THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES ARE A PARTIAL HISTORY OF MRS. TOBIAS & MRS. FELD'S EFFORTS TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND THEIR FIGHT AGAINST ABUSIVE LAWSUITS.

A SPECIAL THANKS TO...

THE DESERET NEWS
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
SALT LAKE CITY WEEKLY
SOUTH VALLEY JOURNAL

Business Project In South Jordan Clears First Step

By Jon Ure, The Salt Lake Tribune

February 1, 1997

              SOUTH JORDAN—It’s a smaller project, but developer Gerald Anderson’s plans for a 14-building business park on the Jordan River have cleared the city’s initial hurdle.

            Even some neighbors who have fought the project feel a bit better after the City Council amended the land-use plan to allow Anderson to apply for commercial zoning he needs to sell his project.

            City Administrator Dave Millheim said that amending the master plan is not the same as approving the project.

            “If he meets these concerns and conditions, then it will be favorably received,” Millheim said.  “A lot of residents say it was an approval.  It’s not, but it sets the course.”

            Included in the development are a hotel, restaurant, retail area, amphitheater and fitness center, a 25-acre park and, possibly, 25 more acres for an additional park of open space.

            “I feel more comfortable with my city government,” said Janalee Tobias.  She and 300 others had signed a petition asking city officials to deny Anderson’s project, which was initially about 160 acres.  It has been pared down to about 110.  She was pleased that open space remained a high priority.  Anderson was not quite so happy.

            “I don’t know if we’re in complete agreement,” Anderson said.  But ‘we have to comply with the resolution that was set forth by the City Council.”

            If Anderson fails to comply with any of the conditions, the property will revert to its open-space designation.  Those conditions are:

• To submit within 90 days a complete application requesting commercial zoning.

• The property must be developed as Class A office space and an office park, requiring higher quality interiors.  Some of the property that is located in the 100-year flood plain and meander corridor of the Jordan River is exempt from the Class A designation and remains recreation/open space or preservation areas.

• Buildings must be no taller than six stories, and a written development agreement must also be consummated with the city within six months.

• At least 30 percent of the property will be open space, some of which must be developed as trails.  Property within the flood plain is exempt from this requirement.

• Anderson must conduct a traffic study and build a north-south road through the development.  He must also help widen 10600 South past the development.

• The site plan must be submitted within six months and will include a master plan for the development of the entire property.  It shall note open spaces and specify street and trail locations.

• All public improvements will be built by the developer.

• Tobias and others who have fought the development have not given up their efforts to keep the area in its natural, wild state.

“Our plan now is we want to talk to the developer to see if he will sell us options on some of the land,” Tobias said.  “We’ll take out a loan, do whatever we have to do to get that property and turn it into something beautiful.”
Top

S. Jordan Gives Developer OK On River Project

By Jon Ure, The Salt Lake Tribune

May 7, 1997

 Opponents Say Zoning Approval Was Sneaked Through by Council

             SOUTH JORDAN—The developer of a controversial 14-building business park on the west banks of the Jordan River has been given the zoning he needs from the City Council.

            But the council set conditions which, if they are not met in the next eight months, could void Gerald Anderson’s conditional use permit for the 100-plus-acre project on the river south of 10600 South.

            Critics of Anderson’s proposal say the zoning approval was sneaked past residents when the City Council on April 28 conducted a public hearing and voted to approve the zoning.

            That was a Monday night.  The City Council, with rare exception, conducts public hearings at its regular meetings on Tuesday nights.  The previous Thursday, April 24, the Planning Commission approved Anderson’s zoning and sent it on for City Council approval, said City Administrator Dave Millheim.

            Since April 28 fell on one of only two fifth Tuesdays in a month this year, some council members desired to vote on the zoning as soon as possible, so they changed the hearing to Monday, Millheim said.

            “They say it was legal,” said Judy Feld, a leader of the opponents of the project.  “We just think it was pretty sneaky.  We know the reason they didn’t do it on a Tuesday.  There were some land options running out.”  Also, Feld pointed out, South Jordan surveyed its residents a month ago for their views on open space and parks, and on whether they are willing to bond finance or raise taxes for them.

            “But they slid the rezoning through before ever compiling the results of those surveys,” she said.  “We still don’t know the results.”

            The approval was disappointing to Jan Tobias, another opponent.

            “I still want to try and preserve this area,” Tobias said Monday.  “What concerns me is while other cities consider the Jordan River Bottoms to be fertile ground for wildlife and other riparian environments, South Jordan considers it to be a fertile ground for a tax base.”

            Tobias and Feld said 10600 South is already a daily traffic nightmare when motorists jam it to and from Interstate 15.  One of the conditions, however, requires Anderson to widen a stretch of the road at his expense.

            And to the city’s credit, Tobias added, the council held Anderson to strict standards.  He is required to maintain 30 percent of the property as open space but he cannot count the flood plain in that.  The flood plain is already required to remain open.

            Another requirement imposed by the City Council included a maximum of six stories for office buildings.  And Anderson must install public improvements, built a north-south public street through the property and widen and provide other improvements were 10600 South fronts the project.

            Feld and Tobias have given up, for now at least, their plan to raise funds to purchase the property and set it aside as permanent open space.  Anderson still holds options on some of the property.

            “But a nice thing about Anderson is he is considering gifting some ground to benefit the children of the south end of the valley,” Feld said.  “We would just welcome anyone interested in river-bottom property that wants to keep it an open space and rural project for the children.”

            Anderson did not return telephone messages left by The Tribune.
Top

POLITICS AND POLICY
by Louis James, UTAH BUSINESS

  Business-Friendly Environmentalism?

September 1997

              Nearby residents were horrified because the land was zoned for parks and recreation; they never imagined that they would find themselves bordered by a forest of tall office buildings, or that their daily business would be slowed by the 20,000 additional cars that UDOT estimated the project would add to South Jordan’s traffic.

            Not deterred by being told that the project was a done deal, citizens formed a group called SOS (Save Our South [Jordan River Valley]) and have brought the project to a standstill—for the moment.  The fight, if not exactly high profile, has been ugly.  SOS found hat the city did not require the customary traffic and environmental impact studies of the project’s developer.  Even though a city poll found that the top concern among residents was open space, the city seemed to be turning a blind eye to the Jordan River Meander Corridor provisions that prohibit building within 200 feet of the river.

            These concerns aside, it seems unfair that land purchased from a farmer for $35,000/acre, now re-zoned, can be sold for $135,000/acre.  And yet, should not the city leaders be praised for bringing new economic growth to their community?

            Everyone wants to see more jobs and healthy growth, but nobody wants to see Salt Lake Valley paved over from end to end.  These values are different, but why must such an issue set city leaders and citizens against each other?  A more telling way of asking the question is:  What is it about environmental issues that make them so contentious?

            Perhaps it is because most people are beginning to see that environmental policy affects everyone.  For example, Barbara Walters reported on the hapless victims of the kangaroo rate and the Endangered Species Act in California.  Ordinary people in ordinary houses were informed that their land had become a habitat for the endangered kangaroo rat, and that they could not cut the brush around their houses.  Knowing of the periodic brush fires in California, people objected; if they didn’t cut the brush, their homes would burn down.  The Wildlife Service knew the law and was not moved by such pleas.  When the fires came, those who had obeyed the law lost their homes.  Those who had disobeyed were able to save their homes.

