Utah Citizen Activist tip:

Go to http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html and sign up to receive meeting notices for a city, county or state organization that you want to follow.   (Both RSS and email options are available.)

This is one of the best ways to be aware of what is going on in your local government.

Here are my reasons for opposing the “CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County” (For more information see http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/).

Earmarks in congress corrupt the appropriations process.  The same is true for local projects that we get someone else to pay for.  Each project should stand on its own merits not whether or not we can get “free” money from the Feds to pay for it.  The real value of projects is obscured when the Feds tax people in Alpine to pay for manure management research in Ames, Iowa (http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2009/oinkers.html), tattoo removal in California, energy efficient street lamps in Detroit, Michigan or a “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.  If manure management is important then the people in Ames can pay for it.  And we should not be asking the people in Iowa, California, Michigan, and Alaska to pay for our curb and gutter.  (This doesn’t even take into account the massive bureaucratic overhead costs inherent in moving money all the way to D.C. and then back out to the communities.) If it is important for Alpine then we can pay for it ourselves.

Last night I didn’t vote against curb and gutter on 800 South, which was the impression that some got.  I didn’t even know that this money was earmarked for that project.  I didn’t find out until after the meeting was over.  But it wouldn’t have mattered.  I would still have voted against looking for a hand out from the Federal Government.  I plan on getting the curb and gutter into our budget without asking the U.S. taxpayer, or current or future, to pay for it. It’s time for every city, county and state to do the same.

Alpine ‘torn’ over basketball tax

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/north/alpine/article_de9ae0da-286d-5150-b3cd-3a493b30e377.html

“I have a hard time with subsidies,” said Councilman Brad Reneer. “The city doesn’t subsidize piano lessons or dance lessons. I don’t feel I have the right to have the citizens of Alpine pay for my son” to play basketball.

It is hard for me to justify any kind of subsidies, even when I benefit monetarily from them.  I think parks and recreation is a legitimate function of local government but the “recreation” part needs some strict limits.  I just felt that this went beyond what is justifiable and, besides, we just can’t afford it right now.

Some good articles about subsidies:

Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand by Maurice P. McTigue

Then we asked the final question: “Who should be paying—the taxpayer, the user, the consumer, or the industry?” We asked this because, in many instances, the taxpayers were subsidizing things that did not benefit them. And if you take the cost of services away from actual consumers and users, you promote overuse and devalue whatever it is that you’re doing.

Future Prospects for Economic Liberty by Walter Williams

Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don’t reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. . . .

Speaking of the ballot box, we can blame politicians to some extent for the trampling of our liberty. But the bulk of the blame lies with us voters, because politicians are often doing what we elect them to do. The sad truth is that we elect them for the specific purpose of taking the property of other Americans and giving it to us. Many manufacturers think that the government owes them a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, resulting in artificially higher prices for consumers. Many farmers think the government owes them a crop subsidy, which raises the price of food. Organized labor thinks government should protect their jobs from non-union competition. And so on. We could even consider many college professors, who love to secure government grants to study poverty and then meet at hotels in Miami during the winter to talk about poor people. All of these—and hundreds of other similar demands on government that I could cite—represent involuntary exchanges and diminish our freedom.

This reminds me of a lunch I had a number of years ago with my friend Jesse Helms, the late Senator from North Carolina. He knew that I was critical of farm subsidies, and he said he agreed with me 100 percent. But he wondered how a Senator from North Carolina could possibly vote against them. If he did so, his fellow North Carolinians would dump him and elect somebody worse in his place. And I remember wondering at the time if it is reasonable to ask a politician to commit political suicide for the sake of principle. The fact is that it’s unreasonable of us to expect even principled politicians to vote against things like crop subsidies and stand up for the Constitution. This presents us with a challenge. It’s up to us to ensure that it’s in our representatives’ interest to stand up for constitutional government.

Election Results for Alpine 2009

Unofficial count from election night are in ( ), the final count is bold and includes absentee and provisional ballots.

Mayor

Kim Arnold Bryant – (812) – 835

Hunt Willoughby – (856) – 870

City Council

Bradley Reneer – (777) – 793

Troy Stout – (931) – 962

Tracy Wallace – (632) – 649

Thomas Whitchurch -(344) – 351

Phil Barker – (550) – 558

Thanks to all my supporters.  I’m grateful for your confidence.  I met many wonderful people as I went door to door.  Whether or not you voted for me I hope that I can represent you well.

