Vote NO on Incorporation
Let's review the basics.
1. A mayor's primary role is to attract businesses to generate revenue for public services. Fewer businesses will inevitably lead to higher taxes for residents because the financial burden of funding services falls directly on the citizens. Without a strong commercial tax base, there is no other way to balance the budget.
2. Sustainable funding for city services relies heavily on either business revenue or taxes paid by citizens. If businesses are limited or absent, the responsibility shifts entirely to homeowners, who will face increased taxes to cover essential services like road maintenance, public safety, and infrastructure.
3. Unlike unincorporated areas, cities are legally required to provide avenues for low-income housing development. This includes allowing fractional ownership, where multiple people can own a single home in a neighborhood, potentially altering community dynamics. Unincorporated areas do not have these mandates, offering more control over local housing policies and preserving community character.
4. Incorporating into a city introduces an entirely new layer of government—complete with its own bureaucracy, regulations, and administrative costs. This additional layer demands new taxes to fund salaries, city councils, and other operational expenses, resulting in a heavier tax burden on residents.
5. There is no assurance that a new city will be able to contract essential services—such as road maintenance, law enforcement, and snow removal—at the same cost or efficiency as the county currently provides. The economies of scale enjoyed by the county are not guaranteed for a newly formed city.
6. To function as an independent city, we will need to bond and increase taxes to finance the construction of city facilities like administrative buildings, public works garages, and other necessary infrastructure. These are substantial costs that will come directly from the pockets of residents.
7. Be wary of what you read in the local paper—it often lacks true journalistic integrity and is filled with biased spins from pro-incorporation sponsors. It's essential to scrutinize these narratives and question the motives behind them, rather than accepting them at face value.
The following are the pro incorporation claims. I've replied to each point.
Be an informed voter. VOTE! Register to vote here: https://www.weberelections.gov/registertovote Your vote matters!
1. Local Control and Representation:
• Stronger Voice in Governance: Currently, Ogden Valley residents represent a very small portion of Weber County’s population, which means their influence in county-level decisions is minimal. Incorporation would allow residents to elect local leaders who better understand and prioritize the unique needs of the Ogden Valley community, rather than having decisions made by county commissioners who may not live in the area.
Reply - It’s not a certainty. Electing local officials does not always guarantee they will act in the community's best interest. Many enter politics with good intentions but can stray from their promises. Additionally, consider this: while Ogden Valley residents make up only about 3% of Weber County, we currently have 33% of the vote through Gage Froerer, a long-time Valley resident. This gives us significant representation without the risks associated with new and untested leadership.
2. Alignment with Local Values:
• Community-Driven Decisions: Incorporation would empower Ogden Valley to make decisions that align with the community’s values, particularly in areas like land use, zoning, and development. This is crucial in maintaining the rural character of the area, which many residents fear is at risk under the current governance structure.
Reply - By law, community-driven decisions are already ensured through the planning commission and the established decision-making process. The real question is: what happens when people disagree with decisions based on legal frameworks they don't fully understand? Can you point to a single decision that would have been different if handled by a local government? Take Eden Crossing, for example—if the county commission had voted differently, the developers would have taken the county to court and won due to vested rights. The reality is, incorporating could lead to inexperienced or reckless leadership making poor decisions that result in costly lawsuits, with taxpayers footing the bill. Worse yet, it could create a divisive environment where personal agendas take precedence, and those who oppose could face retribution. This process reeks of personal interest already.
3. Control Over Development:
• Better Management of Growth: Incorporation would give Ogden Valley more control over the pace and type of development, which is a significant concern as the area experiences increased growth. Local governance could help prevent developments that are inconsistent with the community’s general plan and ensure that growth is managed in a way that benefits residents.
