Anonymous Comments Will Be Removed

Anonymous posts can be confusing and hard to follow with several users posting anonymously in the same thread. Please create a User Name/ID when adding to our comments section.
Showing posts with label Kimbal Wheatley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kimbal Wheatley. Show all posts

Monday, January 28, 2019

Manifesto 2.0 – a message to Nordic Valley Investors


Manifesto 2.0 – a message to Nordic Valley Investors


Ogden Valley Manifesto 2.0: A warning regarding over-the-top unsustainable development schemes
By Kimbal Wheatley
Dear Neighbors in Ogden Valley,
Thirty years ago I bought property in Ogden Valley and have lived on the South Fork for a couple of decades. I served as chair of our South Fork Township Planning Commission during the run up to the Olympics, and later as a “stakeholder” when the Recreation Element of our General Plan and the Snowbasin Master Plans were developed. These experiences taught me two things. First, growth and development in the Valley is inevitable; we have an attractive place and property rights exist that will triple or quadruple housing units and people in the fairly near future. Second, if we do this right, the Valley will remain an attractive place to live, visit, recreate and invest; everybody wins. But there are also lots of ways to mess this up—especially during a period of rapid development—and most everybody loses if we do.
For the last decade I have led the monthly GEM Committee discussions (Growth Excellence Mandate), a come-one, come-all group of Valley people who attend countless government and private meetings as Valley growth issues emerge. To the GEM folk, growing with excellence means doing what we can to minimize the impact development has on residents while also doing what we can to remain an attractive place to live and visit. We pursue following our General Plan, a roadmap for enhancing what makes the Valley great while minimizing the negative consequences of growth—haphazard development, bankruptcies and overloading our infrastructure. More importantly, our General Plan clearly says we don’t want to lose what we have that makes our Valley a great place to live, recreate, and invest. I don’t think it news to most that our Plan intends to preserve our rural feel of agriculture, open space, dark skies, clean air, and majestic views. And our Plan also intends to retain our appeal to destination recreation visitors, knowing fully that congestion, pollution, and free-for-all development will kill the goose that is now laying our golden eggs. Two simple sentences in the General Plan describe our vision for how we intend to walk this tightrope: “Land uses in Ogden Valley should complement, not overwhelm or compete with, the rural character of the Valley…” and “The Ogden Valley community desires responsible and sustainable growth while conserving the natural and social character of Ogden Valley.” The rest of the Plan provides guidance on how to ensure our vision remains the reality.
It seems like about every ten years a development scheme comes along that would overwhelm us. When previous owners of Powder Mountain proposed building a resort the size of Brigham City on top of the mountain, we fought for a better outcome. We succeeded because Valley residents got involved, learned the facts, and provided input at every opportunity. Back then I published a Manifesto, putting Powder Mountain developers on notice that we expect resort expansion plans to improve the Valley, not diminish it. Since then we have adopted a new General Plan that pretty much says the same thing. We also have improved ordinances and approval processes to support it. Even so, we need to rally and focus our community voice to get the best outcome we can when something like the Nordic Valley mega proposal comes along. This inspired me to develop an Ogden Valley Manifesto 2.0; thanks to everyone who helped in its development.
But first, please try to get your head around the magnitude and against-all-odds ideas of the Nordic expansion proposal that has now been submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval. The plan would leverage Nordic Valley from 140 acres on private land by developing facilities onto some 3,300 acres of roadless National Forest between Nordic Valley and North Ogden. The Nordic Valley Plans for Expansion describes…
1 – …expanding lift capacity from 1,030 to 11,380 guests. This would be more than the guests currently hosted by Snowbasin, Powder Mountain and Nordic Valley combined, resulting in a doubling of current users; it would be a resort with roughly the same number of guests Park City/Canyons hosts today.
2 – …expanding parking on the Eden side from 404 vehicles to 3,845. This means an additional 7,700 vehicles a day in and out of the resort on our county roads; compare this to 8,500 vehicles now traversing Ogden Canyon on a weekend winter day.