            The most likely reason for such high levels of contention might well be that some deeply held beliefs are grounded in environmental issues.  People who hold traditional American values see the alleged good that environmentalists seek as, at best, insufficient to warrant the suspensions of individual rights—especially property rights.  At worst, they see it as a naked power grab of the unscrupulous taking advantage of the credulous.  For their part, many environmentalists believe that the fate of the earth really is hanging in the balance; that if society gets hung up on such trivialities as property rights and civil liberties, every living thing on our planet will die.  Such contrasting world views are bound to collide with tremendous energy.

            The greatest irony of this situations may be that American business (the success of which can reasonably be said to rely upon the American traditions of free enterprise and property rights) has provided a large part of the capital that environmentalists have used to promulgate a world view that is hostile to business interests.  In a New York Times article entitled “Business Feeds the Hand That Bites It” (May 8, 1994), Capitol Research Center president Terrence Scanlon highlighted some rather interesting statistics:  For every dollar large corporations gave to pro-business non-profit advocacy groups, they gave almost three and a half dollars to groups that backed hostile policies.  For more information on specifically environmental groups, Capitol Research Center’s 1005 book, Environmentalism at the Crossroads:  Green Activism in America, is a good place to start.

For businesses that care about the environment, there are useful things to do besides giving money to such anti-business groups as the Sierra Club.  Taking matters directly into their own hands—actually doing something for the environment themselves—is always a possibility.  SOS raised hundreds of thousands of dollars (without a penny expropriated from taxpayers!) to buy some of the South Jordan riverfront property and make it into a nature park.  A large company like Huntsman Chemical could easily buy the whole tract and create a “Huntsman Riverfront Nature Preserve.”

            Another alternative would be to support groups that do good environmental work, without trampling on the property rights or economic interests of businesses or local land owners.  There are others, but one of the best examples of this is a group called Defenders of Wildlife, which has been reintroducing wolves to the Yellowstone area.  If ever there was a situation where the inherent conflicts of interest could boil over into a very ugly fight, it was the movement to repopulate Yellowstone with wolves.

            There are ranchers up there who have a living memory of the sound of wolves howling in the night being a terrifying and costly thing, both in terms of life-threatening situations and the loss of cattle.  Given the likely resistance of such ranchers, the Defenders of Wildlife could have tried to get laws and regulations passed that would have forced the ranchers to cooperate.  Instead, they harnessed the power of the profit motive.  They took all the money they might have spent lobbying Congress and relevant agency officials at the federal, state and local levels and put it into a fund that would reimburse any rancher who lost livestock to wolves.  Then they added a bounty of $5,000 to be paid to ranchers who could show that a wolf successfully produced a litter of pups on their land.  Instead of creating animosity and new resentments, these incentives created a situation in which many ranchers began to welcome wolves onto their land!

            For more examples of how the same values that produce a healthy business environment can actually produce a better natural environment, Terry Anderson, president of the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, has two excellent books out, one called Enviro-Capitalists:  Doing Good While Doing Well and the other called Free Market Environmentalism.

            This is the lesson to be drawn from current affairs in environmentalism:  Conflicting world views often lead to conflict in the political arena—but it need not be so.  Experiences such as the détente in South Jordan, which persists as of this writing, show us that conflict is not the best way to do business, nor will it save the planet.  Experiences such as the wolf repopulation program in Yellowstone show us that finding creative ways of aligning business and environmental concerns under the same incentives can produce better results for both sides.

            Now, if only the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance could learn to harness this strange new problem-solving force:  the profit motive.
Top

River-bottom battlefield
Developer and South Jordan residents lock horns over
proposed office complex

By Don Baker, Staff Writer
Deseret News
Sunday, Dec. 14, 1997
Edition: Metro
Page: B1

Nearby residents Judy Feld, left, and Janalee Tobias, are trying to save the South Jordan River bottoms from development. Chuck Wing, Deseret News