Reply - This is yet another misleading argument. State laws also dictate land use regulations, and unless someone plans to halt all growth and buy up every piece of land to "preserve" it, this argument holds no weight—it's fear-mongering. Ogden Valley would still have a planning commission, and any extreme measures, like Shanna's suggestion to move to a 4-acre minimum lot size, would be considered a "taking" and may greatly hurt landowners. Moreover, as residents age, managing large plots of land becomes impractical. How do you propose controlling landowners who wish to sell their property for retirement? Additionally, state and federal mandates require every city to provide a certain amount of affordable housing. As an unincorporated area, we currently have more flexibility and protection, avoiding mandates that cities face. The claim that incorporation would give us "control" over growth is an illusion. We must recognize the realities of existing regulations rather than buy into surface-level arguments that sound good but don't hold up under scrutiny.
Regarding developers, let’s be clear: who are we really blaming here? The landowners who sell their property to secure a reasonable retirement? Or the people who buy the homes built by these developers? Many of those loudly demanding more "control" have themselves moved here and purchased homes—homes developed by the very entities they now criticize. Why is the blame placed solely on developers? Blame is a weak argument; it’s driven by emotion and lacks rationality. Instead of scapegoating, we need to recognize that growth and change are complex issues involving multiple stakeholders and perspectives. Blaming one group ignores the reality that every resident has played a part in shaping this community.
4. Financial Feasibility:
• Potential for Fiscal Surplus: A feasibility study indicated that the proposed incorporation area could maintain a budget surplus, meaning the city would have enough revenue to cover its expenses without needing to raise taxes. This financial stability is a positive factor in supporting the move towards incorporation.
Reply - This claim is infuriating because it is fundamentally misleading. If you actually analyze the feasibility study and examine the multiple scenarios we've presented—two, three, even four different models—you'll see that the only way this proposal becomes financially viable is by significantly increasing the number of businesses and residents—exactly the kind of growth we supposedly want to avoid and purpose of the incorporation. The fact that the county explicitly disagreed with the numbers used in the study, even going so far as to include a letter of dissent in the report, is telling. One of the most glaring inaccuracies relates to road maintenance costs. The reality is that we would not be able to maintain the same level of services we currently enjoy. To suggest otherwise is not just misleading—it's downright irresponsible.
5. Enhanced Services and Infrastructure:
• Improved Local Services: Incorporation would allow Ogden Valley to directly manage services such as road maintenance, snow removal, and public safety. This could lead to better service levels tailored to the specific needs of the community, rather than relying on county-provided services that may not fully meet local expectations.
Reply - After speaking with the Sheriff, who reached out to me to understand what's happening here, it became clear that the costs associated with "enhanced" local services are being grossly underestimated. The Sheriff mentioned that when someone from the incorporation effort met with him, he provided a document outlining the projected costs for just the sheriff's services. I strongly urge you to attend one of their meetings and hear directly from him—you'll likely be shocked by the real numbers. The feasibility study didn't use actual costs for several critical areas, and it shows. However, this is currently a legal feasibility practice.
We will receive fewer services than we do now, and to get more, we’d have to raise taxes. It feels like a case of wanting all the benefits without understanding who pays the price—much like kids expecting their parents to cover everything for college. I hesitated to use this analogy, but it fits perfectly.
Summary:
There have always been ways to be involved in what happens in our valley. The problem is, people often don't engage until they feel negatively impacted, and then they assume mistakes were made or the laws are flawed. The truth is, they weren't involved when they had the chance.
How many people will truly stay engaged once this is all set up? How long until disillusionment sets in and accusations start flying that the new mayor or council members are corrupt? Even if they aren't, someone will think they are, and suddenly, we’re in conflict with our neighbors. That’s not the kind of community I want.
I'm voting no. Incorporation could make sense in the future if we limit it to a smaller area and are open to more businesses. This proposal, however, is fundamentally flawed. And let’s be clear: the notion that this is our “last chance” for incorporation is pure fear-mongering. We will always have the opportunity to revisit this option when the circumstances are right. This rushed and misguided push is not it.
Vote! And share this newsletter with everyone. They have the paper and an extensive email list. We have each other. Let's save our valley! Share and VOTE!
Register to vote here: https://www.weberelections.gov/registertovote Your vote matters!
Join the chat on facebook - Keep Our Valley Free.
Comments