Via a comment on WUWM, the Utah State Supreme Court ruled that the citizens of Sandy fully complied with the law and should get a referrendum about a zoning change:
The court ruled this zoning issue is subject to a referendum, the group got enough signatures, and it ordered Sandy to put the issue on the ballot, meaning voters will decide if this old gravel pit can become home to big-box retailers Walmart and Lowes.More here, with a map of the proposed site:
The state's high court said Friday that Save Our Communities, a group of Sandy residents who have fought big box development, had enough signatures to force a referendum on a zoning change that would allow development on a 107-acre former gravel pit at 1000 East and 9400 South....I'm sorry I missed this when it was announced two weeks ago. As surprising as this may seem, I support this ruling (see caveat below), since the law is the law, and should be followed and enforced. Given the increasing powers weilded by zoning boards, they must be subject to and constrained by the people. However, for the consumers of Sandy, I hope the referrendum fails...At issue was the percentage of signatures needed for referendum petitions. The court clarified that zoning changes are not land-use laws, which require referendum petitions to have signatures of 20 percent of residents who voted in the last gubernatorial election. After this decision, zoning law referenda need signatures from 10 percent of voters.
The full opinion of the court can be found here (in PDF).
UPDATE: I've read the opinion, and have a few comments. I concur that since Sandy has a Mayor-Council form of government, and that the council is the legislature, and that all legislative acts are referrable, that the referrendum is allowed under law.
But the court provides ZERO reasoning or evidence as to why this zoning change is not a detailed "land-use law" subject to a signature requirement of 20% of the previous gubenatorial voters, instead of the more lenient 10%. (The referrendum gatherers got 16.2% of the voters). It seems pretty sloppy and subjective to me:
The salient features shared by the three examples listed in the statute is comprehensive scope and general applicability. All three of the examples listed by the legislature relate to situations in which a municipality hasI disagree that "general applicability" is a salient feature of all three examples, since an "annexation ordinance" (one of the three specified classes of "land-use laws", is not of general applicability. Is 2/3's enough to create generality? Beats me, and the court doesn't argue. The law is unclear here, and it seems to me that the court used its judgment while pretending not to do so.
completed a highly involved undertaking, be it the development of a comprehensive zoning scheme or the annexation of property, and is attempting to finalize that process through a legislative act. Although even a text amendment to a zoning category can be a complicated and involved process, we are persuaded that such an amendment is not of the same character as the comprehensive acts
listed in the statute.
Posted by Kevin on July, 13 2005 at 10:31 AM
John Henry wrote:re Ford and the $5 minimum wage:
Read Ford's 1923 book "My Life and Work" for a good, in depth, explanation of how the $5 day *minimum* wage worked and the philosophy. It goes into a lot of detail about the nuts and bolts of it. You can find the book online here
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hnfrd10.txt
Basically, it grew out of a profit sharing that he implemented almost when he founded Ford Motor. He was taking the profits and distributing a large part of them once or twice a year. He felt that his workers would be better off if they could receive the profits in their weekly paychecks instead of a lump sum bonus. The $5 represented about 1/2 normal pay rates and 1/2 a profit sharing bonus paid on a daily rather than a yearly basis.
I am also curious why you said it ended in 1917. I find no evidence of that and Ford is still talking about it in his later books "Today and Tomorrow" and "Moving Forward". Of course by that time it was somewhat more than $5.
I have spent the last 30 years studying, teaching, doing and consulting on industrial management and organization. I have read hundreds of books on the subject over the years. A few years ago I found "Today and Tomorrow" at Productivity Press and was blown away. Last year I found "My Life and Work" and could not believe it was written 80 years ago. It is as fresh as if it had been written yesterday.
*IF* Ford Motor, GM, CHrysler et al had followed what Ford had written, the auto industry would not be in the problems it is in today. All these "trail blazing" and "innovative" techniques that Toyota et al used to become so successful come directly from "My Life and Work".
I I could have only one book on manufacturing, this would be it.
I am so impressed I am putting my money where my mouth is and republishing it in a nice edition. Probably available by the end of the year.
One of the comments I make in the forward I have written is:
"I have never seen anything to indicate that Sam Walton ever read this book but as I read it I was struck by the similarity of Ford’s ideas to Walton’s. If one were to start a retail business today, using this book as the basis, the result would likely be something similar to like Wal-Mart and as financially successful. Both businesses were founded on the concept of driving out all waste, which drives down costs, which drives up volumes, which allows costs to be driven down further. If that is done, as Ford said in 1917, “The money will fall into your hands, you can’t get out of it.”"
Read the book.
John Henry
-- July 26, 2005 09:07 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:John,
I'll have to reread your comment at a better time of day, but here's a preliminary response:
I've been influenced by Stephen Meyer's "The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social control..." In it, Meyer writes of the impact that the world war had on Ford's paternalism. I don't have the book handy right now, but I remember from elsewhere that from the start of the five dollar day until mid 1917, prices rose 35%, essentially cutting $3.7 a day in 1914 dollars. Was the program officially killed in 1917? Now that you mention it, I'll have to look that up, although the payments were definitely modified heavily.
-- July 26, 2005 10:47 PM ∞