MAP: Proposed RiverPark project

At first glance, it looks like a quiet parcel of farmland snuggled into the countryside west of the Jordan River and south of 10600 South.
But don't let the look of rural tranquility fool you - that ground is really a modern-day battlefield riddled with plenty of economic and emotional craters and littered with its share of legal land mines. It's the site of a bitterly contested battle pitting a successful developer against a small group of loosely organized and highly agitated area residents who fear the proposed River Park office complex will wreak havoc on a section of Jordan River bottoms one of them calls ``sacred ground.''
And a barrage of verbal shrapnel has been flying for months inside planning and City Council meetings as residents have fought a rear-guard action seeking to modify or block the project.
About the only thing the opponents in this dispute agree on is that the project has the potential of changing forever the character and appearance of South Jordan's primary gateway.
But this battle also may be a microcosm of a larger conflict that could have profound implications for the future of the area. RiverPark may set the precedent for similar non-retail commercial projects likely to be proposed for other southern Salt Lake County communities in the years ahead as business development pushes inexorably away from Salt Lake City along the I-15 and Jordan River corridors.
On one side of the dispute is frustrated developer Gerald Anderson, who has already invested thousands of hours and millions of dollars in putting together a 69-acre Class A office complex he believes will put South Jordan on Salt Lake Valley's business map.
Anderson, who also developed the massive Sterling Village apartment complex west of I-15 at about 11000 South, envisions a cluster of six or seven office buildings over the next eight years in an attractive setting with plenty of open space and a trail along the the river.
``A Class A office park gives prestige to a city and adds to its property values,'' he said. ``This project is at the doorstep of the community on the I-15 corridor . . . and it will bring both property and sales taxes as well as white-collar jobs to the city.
``This is one of the best places for economic development'' in South Jordan, Anderson added, ``and it makes the most sense for office development.''
On the other is a group of citizens calling themselves Save Our South Jordan River Valley or SOS.
They want to see the river bottoms area remain in open space, agricultural or low-density residential use that will preserve the atmosphere and vistas of residents who chose to make their homes near the Jordan River.
``We're not just a bunch of tree huggers out singing `Kumbaya' along the river bottoms,'' said Janalee Tobias, one of the SOS organizers. ``We like our open space, and we're willing to pay to preserve our quality of life.
``There are many other options for that area, and we want to see something more moderate than a bunch of office buildings,'' she added. ``And we're going to fight him (Anderson) every step of the way until he comes up with something we can accept.''
Caught in the no man's land between the two factions is South Jordan city, where elected officials and the city's administrator have found themselves taking plenty of flak from both sides.
``This can be a great project for the city . . . but if we do it wrong, we could be paying for it for years to come,'' said City Administrator David Millheim. ``We're trying to create a win-win situation, but it's very difficult because of the competing interests.''
The next major skirmish in the Battle at RiverPark will come Tuesday night when the council is expected to decide whether to give the developer additional time to submit his conceptual site plan.
Dec. 28 is looming as a crucial deadline because that's when the property, rezoned to O-S office use last February, is scheduled to revert to its original agricultural zoning unless the developer meets several conditions including submission of a master development agreement and a site plan.
Anderson has submitted a couple of versions of the development agreement, and Millheim said the city's staff is working on a version of its own.
``But because of the complexities involved, it won't get done by the end of the year,'' the city administrator said.
Anderson said he and his investors cannot move ahead with the site plan or seek approval of a conditional use permit because the city has not acted on the development agreement yet.
City officials disagree with the developer on that point, but they also haven't resolved issues involving the maximum size and shape of the base of each building.
Millheim also said the city is waiting for the developer to provide a traffic impacts analysis on 10600 South, which will have to handle the increased vehicle trips associated with the office park.
Council members could grant the developer an extension for meeting those conditions. But RiverPark opponents are hoping city officials will send Anderson back to ground zero to begin the rezoning process anew.
Another SOS organizer, Judy Feld, said that would give the council another opportunity to revise its view of how the river bottom property south of 10600 South should be used.
``We need to preserve open space - once it's gone, it's gone forever,'' said Feld, who said noted the office park would probably drive off the abundant wildlife that now inhabits the river bottoms. ``I want my children to be able to run through an open field.''
For Anderson, the process of developing an office park in a city that already has a reputation for being hostile toward commercial development has been a frustrating one.
``South Jordan city has put condition after condition on the project to satisfy the handful of residents who oppose it,'' he said. ``But the residents have adopted a position they want no development by their property.
``In fact, the SOS people have tried to generate as much public clamor as possible, thinking that's the basis for the city making its decisions,'' the developer said.
``We have a legal right to a reasonable use of the property we purchased,'' Anderson said. ``It's up to the City Council to decide what a reasonable use it, and we feel they made that decision when they master planned and rezoned the property for office space.''
Despite the opposition, he also said the project will move forward.
``We have no other choice now, because we own the property,'' Anderson said. ``We're not philanthropists. We're not going to donate the ground for a park.''
The project originally was conceived at about 110 acres, which could have accommodated up to 14 six-story office buildings with more than a million square feet of office space.
Anderson owns 85.77 acres already and has an option to buy 25 more acres south of his property from landowner Boyd Williams. He had hoped to trade the Williams ground for the 25-acre park site South Jordan owns immediately south of his 85-plus acres, but the city has turned that down.
Council members rezoned Anderson's property for office use, which requires that 30 percent of the ground be maintained as open space, but also tabled Williams' request for a similar zoning.
``They never told me why they tabled it,'' Williams said, ``and I never did find out.''
While Anderson waits for the city to move on the Williams rezoning, he's going ahead with a scaled-back plan for his land.
Because he cannot build in the Jordan River's flood plain or meander corridor - the area identified as the possible course the river could take once it is rechanneled to its historic route - that leaves 69.22 developable acres.
Anderson said that would reduce the project size to a maximum of 7.5 six-story office buildings once the requirement for 30 percent open space is met.
``But that's the maximum,'' he said. ``We're looking at similar office parks to determine not what the maximum build-out should be, but how many square feet are likely to be built. And we're seeing that three-story buildings are very common.''
But that's still more than SOS proponents want to see along the river bottoms.
Tobias and Feld said there is considerable community support for maintaining the area as open space with a possible nature center or park on the Williams property.
They say they have commitments for cash and in-kind donations to help acquire the property, possibly with assistance from the Utah Open Lands conservation organization or the nationally based Trust for Public Lands.
Wendy Fisher of Utah Open Lands has sent a letter of interest indicating the organization might be interested in acquiring his property if certain issues are resolved with the zoning, appraisal cost and a road master planned through the area.
But Jim Davis of the Trust for Public Lands indicated no serious offer would be made unless Anderson's option expires next summer.
While Williams is aware of the interest, he said he has ``not received a substantial offer from anyone except Gerald Anderson'' on the property he has owned and nurtured for nearly three decades.
``It's easy to put your name on a list and be for open lands,'' Williams said, ``but coming up with the money is another thing.
``I would like to see a little more cooperation'' among all the parties to the river bottoms dispute, he added. ``The wise thing would be for everyone to give a little.''
But neither the developer nor the SOS group feel the other side has been willing to compromise, and the dispute has developed an emotional dimension, with some SOS members accusing the city of being in league with developers.
They are particularly concerned that Anderson's partner is Michael Hutchings, a 3rd District Judge, and that may be influencing the city's deliberations.
Those allegations irritate Millheim, who said the city has been very cautious in trying to navigate controversial waters where threats of legal action have been all too frequent.
``Hard feelings have surfaced from time to time'' with all parties, he conceded. ``We've had some very difficult negotiations.
``But this council is committed to doing the best thing for the community,'' the city administrator added.
One problem is that land south of 10600 South was already planned for commercial use, and Millheim said there are many in the city who feel a Class A office complex would be more attractive and beneficial to the city than retail strip malls.
``Offices are usually seen as a healthy neighbor,'' he said. ``They're in vogue, and the market seems to be pushing office space in the south end of the valley.''
A review of the correspondence between the city and the developer does not support the suspicions of SOS supporters.
A number of tersely worded letters and memos between Anderson and the city reflect both the complexity of the negotiations and the periodically strained relations between developer and city staff.
``We're trying to keep everyone happy,'' said Millheim. ``There's no way that's going to happen, but we have to try.''
City Councilman Richard Warne gave some indication of the legal ramifications of the project during a recent council meeting.
``We need to be very careful,'' he told the council. ``These men are very litigious.'' 

Chuck Wing, Deseret News Some South Jordan residents have banded together to oppose plans for the RiverPark office complex. They want the area to remain open space, agricultural or low-density residential use to preserve vistas.

Gary M. McKellar, Deseret News Developer Gerald Anderson has already invested thousands of hours and millions of dollars in putting together a 69-acre Class A office complex he believes will put South Jordan on Salt Lake Valley's business map. He says a cluster of office buildings will lend "prestige to a city and adds to its property values."

Top

S. Jordan Grants Controversial Developers Extension
BY JON URE
December 17, 1997

The Salt Lake Tribune

                                                                     Ryan Galbraith/The Salt Lake Tribune
Jan Tobias and Judy Feld lead the fight against a proposed office park on the
banks of the Jordan River south of 10600 South.

