of Layton rights to protect future developement that may compromise they own property. Sure you can say this does not effect me. Well yes it does? Because anyone living in Layton has the possibility of land slides, springs coming out thru your basement, your land sinking, your property value going down. Everyone should be concerned.

Adams Fan | 4:37 p.m. June 6, 2009

If you don't want the property devloped, why don't you buy it. I'm sure if you all owned the property, you wouldn't be looking at selling it to make a better life for youand your families.

Joe | 6:33 p.m. June 6, 2009

You mean Adams Family not fan. The City did what they had to after all this wasn't their first Rodeo, said Alex Jensen Layton City Manager. The Council did what they had to, after all they aren't the first council Mr. Jensen has trained. The citizens got bucked off because it was their first Rodeo. Who wins? No one! The big loser? New buyer!! Public hearing? No such thing in Layton government. Health, Welfare and Safety of the Citizens, no one cares!!!

Another Layton Guy | 8:57 p.m. June 6, 2009

First off, I don't live in that area. However, I'm rather concerned about this development myself. Having been raised in Layton not too far from this area, it is concerning that they want something of this scale there. I can understand some homes going in there, but not a large development. I knew/know people in those areas and there is a long history of land shifting and sinking. Grading may help, but I worry that it still will make the area even more unstable. Beyond all of this, I think the City Council should have tabled the rezone until they could review the information as well as the citizens concerns. That's the benefit of having a City Council. They are supposed to be the link between what is being proposed and the public.

Proof? | 9:12 p.m. June 6, 2009

All of you saying that this was done for nefarious or purposes, or in a dishonest manner, please provide a factual basis for your allegations. What proof do you have that this will endanger the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens?

Conjecture and assumptions with no underlying proof do not get you anywhere. Two separate geotechnical firms have already determined that this development can be done safely. There may be some out there who are dishonest enough to give the customer what they want rather than the truth, but most will base their findings on sound science. They even err on the side of caution. If they mess up, they could lose their license and livelihood.

The article also emphasizes that there will be further requirements to ensure stability as they proceed.

Those of you who are complaining about more traffic, high density housing, etc. Welcome to the world. Unless you own the open space near your home, prepare for it to become some type of development. The city should not keep the landowner from exercising their property rights so that you can have less traffic or higher property values.

Layton concerned resident | 11:37 p.m. June 6, 2009

This land has been investigated for years. One developer refused because of the instability. T he most recent reports do NOT give an Ok to this plan. They in fact have said that more studies will be needed to determine IF the land is stable when the grading begins. There are also many questions as to water issues that again by the reports need further studies. There are so many questions that have yet been answered it is frightening. My home took me working two jobs for many years to be able purchase. We are not eletist people-just people who have worked their whole lives to own a home.
Layton City still has the opportunity to purchase this land and develop a wilderness park that could be enjoyed by thousands of Layton residents.
There is much evidence of landslides it is surrounded by past landslides N,S,E,W,NW, and NE.
This ares is clearly identified as sensitive lands, and land slide danger in reports going back 100 years.
The city council did not listen to anyone but the developer. An established pattern in Layton. I hope someone will follow the money.

LOL! | 4:55 a.m. June 7, 2009

This comments thread is absolutely hilarious. Filled with fearmongering and ignorant speculation, sensationalism, and ridiculous claims of PUBLIC SAFETY!!1 being ignored for TEH DEVELOPRS!!1, it's humiliating to Utah. This comments section sounds like it belongs in a San Francisco newspaper, not here in Utah! Landslides, money trails, and sliding homes-oh, my!

I'm embarrassed for y'all.

If someone exercises their right to develop property they own it won't destroy your neighborhood. Talk about ignorance and uneducated fearmongering!

Attempting to usurp the rights of a legal, lawful property owner is unconstitutional, and you braying donkeys ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Stop whining that you weren't able to exert tyranny over this property owner. If you don't like the development, offer to purchase it, at fair market value, from the property owner!

Someone properly developing unused space in a populated suburban area is NOT going to ruin your homes. Do you honestly think that the firms doing the studies would risk losing their reputations, their businesses over this? Don't be ridiculous. Stop being tyrannical! Buy the property if you don't like it. Stop trying to deprive others of rights!

Ex Layton resident | 8:26 a.m. June 7, 2009

Layton City council don't listen to the people. City council should be voted out on the next election.

Cry out load | 7:23 p.m. June 7, 2009

LOL, you have to be the developer. No one else would write such crap. As many of us look at the land in question and see the 8-10 scare that runs for several hundred yards. Yes the same scare that took down how many homes with it. Oh it just so happens that most of it is on the lawful properties ground. Sure I will run out and buy a lot of land that is moving every day. Nice investment. Us Braying donkeys are actually trying to stop further development to protect future home owners from ending up with no home and a mortgage to pay. What is so humiliating about that. Other than the ignorance lol shows by writing suck unfounded statements. City followed the law, to bad. The developer threatens to sue. The City gets scared and some poor person will be with out some day.