3 – …expanding snowmaking from 11 million gallons on 31 acres to 223 million gallons on 450 acres. The idea is to pump water from Pineview and “consume” only 28% of what is pumped; the rest returns to Pineview as runoff. Still, consumption at 28% is 191 acre feet.
4 – …expanding from 5,093 to 166,500 square feet of non-housing buildings, expanding from 592 restaurant seating capacity to 12,000, and increasing electricity consumption from 1.5 megawatts to 15.5 megawatts.
5 –….cutting 20+ miles of roads into a roadless section of National Forest to service 13 new lifts and 708 acres of ski runs with snowmaking. Much of this would occur in an area identified in the General Plan as some of our “most visible viewshed.”
6 – …converting our most accessible roadless National Forest, currently managed with watershed priority, into one of Utah’s largest resorts, and certainly Utah’s largest low altitude resort (the highest point being at the level of Snowbird/Alta parking lots).
7 – …allowing a resort larger than Snowbasin without a plan for handling culinary water, water rights, wastewater, runoff water, landslide, snow slide, wildlife, watershed, traffic, or guest housing. Granted, much of this is outside of Forest Service scope, but all will be big deals to the Valley if the project goes forward.
If successful, the proposed expansion of Nordic Valley would about double the number of winter guests we now have across all our resorts on our very busiest days; they estimate about half would come from the Eden side. This project is so massive it could easily overwhelm Ogden Valley, especially when added to thousands more already expected when Snowbasin and Powder Mountain reach their already-approved capacity. With this in mind, we issue this manifesto as guidance to its developers.
Principle 1: Do no harm…the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
We expect any expansion of recreation resorts in Ogden Valley to proactively and effectively mitigate adverse impacts on Valley residents and environment. In order to understand and minimize impact, we expect full disclosure of expansion effects on Valley residents and natural assets; in particular, we expect a truthful and complete accounting of how expansion will impact water consumption, wastewater systems, runoff water and drainage, roads, and utilities, as well as landslide risk, snow slide risk, and risk to watersheds. We also expect honesty in how expansion will impact quality of life factors like noise, pollution, view sheds, animal habitat, housing, property values and taxes.
Principle 2: Be faithful to the General Plan…
We expect any expansion of recreation resorts in Ogden Valley to adhere to the vision, goals and principles of the Ogden Valley General Plan. One of our Plan goals supports the expansion of resorts: “…to pursue Valley recreation expansion by working with resort developers.” However, our plan also clearly states what we expect from recreation expansion. Here are a few: “…to reduce the overall amount and impact of future land development in Ogden Valley,” “…to protect the Valley’s sense of openness and rural character,” “…to protect key viewsheds throughout the Valley,” and “…to balance the expansion of recreation areas and facilities with overused and saturated resources to maintain a high-quality recreation experience” (that is, there will be less golden eggs in a congested place).
Principle 3: Play by the rules…
We expect any expansion of recreation resorts to adhere to Weber County planning rules and processes, and any expansion into our National Forest to adhere to Forest Service rules and processes. We expect a fair and thorough execution of the review and approval process without political intervention.
Principle 4: We demand full transparency…
We expect any public investment in expansion of recreation resorts (such as county-backed bonding or Community Development Agencies) to be minimal and to be highly visible to taxpayers, and with fully accounted costs to the public, including externalized costs or subsidies.
Principle 5: Show us the numbers…
Prior to final approval, we expect any expansion of recreation resorts to provide the public with evidence that it is fiscally sound and will result in a quality product  that can compete in the national and international recreation markets for the long haul.
These principles reflect our rights as residents and citizens and are backed by federal, state and county law, not to mention common sense. We have a right to follow our General Plan and to enjoy the fruits of the property rights it describes. We have a right to fight for these rights.
Adopting these principles will earn support from Valley residents; ignoring them or strong-arming will create decades of Valley animosity and resistance at every turn. I, for one, prefer the former option.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Snowbasin Public Hearing Tonight - UPDATED