Top

South Jordan Kills Plans for Petition

JON URE 
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Date: January 28, 1998 
Edition: Final 
Page: B2

SOUTH JORDAN -- City officials will not allow residents to circulate a petition that critics hoped would sink developers' plans to build a business park along the Jordan River. City Manager Dave Millheim said late Tuesday that a request filed by SOS (Save Open Space) to collect signatures for a petition to force a referendum is not legal. The referendum would ask voters to overturn a City Council decision favoring the developers. 
Millheim would not discuss the contents of a confidential legal opinion written by City Attorney Mike Mazuran, but after a review in a closed session with the City Council, Millheim declared the petition plan dead. 
``The city does not believe a legal referendum or an intent to file for a referendum was legally filed,'' he said. ``With that said, we want to continue to work with the parties.'' 
Millheim was referring to decisions made in a special Monday night council meeting in which councilmember teams were created to negotiate with the preservationist groups and the developers of the proposed 70-acre business park planned on the west bank of the Jordan River south of 10600 South. 
But late Tuesday, SOS spokeswoman Jan Tobias vowed a continued fight for the referendum. Her group wants voters to overturn a City Council vote that extended a city deadline requiring developers of the controversial Riverpark to file specific project plans. 
If that extension was repealed, the developers would have to start over. 
``We're going to go right to the lieutenant governor's office to get it resolved,'' Tobias said after Millheim's decision. ``Everything we have done is legal and right by the rule book. They wouldn't be fighting this so hard if they didn't think that it would pass. They know, from the citizens' survey results, that people do not want this project.'' 
Last year, when the City Council approved zoning for the proj-ect, developers Gerald Anderson and Michael Hutchings, a 3rd District Court judge, were told to submit plans by Dec. 28 or the zoning would revert to open space. But, on Dec. 16, the council extended the deadline to April 28. 
Anderson and Hutchings want to erect 14 office buildings up to six stories high on the river bank. Their plans include a hotel, restaurants and a fitness center. SOS members want to preserve the site as open space and are raising funds to buy the land. 
In a letter to Millheim, Anderson urged denial of the referendum effort, claiming SOS failed to begin its petition drive within the required 35 days of the council's extension. Tobias countered that the clock began when the group filed for permission to seek signatures. 

(c) 1998 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.
Top

 JON URE 
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE 
Date: February 10, 1998 
Edition: Final 
Page: B2

A top election official says South Jordan should let a petition move forward that could give voters the chance to repeal a pro-development decision by the City Council. However, Kelleen Potter, director of elections for Lt. Gov. Olene Walker, says her office cannot force city officials to allow the petition drive. ``It's really a local issue so we wouldn't get involved,'' other than to provide an opinion, Potter says. ``We've tried to fulfill the intent of the law. . . . In working with the Attorney General's Office, that's the way we've interpreted it.'' Potter's opinion comes at the request of residents who formed SOS (Save Open Space). They want voters to decide whether the City Council was correct in giving developers Gerald Anderson and Michael Hutchings an extension of a city-imposed deadline. The city told the developers to submit -- by Dec. 28 -- plans satisfying conditions of the rezoning of their project on 70 acres on the west bank of the Jordan River at about 10600 South. According to the agreement, the project would lose its zoning if developers missed the deadline. Then, on Dec. 16, the City Council extended the deadline to April 28. Angry SOS members want to preserve the river valley and are fighting the development, which would include 14 office buildings up to six stories high. They applied Jan. 20 for permission to circulate their referendum petitions, as required by Utah statutes. On Jan. 28, South Jordan City Administrator Dave Millheim -- backed by an opinion from City Attorney Mike Mazuran -- denied the referendum request, saying it was not legally filed. Says Mazuran: ``We stand by our legal opinion given to the city.'' SOS organizers Jan Tobias and Brent Foutz say they will take their fight to the Utah Supreme Court. ``All we citizens have seen is that very first coloring-crayon rendering of the site,'' Tobias says. ``We don't even have an idea of what the buildings are going to look like. And it's in the Constitution that citizens have a right to petition and redress their grievances.'' In her letter, Potter writes that initiative and referendum law is conflicting and unclear in some areas. Still, she says, residents seeking the petition have the support of her office. ``In attempting to resolve the questions and conflicts that have arisen in the initiative and referendum law, we have intentionally erred in favor of the citizen-initiative process,'' Potter writes. ``We believe that the interpretations we have made . . . are in accordance with the spirit of the law.'' Potter and Mazuran disagree on several key points. -- Mazuran says the referendum sponsors did not file their petition within 35 days after the extension was granted. Potter says the word ``petition'' is confused in the law and that the 35 days applies to the sponsors' deadline to apply for permission to circulate the petition. -- Mazuran writes that one of the sponsors, Kenneth E. Day, was not registered to vote in South Jordan, as required by law. Potter, however, cites state and federal law that says voters who move within the same county and congressional district are considered legally registered voters. Day was registered to vote in Midvale. -- Mazuran says Utah law prohibits a recall of a city ordinance that applies to ``individual property zoning decisions.'' Potter did not address that issue but Tobias notes that the referendum was not aimed at removing the developers' zoning, but at the extra time the city granted them. 

(c) 1998 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.
Top

S. Jordan denies SOS referendum plea
Group decries zoning to allow office building

By Don Baker, staff writer 
February 11, 1998
Deseret News
Edition: Metro
Page: B3

A group of residents calling itself SOS (Save Open Space) won't have to learn Morse code to decipher the terse two-letter message City Council members issued Tuesday night in response to the group's request for a voter referendum.
The letters were``N'' and ``O.''But that's one ``no'' the South Jordan-based group says it isn't willing to take for an answer.
SOS is bitterly contesting a plan by developer Gerald Anderson to build the equivalent of six or seven buildings up to six stories high on 85 acres south of 10600 South and west of the Jordan River.
Two weeks ago, the council declined to take action on an SOS request for a referendum petition challenging a Dec. 16 council decision that granted a 120-day zoning extension for the controversial RiverPark office complex.
The city sent the group a letter of denial Feb. 5, and SOS organizers said they would appeal the decision if the council did not reverse its decision Tuesday night.
Instead, the council made its rejection official and unanimously approved a motion by newly elect-ed Councilman Gary Chandler to stand by a legal opinion by City Attorney Mike Mazuran advising the city to deny the request.
That opinion advised the city that the referendum petition was legally flawed and did not comply with state election law.
Chandler said the ``primary reason'' for denial is that ``Utah law prohibits the recall of ordinances that apply to individual property zoning decisions.''
Mazuran's opinion also said a referendum petition was not filed within the 35-day time limit prescribed by law. And he indicated one of the people who signed the petition application was not registered to vote in South Jordan during the last municipal election.
But SOS spokeswoman Janalee Tobias said Tuesday her group doesn't agree with those findings.
``We plan to take this to the Supreme Court,'' which has the statutory responsibility for hearing this kind of election appeal, she said.
However, Tobias said Wednesday she has been advised by an attorney not to make any further comment on the issue until she receives official communication from the city that the referendum request has been rejected.
SOS has obtained an ``opinion'' letter from the lieutenant governor's office that Tobias says shows the city was wrong in rejecting the referendum request.
The letter, written by State Director of Elections Kelleen Potter, did not specifically endorse the group's position but explained state law is unclear on whether an application for a petition or the actual petition has to be filed within 35 days.
She also said state and federal law considers any voter who moves within the same county and same congressional district to be legally registered and entitled to vote or sponsor a petition.
However, Potter's letter was silent on the most important single legal issue: Utah Code 20A-7-101 provides the ``local laws'' that can be challenged through a referendum ``do not include individual property zoning decisions.''
Tobias said the group is opposing the December extension of RiverPark's deadline to April 28, and not the zoning itself.
But city officials say Tobias' argument doesn't hold water because it's the rezoning of the RiverPark site to office service use that the council extended on Dec. 16.
SOS' appeal to the state's high court may be an exercise in futility, however, because of the time elements outlined in state law.
The statute says completed referendum petitions must be turned in 120 days before a general, municipal or special election. It also specifies certain days when special elections can be held.
Even if petitions could be finished and submitted with 1,500 signatures within the next 12 days (Feb. 23), the next special election could not be held until June 28, which is two full months after the rezoning extension expires.
Tobias concedes those problems but said her group wants to call for a referendum anyway.
The SOS organizer said the referendum will show ``that it's not just a handful of people'' who oppose the RiverPark proposal, but a large percentage of South Jordan residents.
Top

Foes of S. Jordan Project Take Fight to High Court

SOS tells court that attorney gave wrong advice on referendum

February 23-24, 1998

By Don Baker

Deseret News staff writer

             SOUTH JORDAN—A coalition intent on blocking the construction of a proposed office complex asked the Utah Supreme Court Friday to compel South Jordan officials to provide the necessary petitions for a voter referendum.

