West Jordan Zoning Commission v. Utah Power
The City Council of West Jordan, Utah (where my parents live) has an ongoing debate with Utah Power over a zoning issue.
Because of increased power needs in new developments, Utah Power wanted to set up a new substation, and the City Council decided to put off a decision because of the standard "Not in my backyard" issues of city residents. (The most honest objections I heard were from my mother, who only complained of property value concerns.)
You can read the latest chapter in the political fight in the latest West Jordan Journal. The article starts on the left side of the front page.
The first time this issue came up was the beginning of last year, when Utah Power warned that the city wouldn't get through two summers without serious problems. The West Jordan City Council said that Utah Power hadn't done enough research, and in a 4-3 vote dismissed a request to rezone property for a new substation. The dismissal was spearheaded by newly elected councilman Kim Rolfe.
Now, according to the above article, the council finally realized that more research hadn't changed anything, and were forced to put an Ad Hoc measure into place - a temporary substation located next door to Councilman Rolfe's home. Eventually, a permanant substation will be constructed exactly where the power company said they had to construct it. (The City Council was very political about it, in that they still blamed the problem on Utah Power.)
The moral of the story: Pretending experts are wrong for political reasons doesn't make the experts wrong, it makes the politicians look like idiots.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:57 AM
3 Comments:
At the time of the original discussion, I wrote a paper on the City Council meeting in which they dismissed the original zoning proposal. I've posted it on an old weblog so you won't have to see it all here. It's about four or five pages long.
I was actually at the city council meeting before the original vote. What I noticed the largest issue was from the community was not the substation itself but the fact that the substation required huge polls that stretched down a many city blocks on 7000 south. The issue which I believe would have allowed the station to be built would be to bury the cable, most would have been appeased, some would still have issues but that was the major concern (these are not standard poles thee are the huge metal base poles). Well one main problem is that 7000 south is going o be widened, and the poles would need to be moved when the street is widened, and more property taken from the residents. All the stats that were presented in the meeting used what it would cost in Oregon, not Utah.
The stated reason in the council meeting was that more power was needed for the recent development of Jordan Landing about 1 mile away form the build site. (A huge mega complex of Wal-Mart, Sears, Sams Club, major theater, Lowes, Office Max and much more) But what happened was that many new apartment complexes were zoned for the area also and they were not going to have enough power. So in my opinion people were getting a power plant with large consuming poles in their backyard for something that wasn’t there to begin with. The power company was unwilling to even entertain the thought of building in or by Jordan Landing because of what I found out to be the price of the property in the area. So why should people who say not in their neighborhood be punished for the lack of foresight of the council or the cheapness of the electric company? They are not the ones causing the extra power usage; it’s just being dumped on them. The other question I have is, about 1 mile from there on 6200 south the power company already owned a piece of property already zoned and ready to use, but refused to use it.
While I was at the council it was not the council that seemed to be playing politics it was the company they were very short and extremely rude to the people at the meeting asking g questions. They never answered a single question that was asked, they had about 10-12 lines they could say and that is all that they said during the entire 2 hours.
Also it was said that many of the area power station could be upgraded due to the age that they were and it would for the most part stabilize the situation, but the power company refused to explore such options. There were and are many reasons for the citizens to fight this, first off all of the ones that I spoke to had lived in West Jordan before Jordan landing. Most of the reasons are due to the large power poles that would run from 2700 S to 3200 S would be an eye sore, remove property, and hurt property worth. Also it makes little to no sense to put the poles up in the first place, it will cost $100,000s to install the poles, and $100,000 more to move them in 2 years when the road is widened. The data that was presented on the cost of burying the poles were proved false in the meeting by at least 2 council members and several residents. I just couldn’t understand why the power company would want this one spot, and I do not have any one definitive answer other then stock, growth is good makes investors happy even though if the growth isn’t necessary and pointless and hurts over all % earned that doesn’t matter as much anymore, just the immediate $ and growth not long term, but I do not know much about this subject.
So overall the council that originally set up Jordan Landing blew it by not making Utah Power build at the start at Jordan Landing. It is a colossal waste of money to install those poles now, and an extreme eye sore that would require the removal of 100s of trees, and open space. The plant itself will remove an ugly field which is still open space but not too much of value. Why should the citizens be stuck with this, they got stuck with extra traffic already. (Jordan Landing was not widely supported by the populace in West
Jordan) Personally I have not seen any pure evidence about the need for power in the area anyways, and until true hard evidence about how it is necessary to build there and not in Jordan landing, or in the already zoned land or upgrade current stations or just bury the lines instead of using poles than I may say ok we need it. But absolutely no evidence has been given as to why any of those won’t work, do not blame just politicians for playing politics, these huge companies hold a lot more power than the city council and they play powerful politics and that is why it looks as if Utah Power will get what they want
I was also at the meeting before that vote (that's what the paper in my above post is about, basically) and while I admit the power company came across as patronizing and offensive, the members of the Council weren't shining examples of compromise, either. Not to mention the audience.
Yeah, I laughed when Kim Rolfe pointed out the property on 6200, but I also did follow-up research and found out that it wasn't suited for the project - it's just a small strip of land that doesn't have enough space to hold a substation.
The City Council admits that they need the extra power for the construction and expansion that has gone on. But after throwing Utah Power out on their backsides, and giving them extra costs to work with, how much incentive does the power company have to work with the politicians?
Post a Comment
<< Home