Trying to make sense of this | 8:57 p.m. June 7, 2009

I guess all this development would be fine as long these properties are protected somehow. I assume that the city or the developers are at least protecting the current homes surrounding the area and new homes going in. I'm sure these people aren't that careless. Right?

RE: Cry out load (sic) | 9:29 a.m. June 8, 2009

Just because someone has an opposing view, does not mean they hope to gain from the City Council's ruling. As a Layton resident with no knowledge of this situation, other than the article and the comments her, I tend to side with the Council. In fact, I am sure that the referendum vote you wish for would uphold the ruling.

Why? Because you are throwing out accusations with no proof. You are claiming that this decision gives the developer the green light to do whatever they want with the land, with no further oversight from the city. That is not true.

You claim that this will endanger the public health and safety, but give no sound scientific basis. Looking at a "scare" (did you mean scar or scarp?) does not prove anything.

You even go so far as to insinuate corruption just because you didn't get your way.

You come across as whiners, and nobody listens to whiners. Please present clear, logical, fact-based arguments if you wish to sway opinions.

BTW, anyone who buys a home on a hill and does not have sound engineering and geologic information showing it to be stable is a fool.

I agree | 1:06 p.m. June 8, 2009

I agree with the last comment.

realist1 | 2:31 p.m. June 8, 2009

This really is funny i also agree with the comment above you all sound like WHINERS.I live in the area and have kept my eyes peeled on the situation. 3 geotech company approves it and the next thing out of your mouth is ITS NOT SAFE. What did you go outside with your spoon and shovel, dig a few holes and decide it was un safe how many geotech companies will it take 10,20 it does not matter the next words out of your mouth will be ITS NOT SAFE! I would rather not have houses there but i am not nieve enough to think that they wont do what they want with there own property and i am glad the city is making them do what they have to to make all the lots safe. And as far as i have seen they have met every requirement.

It's over | 5:42 p.m. June 8, 2009

Mr. Nieve. Obviously it wasn't your home and property that slid off the hill a few years ago. That is fact dude. The mortgages were not forgiven. The property owners were just out of luck. True you don't need a spoon or shovel, you just need a set of eye's. You know house here today and gone tomorrow. Hopfully the city will make the developer move forward with caution. For some ones sake.

Of course | 7:40 a.m. June 9, 2009

Of course the city will make the developer move forward with caution. Knowing of the previous slides has made the city get three geotech opinions on this property and all three say that the problem can be mitigated that is the fact of the matter. I agree with realist1 that those opposing this because they say it is not safe have no proof that it is not safe. Three different companies aren't going to put their reputation on the line for one project. Also the majority of the property is not a hill side if you stand at the bottom of antelope drive you can see most of it is fairly flat. Maybe the city won't allow houses to be built on the top of the hill but allow most of the development on the flatlands. To say that it is not safe without proof shows that this ins't about safety at all but about wanting a view.

longtime resident | 8:07 a.m. June 9, 2009

People, people, people. Lets get our emotions in check. I have lived in the area over 20 years and have watched all your beautiful houses go up. I once had a beautiful view, but now I appreciate the view of your beautiful homes. Seriously, I do. It is called growth. It has brought my little starter home up in value I am sure. But... I have tried to fight the city council before along with the Adams group on a developement.I realize our emotions can get out of control, mine did. I am embarrassed about that and I have learned these things: The city council has a meeting before they listen to the citizens, and they have already made their minds, so you are talking to a wall when you go to voice your opinions. The builders, developers or whoever, know how to work the system, it is their job. They are smart. In the real world, if it were my land, or your land I am sure we all would want to make as much money as possible. In an ideal world Adams would donate the land for a park and trail. Ahhh what a dream!

longtime resident | 8:32 a.m. June 9, 2009

By the way. I am against high volume housing, Layton has their percentage. And I did watch the homes slide down the hill, with a total loss and no compensation for the homeowners. I am sure the builder had all the correct studies done etc. But the homeowners, or should we say homelosers. Got the short end of the stick. I will miss the deer and wildlife I see in the gully on my daily walks, they also will be the losers. I would love a river parkway to walk along the river, I hear it is in the "Master Plan", but will I see it in my life time? Don't we wish this was not all about money? How much is enough, when can we give, or donate for the betterment of the communtiy. "Adams Wildlife Park and Riverwalk", has a nice ring to it. Ahh, another beautiful dream!

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.