            Save Open Space (SOS) filed documents saying City Attorney Mike Mazuran erred in advising the city that Utah law does not permit referendums on zoning decisions like those involving the RiverPark development.

            The council acted on that advice Feb. 10, voting 5-0 to reject the group’s request to circulate a referendum petition.

            SOS hopes to use the referendum to overturn a Dec. 16 council decision that gave developers a 120-day extension on the rezoning of 85 acres of land west of the Jordan River and south of 10600 South.

            That extension allowed developer Gerald Anderson additional time to meet a stiff set of requirements laid out in April 1997 when the property was rezoned to O/S or office service use.

            Anderson says he intends to build a “Class A” office park there over the next eight years, with the equivalent of six or seven six-story buildings on about 69 developable acres.

            SOS spokeswoman Janalee Tobias said the petition for an “extraordinary writ” cites a previous decision by the high court that allowed a referendum on a similar zoning decision because it drastically affected the character of a community.

            The RiverPark complex would also drastically affect the Jordan River bottoms, she said, changing the character “from a rural farming community to an urban city.”

            South Jordan City Manager Dave Millheim said Friday he cannot comment on the suit or any of its elements because the matter involves litigation and has been referred to the city attorney.

            However, he said city officials are disappointed with the action because they have “been working with residents for several weeks to try and resolve their concerns” outside the legal arena.

            “It’s unfortunate that, when city officials choose to work with citizens, those people ignore the process and go another way,” Millheim added.  “Council members have been trying hard to work with them.”

            Tobias said the city’s rejection of SOS’ request for referendum petitions left her group no other choice than to appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellate body designated by state statute.

            “We’re sick and tired of the council voting against the people on the river bottoms issue,” she said.  “People are really concerned about this…now we think it’s time to take it to a vote.

            “All we want is for the Supreme Court to order the city recorder to provide us with the necessary petitions,” Tobias added.

            Opponents of the office complex also contend it will put more traffic on overcrowded roads and erode the quality of air, water and life.

            For the referendum to succeed, SOS supporters would have to collect the signatures of 15 percent of South Jordan’s registered voters.

            A special election would have to be scheduled at a cost of approximately $10,000 unless the city decided to delay it until the next general election in 1999.

            However, state law provides the earliest a special election can be held is June 28—two full months after the rezoning extension expires.

            The city Planning Commission and council have already scheduled meetings for March and April to review the developers’ master development plan, conceptual site plan and application for a conditional-use permit.  All three are pivotal in obtaining project approval.
Top

Residents ready petition to halt S. Jordan project

By Don Baker, Staff Writer 
Thursday March 5, 1998
Deseret News
Edition: Metro
Page: B1

Residents intent on limiting development in the Jordan River bottoms are gearing up to circulate an initiative petition they hope will halt the proposed RiverPark office complex south of 10600 South.
South Jordan resident Brent Foutz, a member of SOS (Save Open Space), submitted an application this week asking city officials to prepare an initiative petition for circulation.The initiative, if signed by 15 percent of the South Jordan residents who voted in the last election, is intended to force a public vote that SOS supporters believe will renounce past City Council decisions al-low-ing office development in the river bottoms.
SOS spokeswoman Janalee Tobias said her group wants city officials to allow the property to ``revert back to the open space, recreational and agricultural uses for which it was originally master-planned.''
She also charged that city officials had declined to accept the application Foutz submitted on behalf of himself and several other South Jordan residents.
City Manager Dave Millheim said the application hasn't been declined but has been referred to City Attorney Mike Mazuran for legal review.
``I wasn't sure what they were giving me and, because of litigation related to their referendum (request), we have turned the matter over to the attorney,'' he said.
``If it has been legally filed and everything is in order, I'm sure the city will let them go ahead with the petition,'' Millheim added. ``We're studying the application right now and hope to let them know by the end of the week.''
SOS also tried to circulate a referendum petition in February that sought to overturn a December council vote that gave developer Gerald Anderson a 120-day extension on the rezoning of the 85-acre project for office development.
That petition was rejected on the advice of Mazuran, who advised the city that Utah law does not permit referendums on individual zoning decisions.
SOS has appealed that finding to the Utah Supreme Court and obtained the services of an attorney to help them force a public vote.
Tobias said the group of residents remains committed to preserving the natural beauty of the area west of the Jordan River and south of 10600 South.
``They initiative would preclude any major development in the river bottoms,'' she said.
``If we don't do this, it will mean parking lots everywhere,'' Tobias said. ``I don't care what they (city officials and developers) say, you can't disguise a parking lot.
``They've got to quit ignoring us and let us vote on this,'' she added. ``Why are they afraid of a vote?''
Tobias said SOS is hoping the high court will order South Jordan to allow circulation of the referendum petition and will issue an injunction halting RiverPark development until all issues are resolved.
Millheim said the council and Mayor Dix McMullin ``have put a lot of time and energy into addressing these issues'' and will give fair consideration to the request to circulate an initiative petition.
``We have to respect the process,'' the city manager said, ``and we're going to do that.''
City Councilman Gary Chandler, who has been heavily involved in the RiverPark dispute since taking office in January, said the city also will continue to meet with SOS and discuss the group's concerns.
``But this is causing the city to spend quite a bit of money on legal fees,'' he said. ``That's unfortunate. We're not a rich city.''
Top

Lawsuit Takes a Swipe at Free Speech, Say Critics of Utah Developer
Developer May Sue His Critics 

JON URE and LINDA FANTIN 
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE 
Date: March 12, 1998 
Edition: Final 
Page: A1 

A developer has launched a $1.7 million lawsuit against critics of his proposed South Jordan office complex, claiming they have made misleading public statements and mucked up business relations. Legal experts say that's a SLAPP in the face of America's founders.

SLAPP is an acronym created by University of Denver researchers to describe a legal tactic developed and popularized in the 1980s. It stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Penelope Canan, associate professor of sociology, said developer Gerald Anderson's ploy is a classic example of a SLAPP, typically used by developers to intimidate and silence their critics. And according to the U.S. Supreme Court, such schemes violate the Constitution.

Anderson has not actually filed the lawsuit but served a summons Friday on Janalee Tobias and Judy Feld, founders of Save Open Space (SOS), a nonprofit group crusading against Anderson's business park. The women want the 85-acre site along the Jordan River preserved, and have tried to persuade a landowner to break a real-estate deal with Anderson Development.