Don't forget to attend the public hearing regarding Snowbasin's development plans

Tonight (8-4-10) at 5 pm

Weber County commission chambers

2380 Washington Blvd.

Ogden, UT

UPDATE - August 5, 2010 @ 8 am

The meeting was essentially a non event with only about 25 people in the chamber (8 or so were Snowbasin folks).   All commissioners were present with the exception of Laura Warburton, who was excused.

Snowbasin made their presentation, then Kim Wheatley made some comments and recommendations on behalf of the GEM committee and their concerns of "area G," the commercial area proposed at the intersection of Trappers loop road and Highway 39.

Next, Huntsville Mayor Jim Truett voiced the town's concerns about the same intersection and the proposed commercial property.  His main concern was with Huntsville's future plans for annexation and the fact that the Snowbasin property would prevent Huntsville from Annexing West of the intersection.  He was also concerned with current and future Huntsville businesses and their ability (or inability) to compete with Snowbasin businesses.

A gentleman representing the Division of Wildlife Resources stated some concerns and Mrs. Stringham voiced concerns about rising property values and the resulting increased taxes. 

In the end, the OVPC tabled the issue until the planning staff could research a few more items, but it was apparent that the majority of the commissioners would be in favor of Snowbasin's request.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Divided opinions on plans for Powder Mountain

On the beautiful and calm Memorial Day before storm tomorrow evening at the Weber County Commission chambers, we will direct our humble readers to this morning's Di Lewis article:

Divided opinions on plans for Powder Mountain


Many Valley-ites are quoted with the majority of those quoted being opposed to the Memorandum of Understanding that will be before our humble group of all-star commissioners Tuesday evening at 6:PM (of course, get there early to get a seat).


From today's Di Lewis article:

Valley residents worry that increased traffic and the development of 2,800 units at the resort will turn their home into a polluted suburb.
"It goes far beyond the community this time," said Eden resident Sharon Holmstrom. "This time, they have the homeowners in a vise from which they cannot escape.
"If a development agreement is not reached, then homeowners are stuck with the incorporation and expense and horror of that. But if they go along with that agreement, then they undermine the general plan for the rest of the valley."
Eden resident Kirk Langford is concerned that allowing higher than normal density at the resort in order to reach a resolution will open the door for future developers to demand density variances.

Langford and Holmstrom, along with many other landowners, lost two-thirds of their development rights in the down-zoning of the valley in 1998.
Now they are worried the move the landowners hoped would preserve the valley will be pointless if the resort is allowed to have more than its allotted development rights for the amount of land.

"I'm for Powder Mountain being developed," Langford said. "I think they should get every single entitlement that they had on the land when they bought it. ...
"But I've watched people go to build one house up here, and if they're a quarter acre short, too bad, they can't build. So why should they (the resort) be able to get 1,600 more (units)?"

It's about fairness, said Eden resident Steve Clarke.
"The thing I focus on right now is the fairness issue that people who own a considerable amount of property surrendered property rights and went from 1-acre zoning to 3-acre zoning," he said.

"I feel like it's unfair for the county to give density to a resort that other people gave up willingly years ago. It's important for the county commission to acknowledge the contribution of these landowners."

But some residents believe the memorandum, with recent changes, might be the best plan they can get to end the problems in the valley, said Darla Van Zeben, an Eden resident within the incorporation boundaries and one of the residents involved in the lawsuit against the county.

The revised memorandum, now available on the county website http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php, limits the resort to one golf course, creates a 1.5 percent fee for improvements and removes the developers' ability to withdraw from the agreement after action is taken on a neighboring development with common ownership.
Van Zeben said those were the issues creating the most worry among homeowners.
Most potential town residents don't think it's a perfect solution, she said, but it's one they can live with.

"There are parts of this deal that are tough to accept, but we're all in a tough situation and this new MOU might just be the best deal the Ogden Valley is going to get," Van Zeben said.

She said they are worried that if the incorporation is ultimately approved, it would allow unbridled development across more than 20,000 acres, rather than controlled development over 4,200 acres.

Because the incorporation petition was possible through a short-lived law, Van Zeben said she doesn't think other developers would be able to demand higher density.
 As a bonus today, we will include several letters to the editor of the June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News.  It is posted below this article so be sure to scroll down.

As an enhanced bonus, we will link to this morning's Weber County Forum Post on the subject:

Standard-Examiner: Divided Opinions on Plans for Powder Mountain


In true Rudi-esque Fashion, he has created a "cribsheet" of various articles that have appeared on the subject in recent weeks.

Before we run off to 'Vegas Baby' to roll the dice on tomorrow's outcome, we will give all a chance to join in our straw poll that is located near the top of the right side bar.

As Ron Burgandy would say during signoff, "Stay Classy Ogden Valley."

Letters To The Editor of The Ogden Valley News regarding the Powderville Hostage Crisis

The June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News was stuffed with letters from residents concerned over the outcome Powderville.