Another candidate states:

I am the only candidate who has voted consistently against a major development on the northwest hills, which includes 60 foot retaining walls.  Three other candidates have voted in favor of retaining walls terracing up our mountainside, claiming that the ordinance allows it”.  (emphasis in the original flyer)

What do you think of when someone says “60 foot retaining walls?”   Do you think of one huge wall with 60 vertical feet?  Or do you think of the actual plan from the developer of terraced steps up a hillside?  This candidate’s statement makes it sound like everyone else is in favor of  retaining walls like you find in Provo Canyon.

The terraced walls were allowed by the city ordinances under which the developer applied.  The  job of the planning commission is not “legislate from the bench.”  The planning commission is instructed to compare the developer’s application to the ordinance and Utah state law.  From the city ordinance governing the Planning Commission:

If the Final Plat and all supplementary data complies with the applicable requirements of these regulations and the requirements of the approved Preliminary Design Plan, the Planning Commission shall certify approval of the Plat on the space provided.

The candidate’s claim is at best over dramatic; at worst it is misleading.

For more on the subject see Vista Meadows – Role of the Planning Commission in considering applications.

Someone recently asked me about my thoughts on Leadership.  There are many important qualities in a leader.  Here qualities that need more emphasis.

Humility

A leader should be willing to learn.  Hubris is the downfall of individuals as well as nations.

A Good Follower

What leader can expect his or her followers to take their lead when it is obvious that they don’t follow their leaders?  Does a legislator seriously expect the laws they pass to  command respect when they ignore law?

Driven by Passion, not Anger

“Beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed.” (Robert S. Wood, April 2006)

Long Term Thinker

A leader abandon principles and long term goals for short term political gain.

For example, I don’t always like what the Supreme Court does but I’m not in favor of abolishing the court because its current decision goes against my interests or beliefs.

Many of our nations current problems stem from political expediency.  A leader won’t damage respect for the law even when the “law” does not favor their current agenda.  They will seek to change the law rather than ignore or subvert it.  For example, many of the problems we now have with illegal immigration are the result of our “leaders” in Washington ignoring the law for political expediency.

I once read the Constitution of the United States of Mexico.  (Until then I was unaware that that was the official name of Mexico.)  It is similar to our constitution.  Most written constitutions in the world are patterned after ours.  Why is our nation exceptional?  Not because we have a written constitution but because, at least in the past, we have respected the rule of law and we have followed the law even when it was not in our own self interest.  Do we want to become just another third-world country?  If we sell respect for the rule of law for short term expediency then that is what we will become.

Encourages Self-Government

“Self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments.” (D. Todd Christofferson, October 2009)

If we can’t be kind, respectful neighbors then we will have an ever increasing number of restrictive city ordinances.

Respect for All

A good leader focuses on the challenges, not those that challenge them.  We waste time and energy we question other’s motives instead of looking for answers.  Certainly questionable motives exist but it is not our job to judge.

“Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.”  (Federalist Papers, No.1)

The focus in any public forum should be on issues and principles.  Respect and civility should permeate all public discourse.  (My perspective is, admittedly, LDS.  But I think these principles are common to most religions.  The Mormon Ethic of Civility)  Although our community is predominately LDS we are blessed by those of other faiths that live with us.  Some of our best citizens, those that work the hardest for the benefit of our community, are not LDS.  I’m saddened when I see or hear people put minorities of any kind.  That is not christian behavior and it is beneath the dignity of anyone that claims to be a Latter-day Saint.

Willing to stand alone

A good leader gets input and learns from everyone.  For example, in deciding what should be in the community park a good leader will listen closely to every citizen.  However, in questions of right and wrong, in matters of justice he cares more about what is right than in what is popular.  The good leader is willing to stand alone to defend the rights of a single individual even when everyone else is against them.

And for anyone that would like something to ponder I recommend the following passage.   The language is heavy and I had to hear it read before I could understand it.  But it says a lot about politicians and I recommend its principles to every voter considering a candidate.

An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. (Federalist Papers, No. 1)

Here is the letter I sent to one of the residents about this issue.  One of the other candidates says that I’m “in favor of retaining walls.”  I’d say that I’m in favor of obeying state law and Alpine’s ordinances.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree where our perspectives diverge.

> If commissioners simply ‘rubber stamp’ a staff approved subdivision then there really would be no need for judgment and thinking of a commission.

You are right.  We aren’t just a rubber stamp.  But we also work within a legal framework.  I am not a fan of judicial activism by the U.S. Supreme court and want to make sure I don’t overstep my bounds in my role as a planning commissioner and start legislating when I’m supposed to be applying.

In this case I’m supposed to be hearing my Administrative hat, not my Legislative hat.