Jeffrey Walker, Anderson's attorney, said the interference is illegal, and he disputed claims that his client's lawsuit infringes on free speech.

``I've never filed a SLAPP suit in my life,'' Walker said Wednesday. Yet he acknowledged that the summons was served to keep opponents from interfering with his client's business dealings.

``My hope was they would see we were not trying to start litigation,'' Walker said. ``We were trying to stop conduct.''

The maneuver may have backfired, however.

After getting over the initial shock of the lawsuit, Tobias said she is more committed than ever to her cause. She has received numerous calls and e-mail messages supporting SOS efforts and offering help. ``The whole town knows about this and they are all rooting for us,'' she said.

Ross Anderson is leading the cheers. The Salt Lake City civil-rights attorney is so outraged by the developer's lawsuit that he has offered to represent the women for free.

His involvement has caused Walker to delay filing the lawsuit. (The plaintiff has 10 days from the time a summons is served to do so.) While the two lawyers plan to discuss the case today, Anderson said he is willing to go to court if necessary.

``This is absolute abuse -- the worst abuse of our justice system -- to sue people for simply being good citizens and trying to intimidate them into backing off of their political and community-organizing activities,'' Ross Anderson said.

And it is all too common, said Canan.

She and University of Denver law professor George Pring have been studying the legal phenomenon since the 1980s. Their research culminated in a 1996 book titled SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. They examined nearly 900 lawsuits and found citizens were being sued with alarming regularity for circulating petitions, testifying at zoning hearings, reporting police misconduct, even signing the attendance sheet at a public meeting.

No state is immune, Canan said, although the data showed SLAPP-happy areas generally were ``wealthy, white and where quality of life was a big issue.''

Did someone say South Jordan?

The goal may be to impede participation in governmental processes, but the suits rarely are couched in those terms, Canan said. SLAPPs masquerade as civil suits charging activists with a range of wrongs, the most common of which is defamation; second is interference with contracts or business.

``We say that our communities are only as good as we make them,'' Canan said. ``And here we have some people who want to keep opposing viewpoints away from the democratic debate. We hope that citizens and people who represent citizens will make this an absolute impossibility.''

Fifteen states -- Utah is not one of them -- have passed laws against SLAPPs, Canan said. Others, such as Colorado, rely on court decisions.

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for managing SLAPPs. The nine justices ruled that as long as a defendant's activities are aimed at influencing some governmental action, they are protected by the petition clause of the First Amendment.

As a result, more than 90 percent of SLAPPs never make it to trial, Canan said. In fact, many defendants are slapping back, netting huge judgments.

-- Jurors awarded a staggering $86.5 million verdict against owners of an infectious-waste-disposal company who SLAPPed a hospital employee for criticizing their rural Missouri incinerator operation.

-- A California attorney won a $5.1 million judgment against Shell Oil Co., which sued the attorney for reporting to authorities that a Shell product contained a cancer-causing agent.

-- In Los Angeles, one of the country's largest law firms had to pay $70,000 for filing a SLAPP on a client's behalf.

But many residents often are unaware of these cases and of their rights, Canan said. When faced with a lawsuit, they back down. For those who fight, it can take up to three years before the lawsuit is resolved.

``You might get compensated somehow,'' Canan said, ``but the literal hell you go through before that is not worth it to most people.'' 

(c) 1998 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.
Top

Foes of office park face another legal setback

By Don Baker, staff writer
March 12, 1998 
Deseret News
Edition: Metro
Page: B2

The latest attempt by a group of South Jordan residents to block development of the proposed 85-acre RiverPark office complex has run into yet another legal wall.
City attorney Mike Mazuran advised city officials Monday to reject the group's application to circulate an initiative petition aimed at revoking the O-S (office service) zone approved for the development in 1997.The petition was filed last week by South Jordan resident Brent Foutz and two local couples.
In his legal opinion, Mazuran says Utah law does not permit initiatives on individual property zoning decisions like the RiverPark rezoning.
If that sounds a little bit like deja vu, it's basically the same legal opinion Mazuran issued in February when South Jordan's City Council unanimously voted to reject an application to circulate a referendum petition.
According to the attorney, the same zoning decision exclusion applies to both initiative and referendum petitions.
The group seeking to circulate the referendum, Save Open Space (SOS), had hoped to force a public vote on a Dec. 16 council decision extending the rezoning of the RiverPark project for 120 days.
SOS has appealed the council's decision to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing referendums are legitimate in some cases where a rezoning can ``drastically affect the character of a community.''
That appeal is pending and no court date has been set.
But SOS organizers are expected to file a similar appeal if council members reject the initiative petition the same way they did the referendum request.
A vote on petition application has been scheduled for the council's Mar. 17 meeting.
SOS spokeswoman Janalee Tobias said last week her group wants city officials to adopt an ordinance allowing the property to revert back to its original zonings that provided for open space, agricultural and recreational uses.
But developer Bruce Anderson contends such an action would amount to a condemnation.
Such a ``taking of property,'' he said Tuesday, would mean the city would have to pay the current value of his land plus millions of dollars spent in developing the property over the past 18 months.
Anderson said the city, even by conservative estimates, would have to come up with at least $12.5 million in compensation - an amount he contends would impose a huge property tax increase on South Jordan residents.
Top

Will talks bring peace in River Bottoms war?
2 sides fire legal shots, then seem to calm down

