Deseret News | Landowner in an uphill battle

Reader comments
Landowner in an uphill battle

FS | 10:27 p.m. Sept. 2, 2009

Classic case of not in my back yard. He owns the land let him do what he'd like. For those that don't want the consruction then move. How do you think your homes go there? Pot calling the kettle black.

Brian | 11:01 p.m. Sept. 2, 2009

If they don't want him to build there then buy it from him instead of trying to steal the man's land by destroying it's value. If you are so in love with undeveloped land and truly "friends" of the mountain bulldoze your own home under!

DE | 12:11 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Classic case all right -- of an arrogant man that has no regard for his community or the beauty of Maple Mountain -- which he has wantonly defaced. This land should have never been sold to a private citizen in the first place, but it was a dark day for Mapleton and anyone who loves Maple Mountain when Mr. Gibby acquired it and started mutilating everything in sight with his bulldozers, backhoes,lawyers and complicit cronies in high places.

Comments continue below

How on earth? | 12:30 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

How on earth can the D-News get away with writing an article about some "innocent landowner" without disclosing all of Gibby's high-powered legislative connections and the influence those buddies have sought to use on his behalf. Do we remember Buttars? Speaker Curtis? They attended this man's hearings just to be there and show who had his back.

This article reads like the city is just being a bully and won't let him use his own land. But this dude is a classic jerk who is using money and influence to get his way. How can you publish this stuff???

Chris Buttars involved? | 1:19 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Chris Buttars took it upon himself to write a threatening letter to the court on legislative letterhead regarding this.

Des News, July 5, 2008 “Buttars used 'black baby' remark again, officials say”

This whole thing stinks.

Ownership? | 4:46 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Who sold him this land? If the skyline trail runs along the property then it must be a leased land deal. It should belong to the BLM as it is a major watershed for the area below it. Building on this property will only create more land slides and loss of homes to those that build on it. This is a classical case of greed and developing where it shouldn't be developed.

Having or owning land does not give a person the right to develop it if it puts others in harms way, including prospective home buyers. The USGS should be involved to protect what little water shed is left and put more restrictions on its use. The west side of the valley is suffering the fate of poor development and the homeowners are the ones losing their land.

Developing must follow what is best for all people, including outside his property, so it doesn't endanger others. He is not the only person who has interest in how this land is developed. That's why we have zoning and development laws, to protect existing and other peoples property too.

Funny ,,, | 5:33 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

this is the guy who is buddies with all the ultra conservatives ... especially Chris Buttars. Remember how Buttars got slapped on the hand for pressuring a judge in this dude's ongoing court saga?

Don't feed in to this guy. If he wants to develop something, he should start with his conscience.

Anonymous | 6:58 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Stop building on the mountains. Good grief, are we so materialistic that we are willing to despoil one of Utah's greatest assets?

Anonymous | 7:43 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

sorry but if he owns the land then he should be able to do with it as he wishes. As long as he doesn't put up bill boards adult book stores then have at it. It might have been better to keep it as a park but some where some one sold it and that is legal. The concerned home owners should have checked into the land before they built. It is sort of like People building in the flight plan of an airport and then complaining about the noise. Check first. These home owners did do their home work. SORRY, get used to your new nieghobors.

wallofvoodoo | 7:46 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

He doesn't make enough as a Dr.? It's people like him who caused the economic & medical problems we are delaing with right now.

Gary | 8:05 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

I'm curious, who was there first? Did Gibby own the land before the homes in this "luxury community" were there or were the "luxury community homes there before Gibby owned the land?

Wow | 8:53 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

So Utah County is in the news again....

Sammy | 9:03 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Gibby,

Do yourself a favor and start acting better. It makes no sense to be a loser to a few hikers trying to walk by an empty development.

Get the chip off your shoulder bro. Lighten up. Who is going to want to buy a lot in there in a decade if all you have done is soured the place up.

We are all in this valley together. Just because you have a little money doesn't mean we want to watch your circus.
If you had all the money in the world to buy up all the clean water and pour it into the sea just because you could doesn't mean we would let you do it. These mountains and trails are pretty much the same thing.

Tread lightly and make some friends.
Kinda seems like common sense doesn't it?