Our city development code states:

4.6.3 FINAL PLAT
4.6.3.9 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW

2. If the Final Plat and all supplementary data complies with the applicable requirements of these regulations and the requirements of the approved Preliminary Design Plan, the Planning Commission shall certify approval of the Plat on the space provided.

Notice the word “shall.”

However, as I understand the process there can be exceptions.  A “countervailing public interest” should result in a denial.  If an application meets all the requirements in the code but there is a countervailing public interest against the application then it can and should be denied.

“If a local government finds that a compelling, countervailing public interest would be jeopardized, it may deny the application, even though the application conforms to all land use maps and ordinances. The reasons for this denial must be expressed in writing.”  (http://propertyrights.utah.gov/landuseapps.html)

What is a  “compelling, countervailing public interest”?

“A compelling, countervailing public interest is a legitimate and substantive public problem that calls for immediate action. It is not merely a concern that calls for a reevaluation of past municipal judgment.”  (http://propertyrights.utah.gov/opinions/14_AO_Abstract.pdf)

I may need some more guidance on what that means but there is some interesting additional discussion at http://propertyrights.utah.gov/opinions/33_AO_Abstract.pdf.

See my post on leadership about how I feel that public officials are not above the law.  You may want someone to ignore a law for your benefit in a specific case.  There was a lot of talk at the meeting about Precedence.  A worse precedence than “building a retaining wall” is the precedence of circumventing the law.  It may benefit you in the first instance but it is respect for the law that protects all your rights.

We must not erode our nations tradition of the Rule of Law.

Alpine currently has over 200 businesses (Alpine City – Guide for New Businesses).  Many of the businesses are home-based.

Alpine will never be a major commercial center, and I don’t know anyone in Alpine that wants it to be.  The city will always need to rely on property taxes for most of its revenue.  We can be friendly to the businesses that we do have and encourage others to come to Alpine.

While the city government should not be promoting specific businesses it can do things that make it easier for local business.  For example in May the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance “Section 3.23.7.4 – Produce Stands.”  We wanted to encourage local produce growers to sell their products locally.  Several of the candidates have mentioned a Farmer’s Market and I fully support that idea.

The Utah League of Cities and Towns mentions the effect ordinances can have on business.

Cumbersome, confusing, and/or restrictive policies often deter interest from prospective businesses and result in lost opportunities.

Reasonable ordinances can attract business and support responsible development.

An “Unknown Ordinance” would also be a negative factor.  For example I think it would be a good idea to determining now what “hotel tax” we would charge (if we are going to charge a hotel tax).  Anyone considering a Bed and Breakfast in Alpine would then know what to expect.  Uncertainty always has a negative effect on the market.

A group of Alpine artists had an art walk.  Alpine could do more to help them publicize the event simply by making the sign ordinance more friendly to businesses.  We could also work with the Arts Council to encourage community involvement.

Resources

The American Fork Chamber of Commerce (http://www.afchamber.org/) includes businesses in Alpine.  There is rumors of a group in Highland that may start a Chamber of Commerce that would be a subgroup of the A. F. Chamber.   Businesses in Alpine should consider joining.

Alpine Businesses need a web site.  It could be part of a general Alpine web site like this rought outline that I threw together – Alpine City Links.  This is a beautiful place and could attract more upscale businesses.

Your Ideas Here . . .

I think the most creative ideas will come from the community and business owners.  How do you think we can maintane Alpine’s unique feel while encouraging local business?

Recently the Alpine City Council gave the American Fork Recreation Program notice that they will be withdrawing from the program in a year.  (The current contract requires a one year notice to cancel.)

One council member estimated that each registration in the program was being subsidized by Alpine to the tune of $72.  Alpine contributed $55,000.  The official A.F. Rec Program figure is 870 enrollments which is $63.21 per enrollment.  There was some disagreement about the numbers with the city council only finding about800 enrollment which is how they arrived at the $72 figure.

Either way, whether $72 or $63, this is far more than we should be paying to subsidize a sport program.   Cedar Hills did not participate so their residents had to pay $10 more per enrollment than Alpine participants.   There are other leagues that play here in Alpine and function well without being a part of the AF Rec Program. We may need to fill the void with other options.  Even Open Court has a comparable program without using any public facilities and without any government subsidies.  I think it was right for us to push back on the AF program which seemed, whether intentionally or not, to be taking unfair advantage of Alpine.

There were some complaints about the quality of the AF Recreation Program.  My own son has had great experiences in the basketball program.   The quality always depends to a large part on parental involvement.  We were fortunate to have some great parents involved.

The A.F. Rec Program may come back with an offer that makes more sense.  For a bulk purchase don’t you usually pay less per item? I’d expect something like $7  for each enrollment.  That would make it comparably to the extra amount, $10, that the Cedar Hill’s residents have to pay.