By Don Baker, staff writer
March 13, 1998
Deseret News
Edition: Metro
Page: B1 

The Battle in the River Bottoms nearly erupted into full-scale legal war this week, but the main combatants now appear to be negotiating a cease-fire or maybe even a truce.
Attorneys for the developer of the proposed RiverPark office complex and a group of residents calling themselves SOS (Save Open Space) began peace talks they hope will keep the dispute out of court.But SOS members, who fiercely oppose the project, and developer Gerald Anderson may not be ready to bury the hatchet just yet.
The war went beyond mere words this week when Anderson served SOS founders Janalee Tobias and Judy Feld with copies of a $1.2 million-plus lawsuit. The suit has not yet been filed in 3rd District Court, but it could be if the two factions don't come to terms.
Anderson, who believes he has been illegally ambushed by SOS, says he was placing the South Jordan residents on notice that he would not let them continue to interfere with his contractual and economic dealings.
The ``pre-litigation'' notice mostly enraged the SOS folks, however, and they fired back by enlisting attorneys of their own and complaining the threatened suit was an assault on their First Amendment right to speak freely.
They also began collecting signatures of supporters willing to volunteer in writing to throw their bodies on the legal barbed wire and be named in the suit.
South Jordan resident Brent Foutz, a member of SOS, sent Anderson's attorney a letter demanding to have his name included as a defendant in the lawsuit. SOS organizers expect others to make the same request.
Emotions soared high Wednesday night after the South Jordan Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend City Council approval of a conditional-use permit and conceptual site plan for Anderson's project.
If Anderson's suit does get filed, it will seek at least $200,000 general damages and $1 million punitive damages plus legal expenses.
It also will ask the court to prohibit SOS from interfering with the developers' contractual and economic relations.
Anderson contends SOS has meddled in his dealings with landowner Boyd Williams, who holds a key piece of ground adjacent to land already purchased by the developer south of 10600 South and west of the Jordan River.
But Tobias and Feld said the suit is a blatant attempt to intimidate people opposed to the project.
``I'm appalled,'' said Feld. ``I feel like I'm back in elementary school and there's a bully who wants me to do what he wants.
``But we're not just going to sit down and shut up,'' she added.
Tobias said she denies Anderson's allegations that she tried to interfere in the developer's business relations with Williams.
``This transcends an open-space issue,'' she said. ``It's a First Amendment issue . . . we have the freedom to publicly seek redress of our grievances. At no time have we told landowners they should get out of legal contracts.''
But Anderson said Tuesday Tobias had attempted as late as January to persuade Williams not to sell his land to the developer, even though Anderson had renegotiated an option on the property.
Williams also told the Deseret News he had been contacted by SOS or people associated with the group several times while his land was under option to Anderson.
He also indicated he is so angered by the conduct of SOS representatives that neither he nor his family will ever sell the ground to SOS or anyone associated with it.
Tobias and Feld have asked local attorney Ross ``Rocky'' Anderson, a recent congressional candidate, to champion their cause.
Anderson, who has been prominent in civil rights cases, said Thursday he is now representing SOS ``because I am so outraged by the suit.
``This is an abuse of the justice system and an effort to discourage citizens from community activism,'' he said. ``It has a tremendous chilling effect . . . it's difficult enough to find people willing to take a stand on issues.''
But the developer's attorney, Jeffrey Walker, said he's encouraged that the factions are now talking and trying to hammer out some kind of settlement agreement.
``Our goal was to stop what we believe to be wrongful conduct'' by the SOS faction, he said. ``Talks have been very productive . . . we're trying to be less adversarial.''
Tobias said Thursday the real tragedy is that the river bottoms dispute has damaged old friendships ``and turned neighbor against neighbor over a land deal.
``That wasn't supposed to happen,'' she added.
Top

Slapping Back

The Salt Lake Tribune's Editorial Position
Salt Lake Tribune
Date: March 15, 1998 
Edition: Final 
Page: AA1
 
The opponents of a proposed development along the banks of the Jordan River weren't scared off last week after being threatened with a lawsuit by the developer. That kind of resiliency -- and not the coerced silence intended by the suer in such cases -- is the appropriate reaction by citizens faced with intimidation tactics. Janalee Tobias and Judy Feld -- and their organization, Save Open Spaces (SOS) -- have been vigorously fighting the South Jordan development planned by Gerald Anderson. They have pressed their case to the local government and, according to Anderson, have contacted landowners in an effort to keep them from selling to him.

Earlier this month, the protesters were served with a summons and a copy of a lawsuit from Anderson, in which they were accused of intentionally interfering with a contractual relationship between the developer and landowners. The requested damages: at least $1.2 million.

The SOS citizens, who did their own legal legwork in their failed attempt to launch a petition against the development, obviously lack the resources to fight a lawsuit, much less pay damages. And that's the point of intimidation lawsuits, characterized as SLAPP suits (``strategic lawsuits against public participation''): scaring citizen activists into silence.

Anderson's side maintains that theirs was not a SLAPP suit. True, it does not fit the SLAPP-suit model in which citizens are sued just for taking their grievances to a government body. This suit doesn't object to SOS's interactions with the South Jordan government, but rather with its intervention with landowners.

But that's a difference without a distinction. Presumably, the landowners can decide for themselves what to do with their land. Besides, the lawsuit presented to SOS would seek an injunction ``prohibiting SOS from interfering with Anderson Development's . . . prospective economic relations over the development, until this matter is resolved in this court.'' In other words, curb free speech until the deal is done.

The SOS folks have refused to back off. But the courage to continue speaking up is not so easy to summon when threatened by a lawsuit. That's why Utah should consider joining the 15 states that have passed legislation discouraging SLAPP suits and thus identifying them for what they are: an infringement on a citizen's First Amendment right ``to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' 

(c) 1998 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.
Top

S. Jordan builder takes feud to court
Contractor suing SOS for blocking RiverPark project

By Don Baker, Staff Writer 
Deseret News
March 18-19, 1998
Edition: Metro
Page: B3

The Battle of the River Bottoms is headed for 3rd District Court.
Following a breakdown in legal negotiations this week, the developer of the RiverPark office complex made good Tuesday on his threat to file a $1.2 million-plus lawsuit against a group of South Jordan residents who have been opposing his project.Gerald Anderson charges that SOS (Save Open Space) members Janalee Tobias and Judy Feld have unlawfully interfered in his contractual and economic dealings in developing an office complex west of the Jordan River.
Jeffrey Walker, an attorney for Anderson, served Tobias and Feld with what he called a ``pre-litigation'' copy of the suit March 6 but did not file the action at that time.
During the past week, Walker has been negotiating with SOS' attorney, Ross ``Rocky'' Anderson, on a settlement agreement but they could not reach an accord.
Walker said he filed an amended version of the complaint Tuesday but indicated his client wants to continue talking with SOS members and their attorney in hopes of reaching a pre-trial settlement.
``I think Rocky and I gave it a good run,'' he said, ``but neither of our clients could accept the terms that were proposed.''
Walker said the developer is committed to halting ``wrongful conduct'' by SOS members. ``This has to do with conduct that has damaged and continues to damage my client,'' he added.
The suit seeks at least $200,000 in general damages and more than $1 million in punitive damages.
But Anderson, a veteran trial lawyer known for his work on civil rights cases, said he was surprised by the filing.
``By all indications, it seemed we had worked out an agreement that everyone would walk away from this,'' he said. ``Then, out of the blue, we got this settlement proposal that was absurd.''
The SOS attorney said the developers' demands included admitting ``a lot of things that were not true, agreeing to pay attorneys' costs'' and stipulating the group would not talk about the project.
``That was totally unacceptable,'' Anderson added.
While Anderson Development characterizes the issue as unlawful interference with its development rights, Tobias said the suit is really a First Amendment issue because it attempts to squelch public comment about a project that will have a major impact on the community.
Tobias said Tuesday her group won't retreat from its efforts to preserve the open space along the river for future generations.
Walker, however, said the suit has been amended to demonstrate it is not an attempt to intimidate SOS or prevent the group from exercising free speech.
``This doesn't have anything to do with attempting to restrict First Amendment rights,'' he said, but is an action aimed at protecting Gerald Anderson's right to do business without unlawful interference.
SOS' attorney said he thinks the claims are frivolous and he plans to take action against the developer ``and anyone acting in concert with him'' once the suit is dismissed.
``I've never seen such an oppressive, outrageous abuse of the justice system,'' he added. ``It's intimidation. That has clearly been his objective from the beginning.''
Meantime, Anderson's project is moving through the approval process. South Jordan's Planning Commission voted unanimously last week to recommend approval of a conditional use permit and conceptual site development plan for the project.
A public hearing on those items and Anderson's master development agreement for the RiverPark project has been scheduled before the City Council on April 7.
Top

