|
Provo Council should be in the loop
The Provo Municipal Council is right to be pondering ways to ensure it is kept in the loop about sales of city property. Members have discussed an ordinance to make that happen.
One motive is the $40 million sale of the iProvo broadband system this year. Council members say they felt under the gun to approve the deal but with less than two months to plow through hundreds of pages of technical information, to evaluate a little-known company that wanted to buy it and to otherwise comprehend a rather complex transaction.
Council members also complained they had too little time and information to properly evaluate the December 2007 vote on developing the Southgate shopping center and a plan to sell a city parking lot.
Certainly Mayor Lewis Billings needs some leeway to act on the city's behalf. One of the main reasons for having an executive is so that a part of government can act relatively quickly and, at times, quietly.
But input from the legislative body often is essential. First, the city's business is the public's business. Little of what Provo does requires hush-hush operations, and residents deserve to be in the know. There's a pragmatic aspect, too. Public review of issues, via the Council, provides essential information and new perspectives.
'Boutique city' is promising
Utah County commissioners recently tabled discussion of a proposed "boutique city" on the south shore of Utah Lake. Sometimes "tabled" is a political euphemism for "filed in the nearest garbage bin, never to be seen again." It's to be hoped that's not the case with the proposal for the West Lake Estates.
The 677-home development would have some intriguing features. These include a water recycling facility, homes powered 50 percent by renewable energy, lots of green space and some areas designed for "affordable housing." The commissioners are interested in the project, partially because they think developments built with the county's full cooperation usually turn out better. It also appears that such housing plans may be the wave of the future for the area.
Many questions remain. The planning commission rejected the plan over concerns about water supplies, emergency access, density and the preservation of agricultural land. The commissioners also say they aren't prepared yet to handle such a big project and want to get their ducks in a row first.
That's reasonable, but let's hope the commissioners don't let the delay cool off the project too much.
Note to cities: Sic 'em
Several more area cities are considering new regulations for pit bulls, and none too soon.
In Orem, two men were attacked by three dogs, including a pit bull, in late July. Yes, two other dogs were involved, but it was the pit bull that did the biting, according to reports.
Certainly any dog can attack, but when a pit bull is the attacker, the risk of severe injury or even death goes way up. They (and a couple of other breeds) are more dangerous than average canines.
South Jordan bans them.
Springville has such tight restrictions that that city has only one resident with a pit bull permit. (One might wonder how many pit bulls are actually in Springville. Maybe the ordinance is so tough that people don't even try to comply with it.)
Mapleton is pondering an even more restrictive ordinance.
Orem is looking at several ideas, but nothing is definite yet.
The Provo Municipal Council has been working on a more nuanced measure that would target "at-risk" or "dangerous" dogs.
But what's so bad about "breed-specific" laws? Dogs are not human beings, they are animals. Pit bulls, rottweilers and a few other kinds are bred for aggression. And so it is responsible to subject them to tighter control because of who they are. Unlike the targeting of a racial group for humans, this isn't about constitutional rights or discrimination. It's about public safety. |