What do you think would be an appropriate amount?

A citizen recently asked what I thought we should have in the 100 South Park.

I had input on the park as a member of the planning committee but unfortunately, as least for me, I seemed to be in the minority on several issues. Also, the city council did not follow many of the planning commission’s recommendations. (They are not obliged to follow our recommendations in this situation.)

The majority of the citizens that came to the public meeting (which doesn’t necessarily mean they represent the majority of Alpine but they were the ones willing to be involved) asked that the park not be a sports park but more of a nature or passive park. That sounded good to me.

The idea of the plan is not to build it all at once but to have things laid out so that when we have the money things can be added in an orderly way.

Here is what I proposed:

MOTION: Brad Reneer moved to recommend to the City Council the alternative plan C without the skate park, but with the addition of a sled hill, and remove the splash pad; leave a small parking lot on 600 East with the majority of parking on 100 South, and eliminate much of the parking, and exclude the possibility of bonding to finance the park. Steve McArthur seconded.  Ayes: 2 Nays: 3 Jannicke Brewer and Brad Reneer voted aye. Troy Stout, Steve McArthur and Steve Cosper voted nay. Motion failed.

(PC February 3, 2009,  pages 5-6, emphasis mine)

This proposal failed so I worked with the other planning commissioners to get as good a recommendation to the City Council as possible.

Here is a similar proposal Troy Stout made after my motion failed:

MOTION: Troy Stout moved to accept plan C without the skate park, include a sled hill, exclude the possibility of future bonding, and reduce the amount of parking on 600 East with the bulk of the parking 100 South.

Specific Features

Sledding Hill

I’m glad the current plan includes a sledding hill, though I wish it were bigger.

Water Feature

I opposed the water feature. I thought it too expensive. It looks fun. I love the fountain in Seattle. But we aren’t Seattle, nor are we Highland, and I don’t see it being worth the cost, particularly the need for supervision and maintenance. It felt like a poor substitute for having a city swimming pool, which is far too expensive for Alpine to fund on its own. But even more importantly I didn’t feel a lot of support for the water feature from the citizens. Of course, others on the Planning Commission and City Council may have received more positive input on the water feature than I did. I joke that the currently planned water feature doesn’t give us much more than would a sprinkler in the backyard.

Skate Park

The Skate park was probably the most controversial. Opposition seemed to be focused on the noise, litter, out-of-town crowds that are attracted, and the feeling that many skaters bring a bad influence to the community. In favor of the skate park were those that argued that we supply facilities for other minorities, such as those that play tennis, but not for this group of youth. They believe that just because they don’t fit into the football, basketball, baseball mold that they should not have their sport of choice excluded from the community.

Here is an excerpt from what I sent out to the other council members:

Because there is controversy about a skate park I would propose doing the following to ensure a safe environment:
a) Use the modular equipment and start with a minimal set which should reduce the amount of return traffic from areas outside the Alpine/Highland area.
b) Area is fenced but not lit. The fence is locked each night at dusk.
c) Install two cameras. One security camera, with audio recording, that shows activity in and around the area. One web cam so that residents can look to see if their children are at the skatepark and who they are with.
d) Get a commitment from the Police to enforce a Zero Tolerance approach to misuse of the park. This would include even the most minor infractions. If someone litters we catch them and fine them (using the security camera tapes as proof if necessary). It was shown in the New York subways that by catching and prosecuting toll booth jumpers they significantly cut down on graffiti and muggings. And I mean Zero Tolerance. No Warnings. No “looking the other way” just because it’s a first offense or because the kids are from Alpine or even because it’s one of my children.

Somewhere in town, not necessarily at 100 South, we should put down a basketball court size slab of concrete, bolt down a few modular skate features, follow my security suggestions above and give it a chance. If it becomes a problem we unbolt the skate features, sell them, and put up basketball standards.

Gathering as much information as possible

Many of the ideas I just presented came from a variety of sources and I don’t think I could tell you which ones came from where.   For example with the skate park I spoke with the AF Rec director, the owner of an AF skate store,  the AF police (including an officer that worked in West Valley before transferring to AF) and the neighborhood rep for the skate park, to learn what problems they have had with the AF skate park, how they deal with the problems, and any other relevant issues. We also got some great input from Alpine citizens, both those opposed and those in favor, including a citizen that went door to door around the AF skate park. This kind of citizen involvement is greatly appreciated and essential to good planning.

I hope that my proposal, while not pleasing everyone 100%, is a reasonable compromise that would allow us to adapt in the future.

Please let me know your thoughts about these issues.