We have scanned all of the letters and will include them below in no particular order.  We will, however, post the "Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley" first, as it is signed by several of the Powderville hostages.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley
By Dan VanZeben,
Darla Longhurst-VanZeben
Taylor Satterthwaite
Jim Halay
Deja Mitchell
Kathy Dowell
Suzanne Amann
Eden

Community Being Asked to Weigh in on Controversial County Decision on Powder Mountain Development  (note:  this is not a letter to the editor but a cover story written by one of the editors of the Ogden Valley News)

By Shanna Francis

A Bad Deal For Ogden Valley
By Kimbal Wheatley
Huntsville

What Is To Happen To Our Valley
By Larry Zini
Huntsville

Courage Needed To Face Powder Mountain Developer
By Frank Cumberland
Huntsville

A Community Worth Saving
By Laura Warburton
Huntsville

Powdervillains Hold Hostages
By Sharon Holmstrom
Eden

Valley Citizens Should Not Drink the Cool-Aid Offered by Powder Mountain Developers
By Richard C. Webb
Liberty

Unlink Eden Heights development from Powder Mountain MOU
By Steve Clarke
Eden


Don't Sell the Utah Supreme Court Short!
By Sharon Zini
Huntsville

Please Attend County Commission Hearing to Indicate Support Against Powder Mountain Proposal
By Edward A. Adair
Eden

Attend Public Hearing on June 1 - Democracy works best when people participate
By Kirk Langford
Eden

After perusing the twelve letters (probably the most letters the OVN has ever printed in one issue on a particular subject), we were able to break them down into three categories:

  • In Favor of the MOU         1
  • Against the MOU              10
  • Neutral (come together)    1

    Monday, November 09, 2009

    Event to benefit resort town fight

    Don't miss the Festivities this Friday the 13th and be sure to read this Di Lewis masterpiece in its entirety.






    OGDEN -- Ogden Valley residents are becoming more imaginative in their attempts to defray the costs of fighting the incorporation of Powder Mountain town.

    The latest fundraising effort is dinner, a show and a silent auction. Supporters of those who oppose the incorporation of Powder Mountain have organized a $100-a-plate dinner Friday night at Union Station, followed by a Powder Mountain-themed melodrama.

    Steve Clarke, an Eden resident not in the proposed town boundaries, said the idea was spurred by requests for help from those within the boundaries who have already personally funded a district court lawsuit.

    "They're appealing the case to the state Supreme Court, and having contributed more than $20,000 out of the neighborhood already, they asked for help," he said.

    The idea has been in the works since August and has already gotten a lot of support from people all around the valley and Weber County. Clarke said more than a third of those who bought tickets actually can't attend, so they redonated the tickets to be sold again.

    Residents will meet their goal of having enough money to take the case to the Utah Supreme Court and to lobby the Legislature next year, said Kim Wheatley, a resident near Huntsville.
    People are so willing to donate and help because, once people understand what is happening, the story resonates with them, Wheatley said.

    "Residents are so grateful and impressed by the people who have rallied to us and supported our cause," said Darla VanZeben, a resident within the proposed town's boundaries.

    Clarke said the town's incorporation is becoming a larger and larger issue with people beyond the proposed boundaries, because they feel it is unjust and because they are worried about development issues affecting the valley.

    "It's an egregious display of uncitizenlike behavior to try to override the will of the citizens and the law of the government," he said.

    Donations may be made or tickets purchased from Chelse Maughan at (801) 745-4627 or chelse21@hotmail.com, or from Valley Market and Eden Coffee and Cocoa.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2008

    The PERPS of Powderville Act III

    Guest Post by Kimbal Wheatley

    In Act I (January), the investors who bought Powder Mountain Resort decided to create a town and force some of our neighbors in Eden to be part of it. Because the town would have a puppet government explicitly designed to bypass the laws, rules and regulations all of the rest of us have agreed to live by, the good people of Ogden Valley refer to it as Powderville, a “company town” where conflict-of-interest is the norm, robber barons are in charge and the residents are unimportant . It is hard to find a printable name for the people perpetrating this hard-to-believe scenario, so I have come to simply call them the PERPS, although lately I have seen a name I may like better…Powdervillans…kind of rolls off the tongue.