Gary | 9:05 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Sounds like the communists are taking over America. There are condemnation laws and open space funds to buy private property. We must protect property rights as vigorously as we protect freedom of speech. The majority can take the Gibby land but we must be willing to pay for it. Denying an owner the use of his property through zoning and politics is the highest form of Covetous behavior. This type of anger is not worthy of the greatest country in the world. We do not confiscate property because someone accumulated too much.

Hey Mapleton... | 9:15 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Take a tip from St George, if you don't want homes on the hillside, push the city government for a hillside ordinance like the one St. George has. The townhomes that got placed on the 'D' hill left a scar that polarized the community into action and pushed the City to enact our hillside ordinance. Can't remove the junk from the hills once they are there Mapleton!!

Classic | 9:25 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

It's greed vs. not in my back yard. Can there be a winner? Gibby seems less sensitive than Bernie Madoff.

Friends of Maple Mountain? | 9:40 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Friends of Maple Mountain = someone who has destroyed someone else's view of the mountain but doesn't want their view destroyed.

Maybe they can enlist Robert Redford to their cause.

Big Money | 9:40 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

... means it WILL happen. Always does.

Lany | 10:08 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Money trumps principal, so the man has the right to do as he pleases. If you don't like it then go get your own money and buy your own mountain, congressman, or what ever you want. This is America, land for the taking and freedom for the rich.

beauty4ashes | 10:30 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

the photo accompanying this article says his property is "at the base of Maple Mountain". That horrid scar he dug up the unblemished flank of the mountain is not at the base, it is ON the mountain, and it is an act of vandalism. That mountain is a symbol of pristine beauty and a touchstone to all who have lived in it's shadow for generations. What a selfish and despicable act: that a man would have the hubris to bankrupt a small community, defy court decisions, and proceed to cut a gash into that beautiful and beloved landmark. He should be ashamed. And whoever "sold" him that land should have his butt kicked.

City's problems | 10:40 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Mapleton is completely to blame for the mess. You can't blame a man who bought land legally and who is only trying to maximize the return on his investment. Mapleton just needed to shut it down early. Now it looks like they'll get growth they don't want.

Also, to the local homeowners, get over it. I have an empty field behind my house. Eventually it will be built up, that's up to the land owner and the city. I can voice my opinion to the city and even argue that it should stay open space, but in the end I have little say. I bought my house understanding that. The Mapleton residents need to realize the same thing and get over it. Construction noise and inconvenience is a part of life in the new Utah County, we can't stop growth but can only add input to have it done a little better or a little nicer. I will never cry for these residents who will have life impacted by neighbors. Get over yourselves.

Chad | 10:42 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

The man owns the property. He bought it with money. What many of the posters here want is for Mr. Giddy to lose the value of his land because you don't like what he wants to do with it.
Tell you what. Let me come to your house and I'll decide what you can do with your yard. I think I'll decide that your backyard must be protected for grasshopper habitat that was destroyed by your unconcionable eradication of the native critter's historical range. Then - well you just have to tear down your house because it interferes with your neighbor's view of the beautiful Mrs. Johnson on the other side of your lot. Oh, by the way, you still have to pay your mortgage because it is only your greed and selfishness that makes you want to live in your house and use your backyard - and those things are BAD, according to you.

Of course you could always buy his land and keep it however you want. But no, you prefer to have the government destroy the value in Mr. Giddy's property. I bet you even think you are a conservative.

DE | 11:00 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

It's your choice Mr. Gibby. Fifty years from now you could be remembered as the man who destroyed Maple Mountain and wrecked one of the most choice sections of the Bonneville Shoreline rather than the philanthropist who used his wealth to preserve and protect these precious natural resources. Wendell Gibby -- a name that will live in infamy? -- or a great benefactor of his community with vision to preserve some of the greatest natural assets in the state of Utah? It's not too late to avoid being remembered forever as the biggest jerk who ever lived in this community.

beauty4ashes | 11:20 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

to "Friends of Maple Mountain?": The luxury homes are not ON the mountain. They are below it. They have not ruined the mountain itself, as Gibby's plans would. I'm not a trophy homeowner, and I do not defend them, I defend the MOUNTAIN. This is not about someone "accumulating too much" property. This is about protecting the integrity of the mountain. It has remained unmolested for eons. One of the FEW along the heavily inhabited corridors that has not been violated by developers or gravel pits. This mountain is uniquely beautiful and symmetrical in the whole state. It should be protected and treasured. If I had the money, I'D buy the guy out and deed the land back to the City of Mapleton with STRINGENT CCRs preventing any digging or building of any kind up those lovely graceful slopes. For the first time in my life, I truly wish I was RICH.