South Jordan group mails out petitions in bid to halt project
SOS wants voters to decide fate of RiverPark plans

By Don Baker, staff writer 
Deseret News
April 8-9, 1998
Edition: Metro
Page: B3

A coalition of residents calling itself SOS (Save Open Space) has mounted its own initiative and referendum petition drives in an effort to place the fate of the RiverPark office complex in the hands of local voters.
The group mailed out 7,000 petition packets to South Jordan homes over the weekend, seeking enough signatures to place the issue on an election ballot.Each packet contained a copy of both a referendum petition and an initiative petition aimed at blocking development of an 85-acre office park proposed for an area west of the Jordan River and south of 10600 South.
The South Jordan City Council previously rejected requests by the coalition to prepare referendum and initiative petitions for general circulation, contending that state law does not allow such votes on individual zoning matters.
Council members, citing a legal opinion from City Attorney Mike Mazuran, also said SOS had failed to file completed petitions within the 35 days set down by state law.
The referendum petition seeks a public vote on a Dec. 17 ruling that gave RiverPark developers an additional 120-day extension of an April 1997 ordinance rezoning the land for office use.
And the initiative petition proposes a public vote on a proposed ordinance to restore the rezoned property back to agricultural use and forbid commercial construction within the Jordan River's 500-year flood plain.
SOS has appealed the council's denial of its request for a referendum to the Utah Supreme Court, which took the matter under advisement late Tuesday morning following a one-hour hearing.
Justices must rule on whether the 35-day period set out in state law refers to the deadline for submitting a completed petition with all signatures or merely submitting an application for a petition.
Coalition organizers say they expect justices will rule the city erred in rejecting their request and want to have at least 1,500 signatures already in hand when the decision is handed down.
SOS supporter Brent Foutz said the group needs at least 1,209 signatures of registered voters by mid-April to compel city officials to place both measures on the ballot this summer.
``We've already collected more than 100 signatures,'' SOS organizer Janalee Tobias said following Tuesday's hearing. ``Now everybody in South Jordan has petitions to sign.''
But city officials remain confident the high court will rule their interpretation of state law is the correct one.
During Tuesday's hearing, attorney Michael Hayes told justices a review of the law's legislative history shows lawmakers intended to allow only ``a very narrow window in which signatures can be gathered.''
Otherwise, he said, local governments could be ``held hostage'' and harassed by groups that oppose their decisions.
``We're going to go ahead with business as usual unless the court tells us otherwise,'' City Attorney David Millheim said Tuesday.
Meantime, the council has postponed until April 14 a hearing on RiverPark developer Gerald Anderson's request for city approval of his conditional-use permit and conceptual site plan for the proposed office park project.
Approval of those items and a master development agreement will allow Anderson to move ahead with plans to build several office buildings west of the river over the next eight years.
But SOS attorney John O'Connell warned Tuesday that Anderson will be taking a huge financial risk if he moves ahead with the project before the high court rules on the group's appeal.
If the high court orders the city to allow a special election and voters reject the project, O'Connell said, any new construction might be torn down.
Anderson has made it clear, however, that he will take legal action against the city to recover any financial losses from the project that result from improper interference with his property and development rights.
The developer has already sued SOS organizers individually, alleging their interference in his business dealings and seeking financial compensation. Court action is pending.
Top

Anti-RiverPark group throws up new hurdle
A restraining order delays vote on S. Jordan plan

By Don Baker, staff writer
Deseret News
April 15-16, 1998
Edition: Metro
Page: B1

Another legal hurdle suddenly materialized Tuesday afternoon in the bitter battle over development of a proposed office complex in the Jordan River bottoms.
A few hours before the City Council was scheduled to consider approving a conditional-use permit and master plan for the project, an attorney for the SOS (Save Open Space) coalition obtained a temporary restraining order in 3rd District Court halting any action.The court order enjoins Mayor Dix McMullin and the City Council from permitting any uses for the property west of the Jordan River and south of 10600 South other than those normally allowed in an A-5 agricultural zone.
That effectively stops council members from voting on the conditional-use permit and master plan for the RiverPark office complex until a state judge can rule on the complaint filed by SOS attorney Ross ``Rocky'' Anderson.
The complaint says the city failed to post the legally required notices before voting on two zoning ordinances that allowed the office park project to go forward.
Council members approved one ordinance rezoning 85.77 acres of land for the RiverPark project from agricultural to office service use in April 1977. A second ordinance granting a 120-day extension of the earlier ordinance was approved in December 1997.
But Anderson said Tuesday both ordinances ``are ineffective because the city failed to post them in three public places'' as required by both state and municipal law.
The complaint also contends short summaries of the ordinances also were not published in a local newspaper as required by law.
Since neither ordinance was effective, Anderson argues, city actions to rezone the property and later extend that zoning also were null and void.
McMullin told council members Tuesday night no action would be taken, and that a judge would hear the case April 21 at 9 a.m. in 3rd District Court.
Meantime, the city and SOS supporters are also waiting for the Utah Supreme Court to rule on the coalition's appeal of the council's rejection of their attempt to conduct a referendum on the RiverPark zoning extension.
Justices took the matter under advisement after an April 7 court hearing.
Despite the latest legal setback, the council went ahead with a public hearing on the RiverPark conditional-use permit and master plan that lasted for two hours.
The hearing mostly rehashed the arguments raised in previous hearings, with SOS supporters contending the proposed office complex would destroy the pristine nature of the area and adversely affect their quality of life.
``We don't want to blacktop the future,'' said SOS organizer Janalee Tobias. ``The river is the lifeblood of our valley. We need to preserve our natural resources.''
Several South Jordan residents spoke on behalf of the project, however, saying the office park would be far less damaging to the river bottoms than residential housing units and stressing the city is in need of economic development projects that will provide South Jordan with some revenues.
``You can't stop progress,'' said Ruth Griffeth, who said she was speaking for many seniors on fixed incomes. ``We need a tax base badly. Why is everybody fighting something that will be advantageous to South Jordan?''
Darrell Donalson, one of the residents who signed the SOS complaint, told council members they need to take another look at whether they had received good information about the project.
SOS organizer Judy Feld agreed, noting that after months of debate ``we still have no idea of what will go down there. The river bottoms does not have to be part of the tax base.''
But Jeanne Jackman said she thinks SOS supporters are self-serving and want to maintain their own limited access to the river bottoms area rather than open it up to the entire community.
Boyd Williams, who owns a key piece of property along the river bottoms and plans to sell it to developer Gerald Anderson, said he thinks the office park ``is one of the best things to happen to South Jordan since I've been here.
``It's going to go (ahead),'' he said. ``The question is how do we make it a better project - not how do we stop it.''
Top

Cover Story- Land Wars

When two South Jordan women decided to save some open space, they found themselves up to their eyeballs in lawyers and lawsuits. by Andrea Moore Emmett

Janalee Tobias (left) and Judy Feld of Save Our Open Space: "Fighting to keep it [the Jordan River Bottoms] has been a full-time job. But even if it's all been for nothing, I'd do it again in a minute," says Feld. photo: Fred Hayes

.