    This all started when the PERPS bought a resort zoned for a reasonable 1180 housing units and proposed 2500 instead. When the Planning Commission balked for health, safety and welfare reasons, the PERPS moved to form the town of Powderville to bypass Weber County planning and zoning processes and ordinances. But they could only execute their scheme by trampling on the voting rights of Powderville town citizens which, as you can imagine, caused a bit of an uproar…enough that Powderville residents are threatening disruptive action and the Utah legislature immediately reversed the flawed law that allowed it to happen.

    In Act II (July), the County Commissioners asked the PERPS to delay forming the town and instead to work with them to reach some sort of compromise they were sure could be mutually beneficial. The PERP idea of compromise was to present an absurdly one-side Development Agreement the Commissioners simply couldn’t stomach. It might have been some of the whereas clauses extolling the virtues of the PERPS and their development plans…or maybe it was the part about exempting them from all county development and building rules…or maybe it was the bit about raising property taxes to finance the infrastructure instead of using their own money. Whatever, the commissioners did the right thing, saying “no, go ahead and form your town.”

    By the way, the idea of raising property taxes to finance the extensive road and utilities structure for the town is particularly interesting since the PERPS don’t pay much property taxes on their 7200 acres ski resort…not even as much as just one house in the town. I diverge…

    Back to the story – Act III (August) is where the commissioners select [click here to continue]

    Saturday, August 16, 2008

    Please tell me it isn't so

    Blogmeister UPDATE 8-17-08 @ 11 am: We have added a link to the pdf tax file mentioned by Doc Wheatley. Also, don't miss the conversation on the topic over at the Weber County Forum.

    A guest post from Kim Wheatley

    Before you toss this as just one more rant from Dr. Wheatley, you ought to read it. I realize Powderville will likely come into existence and I realize the majority of the town council put forward by the commissioners will likely support the town turning into a high-density resort. We have mostly accepted that a corrupt legislative process is what it is and did what it did. So, we are moving to the next phase…how to get the town up and running.

    In preparation to support the people of Powderville, who are about to have a town they are not at all ready for, I began wondering what kind of tax revenue they will have to work with. The county has a wonderful on-line tool where you can get the tax history and detail on every parcel in the county, so I began to add up the taxes paid on the properties in the town, starting with property owned by Eden Heights LLC (1520 acres) and Eden Heights II LLC (97 acres). This is the property that surrounds the existing homes in Powderville, on both sides of the highway, and was added to the Development Agreement proposed to the county commissioners, bumping the number of dwelling units up by 1100 (from current zoning of around 50). The county assessor says the property has a fair market value of $18,640,390 or $11,530 per acre, which passes the smell test if you consider how steep a lot of it is. They also say 2007 taxes totaled $255.18, WHICH DOESN’T. Yes, that’s two hundred and fifty five dollars; with taxes on every parcel ranging between 15 and 17 cents per acre….wow, the taxes on the property my home sits on is 2400 times higher!

    Next I tallied up the tax contributions of Western America Holding LLC, the people I generally refer to as the PERPS. County tax records show they own 6188 acres with a fair market value of $9,012,201 or $1456 per acre (fails the smell test). Their 2007 taxes added up to $7,565.67, which stinks to high heaven; total property taxes paid on two 80 acre parcel are $4.46 and $4.55. Of the total, only a quarter of an acre is taxed above $12 per acre (paying $334 per acre), and only 40 acres is taxed above 23 cents per acre. Unless there is another mechanism for collecting taxes on buildings and facilities that I’m not aware of, these taxes also include the lifts and lodges and other improvements at the resort.

    Based on my own tax notice, only 18% goes to the county general fund and I assume this is the piece of the pie the town gets to run their government and provide services to their citizens. Bad news for the town as they ramp up…they can only expect tax income of about $45 from the Eden Heights bunch and another $1362 from Western America.

    Just to put this into perspective, I added up the property taxes paid by one three-generation family in the town who have three homes (the homes of grandparents, parents, child). You guessed it. In 2007 they paid $12,556…1.6 times the property taxes the combined resort owners paid on a major ski resort and 7200 acres of land. A reasonable estimate is the people in the town will be paying at least 95% of the taxes to support it.

    How in the world we ended up in a taxing situation like this is beyond me. I’ve tried, but I just can’t see how one can reconcile all the inconsistencies in this mess. The “fair market” valuations don’t make sense and the “taxable value” makes even less sense. HB466 (the law that allowed the town to be forced on the people without a feasibility study, hearings or vote) was based on fair market valuation, but fair market valuation apparently has little to do with taxes actually paid and revenues the town can expect to operate with. And now, in addition to a town that at least 55% of the people don’t want (15% are in favor and rest don’t care or are undecided) they are about to get stuck with a town council hand picked by PERPS that don’t pay enough taxes to even be on the radar screen.