Anonymous | 11:37 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Gibby was offered a higher density of lots in the foothills in exchange for NOT developing on the mountain (this is called a TDR). He refused. It really isn't about making money for him. He already has who knows how many millions. Supposedly, he bought a $1 million dollar home so he could bulldoze it to build the entrance road to his property.

THE PREVIOUS LAND OWNER TOLD HIM THE LAND COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED BEFORE HE BOUGHT IT FROM HER. From day one, he has been out to get all the rules changed to accommodate him. As far as Gibby is concerned, his only goal is to beat the city and stick it in the face of the community. He's going do develop and scar the mountain, make more money and then move out of the area. He's out to prove his manhood. He has far too much money and too little things going on to occupy his time. This contest with the city IS his hobby.

Nat Whilk | 11:44 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

The worst part of this story is all the people calling Spanish Fork Peak "Maple Mountain"!

In support of Gibby | 11:44 a.m. Sept. 3, 2009

It's interesting that the plans just call for very large lots in a secluded part of Mapleton that mostly will not be seen from the valley. The scar on the mountainside will be re-vegetated and in a few years should not be noticeable. The land there is probably the most studied piece of property along the Wasatch Front as a result of all the litigation. It keeps coming up with a clean slate.

And the Dr. Gibby I know, though quite a unique individual, really is a very generous caring person. He just wants what's fairly his. It's interesting. In this north end of Utah county we had a skyline to the north that was pristine. It now has homes lining it and all down its face. Nobody would have dreamed of declaring our right to view it as more important than the right of the land owners. What is with the people of Mapleton?

Mapleton rich | 12:10 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Mapleton is full of rich people with mansions and all - so all of you get together and offer Mr. Gibby the value of what he would make if he develops his land. I have to shake my head at people who, once they have their own beautiful spot, which they've acquired by digging up the land and building their mansion, they don't want others to acquire their own place. Happens all the time. Or is it that these landowners are happy to look down on others but don't want anyone above them, looking down on them. Makes me wonder.

Sammy | 1:21 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Chad. Mr. Gibby has already lost the value of his land. It will be at least a decade before there are enough people willing to pay$500k for those lots. To bull dose the trail just to be a clown is lame.
You can come help me with my yard but it sounds like your ideas are a little weak. It's not socialism to care about your community. We allowed Utah Lake to be polluted and that is a real tragedy. This valley is awesome. Let's all care about it. Shall we?

Bottom Line | 2:14 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

It is his property. He has the right to develop it.

I know | 3:04 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

The right to view a beautiful piece of property doesn't trump a landowners ability to develop it. PERIOD. It's his property, if he wants to put a friggen amusement park on that sucker, then he has every right to do so. The people in Mapelton act tike they are living in some small county town out in Kansas. It's Utah county, it's gonna be littered with houses all over the place, if you want to live in the "Country" then move away to rural utah to someplace like Tabiona or Duchesne or Tropic or Orderville. I'm sure you guys don't even know where those towns are...look them up. You live in the City, so get used to construction!

Cosmo | 3:09 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

If property rights mean nothing, than why buy, watch the market really drop, and watch these California Transplants, cry as their propperty values plunge even more. I love it when they whine!

anonymous | 4:05 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Mapleton has a history fo bullying proeprty owners till they get what they want
The dairy farm that was forced to move
The Snake guy
MR Gibby
Ensign Bickford
Those are ones I'm aware of, There is likely more If I was a resident of Mapleton I woudl be really upset about all the money wasted to run these people off

mroseglasses | 4:31 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

If people in mapleton are so distraught over the development than why dont one of you buy it from him, otherwise it seems its his property and he can do what he wants to with it.
I am so tired of hearing all the whiners who move somewhere and then deciede well I live here now and nobody else better develop around me, the only way that should be the case is if the whinner ponies up and buys all the property around them good greif...