    I guess the good new in all this is now we can add a blatantly unfair taxing system to a blatantly unfair town-making system as this mess makes its way into the press and the courts. Our elected representatives have succeeded in allowing a bunch of greedy, ruthless perpetrators, who don’t even pay a fraction of their fair share of taxes, to take away people’s right to vote for an elected government…and all of this in a place that used to be called Eden.

    IT MAKES ME SICK AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN LETTING IT HAPPEN SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

    Kimbal Wheatley, Ogden Valley

    PS. If you have a hard time believing all this, you can study the PDF attachment where all the tax information described above is summarized or, better yet, go to the county website and verify my numbers.

    Tuesday, August 05, 2008

    Kimbal Wheatley's Act III (aka round 2)

    We received Act III from Kim Wheatley yesterday, and with the recent and official incorporation of Ogden Valley's second town, we ring the bell for Round 2 (this time without the gloves) - any volunteers for a Round girl?:

    Friends,

    We are dealing with people without scruples (which gives them an advantage), motivated by greed (maybe a disadvantage), and seemingly immune from public, government, and agency opinion (a bit naïve I think). But in the end they are dependent on investors who are probably not as ruthless, greedy or stupid. I say it is time to take the gloves off and go directly to their current and potential investors in their primary language…their money and risk to their money and, for some, their reputation and risk to their reputation.

    It appears Act III of the PERPS of Powderville will officially begin tomorrow around noon, but the county has likely revealed their intention to the PERPS. Here is what I think it means in the short term:

    The county is accepting HB466 as something they can’t do anything about, saying they merely administer the law; their only latitude being able to appoint council members, not necessarily accepting the slate put up by the PERPS. The town residents must continue to challenge HB466, now including litigation. The rest of us in the valley must put up money to help fund the legal battle.

    Some kind of dance will take place between the county and PERPS about who gets appointed to the town council. The town residents must demand a fair and impartial council, especially when it comes to decisions about Powder Mountain Resort. The more this can be done in print and in public meetings, the better. We all need to YELL FOUL when conflict of interest is apparent. Every issue on every agenda must be scrutinized for conflict of interest on the part of the council; council members must know they are being carefully watched and conflict of interest violations will be prosecuted.

    Probably the first thing the town council needs to do is to hire competent legal help to advise them on issues and law. Under no circumstances should town residents (and the council) accept the sole opinion of the PERP attorneys. We have seen from the Development Agreement proposed to the county that they do not consider balanced opinion, instead preferring to distort the law wherever they can to achieve their ends.

    During their time courting the town residents the PERPS made a lot of promises…like putting up $750K to finance the town. Given their proclivity to changing the game, many will be conveniently forgotten. The town residents must document as much as they can and bring it up in public meetings.

    Mission one for the PERPS is to get the high density they want granted in an irrevocable way; that way, even if the town collapses (a likely scenario) they want the density to be a “right” which the county would have to take away from them (a “taking” of their property rights). Their attorneys have been working on this for at least a year, so they likely already have created the zoning and planning laws and ordinances they want. They will request the town council immediately accept their proposals. The residents must be ready for this with a substitute resolution: “…until a proper sorting out of the planning and zoning issues takes place in the public arena, the town adopts, across the board, the zoning and planning laws and ordinances as they currently exist in the county…”. The issues are huge for this new town and due diligence is a moral imperative…the decisions will affect generations to come.
    The PERPS are attempting to create a “company town,” reminiscent of old mining and railroad towns where the corporation holds all the cards and no one is accountable for the impact on the residents or environment. They even named the town Powder Mountain because they think it will aid in promoting their scheme. However, the residents of the town don’t have to accept Powder Mountain as the name of their town and may have much better ideas. The town residents must resist the company town concept at every turn and, unless they really like it, should immediately change the name of their town to something more to their liking. The town will be a legal construct with many powers and responsibilities as granted to its residents and required under Utah State law. The PERPS, and the developers they intend to sell to, need to get the message that they are NOT a company town, and they have most of the votes.

    Kim