Pride Cometh Before The Fall | 5:18 p.m. Sept. 3, 2009

Homeowners further down the hill don't want homes built further up the mountain above them?...

Now THAT is a classic case of arrogance and pride.

Look around the ENTIRE Salt Lake and Provo valleys; homeowners almost always fight homes being built ABOVE them because they think it's some kind of status thing to say "I look down on your home".

The man owns the land. There are homes all around down below. Take a look at see how large and pretty virtually every home on a hill in the Salt Lake and Provo valleys are built these days....these homes will probably run at least $400,000.

Swallow your pride and let him build.

Anonymous | 12:50 a.m. Sept. 4, 2009

If anyone cares to get the real story they'd learn a few things:

this isn't about the mountain, it's about one man who has more money than brains and is trying to use his money to bankrupt an entire city. He won't quit till people bow down to him. The city offered MORE than market value for the property, he wouldn't sell. He lied to an 80 year old lady promising her if she'd sell to him he'd never build on it.

This is about lies, disregard for the law, and beating people into submission. He did not have the right to develop in the first place, he's suing every citizen of Mapleton to force them to let him develop land that is full of natural hazards. When something goes wrong, he will sue those same people for allowing him to build there.

There is no winning here for anybody.

It's a whole lot less simple than just, let the guy build. No one is interested in the truth.

DE | 4:46 p.m. Sept. 4, 2009

I'm dismayed to see this controversy portrayed as the bad old city and a few rich neighbors ganging up on a private citizen who only wants to exercise his good old American right to do anything he pleases with his own property. The notion that if you have enough money to buy lawyers and politicians to force your intentions on everyone else in a small community and that this is somehow quintessentially "American" is a simplistic, childish view of how America works. The idea that the rest of us should just shut up because Gibby "paid money" for his land reveals a level of ignorance about America and freedom that is appalling. As a long term resident -- not a rich neighbor of Gibby or a someone on the town council. I and a clear majority of town residents are sick about what Gibby has already done and plans to do. We have every right to use all legal means to oppose these mindless property owners/developers who are strip mining the beauty of our state. Let the Gibby's have their way and some day Utah's motto will be "Welcome to Utah - World's Largest Gravel Pit!

no eminent domain | 4:58 p.m. Sept. 6, 2009

I hav no respect for a city that uses tax payers money to fight a land owner who wants to develop his property. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is wrong. Land owners should not give over their land, lower their property values and have lowlife scums walking through their back yards. The scar on the mountain will be hidden by vegetation that grows back. Mapleton City and its defenders need to shut up or buy the land from Gibby.

Concerned Taxpayer | 5:05 p.m. Sept. 6, 2009

I am not as concerned about the defacing of a few hundred feet of a 10,500 ft mountain as I am about the amount of money the city has spent fighting Gibby. We've been in an economic recession for some time now, but Mapleton has no problem spending tax dollars to build a new city center that is barely used and engaging in frivolous lawsuits in order to appease a number of semi-wealthy individuals.

The mountain may be defaced, but all you have to do is look slightly higher and it looks as pristine as ever. I really don't care what he does with his land. I don't care if he buys a $1 million house to demolish. That is his prerogative. Just quit wasting all of the taxpayer's money when it could be put to better use, such as covering the ditch in front of the new elementary school before a child drowns or putting in sidewalks around the city.

Anonymous | 12:09 p.m. Sept. 9, 2009

How much money he has or could make is irrelevant. If he is the owner, he can legally build as zoning dictates or he can attempt to change the zone. What he said (heresay) to the previous owner does not matter. People change their minds. I've been to the property before and the bulding lots are in the foothills, not on the mountain. Building on the foothills is done all the time. If Mapleton did not want homes there or a very low density, they should have rezoned the property 1 unit/20 acres. The people crying no and organizing the Friends of Maple Mountain are the ones who don't want anybody to build above them and ruin their status. Those that already built obviously are in the viewshed of someone else but they don't care about that. I don't know Wendall Gibby personally, but as the owner he has the right through land use legistation to build as the current zone dictates. If you don't want someone to build, buy it or run for city council to prevent any future events such as this.

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.