Here are some details on our more recent efforts to STOP Kane Creek Development.First, please join us this Sunday, November 17th (meet at 11AM, main event at high noon) for a safe and legal protest of the proposed development. Use your First Amendment rights to tell the reporters why investors should drop this project like a hot potato.We are asking anyone in a car (unless you’re a journalist) to meet at the large parking lot at the end of the paved part of the Kane Creek road (AKA the Jackson parking lot, the one where the road enters Kane Canyon) at 11AM. We will have a shuttle or carpools arranged to get people to the protest site, which is at the ledge overlooking the bulldozed area (the BLM trailhead that allows access to Behind the Rocks). If you’re on a bike or are a journalist or a photographer, you can park at the limited space at the protest site (we’ll have signs). We plan to have hot food and drinks there as well as sign-making supplies and places to write letters etc. A lot of this is to be documented for social media and to provide directly to media outlets, so let’s have fun! We ask everyone to be careful not to damage any property, trespass, or otherwise break the law, since that gets us in trouble. TELL YOUR FRIENDS!
Other Updates: Zoning
We have filed a formal request that Grand County take a position on the legal zoning of the parcels proposed for development. The development, as currently proposed but not approved, depends on the developers’ claim, based on a nonbinding County map, that nearly all the property is zoned Highway Commercial. Our extensive research, conducted when the County admitted that the zoning was uncertain, found no legal basis for that claim, and lots of evidence that, at the very least, the floodplain being bulldozed was zoned Range and Grazing. That zone allows only very low-density residential development, not hundreds of luxury homes and a country club.
Even more intriguing, the 1992 ordinance that changed part of the property to Commercial was supposed to be for a 10 Acre parcel hosting a small campground, according to County records. There is much confusion as to how those 10 Acres gradually became over 150 Acres of Highway Commercial on the unofficial online County Zoning Map. The Grand County Commission will hear our case on December 3rd. While the zoning is a moot point should the property become a “preliminary municipality” under SB 258, the zoning would be highly relevant should the developers fail to fulfill the SB 258 criteria, as the property would revert to the original zoning. We will let you know what the Commission decides.
Water
We, along with local organization Living Rivers, have been able to completely halt construction at the development site since May via our challenges to the developers’ water supply. A volunteer spotted that the water well the developers were using was not permitted for use—due to our challenge to the well’s water rights. Construction cannot continue without water, and there is currently no other water source. The developers can develop other water sources, but not without great expense. They are pursuing other avenues to bypass County laws, but water law is state law and cannot be bypassed (and given the sensitivity of water law, we can hope that they don’t have friends in the state legislature willing to rewrite the law for them). We plan to pursue the water issue, and we assume they are doing so as well. SB 258
Because of its complexity and riskiness, the proposed resort community at Kane Creek triggers a LOT of local, state and federal laws. We have been prioritizing our resources on the laws that seem most likely to have an impact on the development–county, state, and federal. County law was becoming a significant hurdle for the developers due partly to local opposition as well their own failure to conform to existing ordinances. In order to sidestep county law (zoning, road upgrades, sewer permitting, building permits, etc.) the developers have a brand new state law, SB 258, which allows them to create a “preliminary municipality” with nearly all the powers of a town or city, but no residents (the developers literally write the town’s laws themselves). This new state law appears to have been tailored for this development (similar to HB 22 in 2022).The law went into effect May 1, and that day, the developers filed to begin the process of becoming a preliminary municipality. We are monitoring and planning to participate in that process. If the developers are able to secure their own “town,” which is likely because the law exactly fits their circumstances, we will carefully monitor their activity and ensure that they are following all laws governing municipalities (financial reporting, open meetings with public comment, transparency, and similar). Regardless of whether their effort to become a town eventually succeeds, they must still follow state and federal laws and must be able to secure significant contributions from the City and County (or pay for things like, just to pick an example, a multi million-dollar expansion of the Kane Creek road themselves, as well as getting federal, state and local permits). We will also continue to ensure their compliance with state law (particularly water rights) and federal environmental protection laws. Fundraising
Thank you to everyone who attended our Fisher Creek Brewing Fundraiser in SLC on September 12th! We raised over $7000 at the event. Thank you to Fisher Brewing, the Bands, Artists, and Bike industries for their donations of space, artwork, items, and music! The money is being used to fund our legal fund to challenge the developers’ water rights. If you couldn’t attend, you can always donate to support our litigation fund, which takes up the overwhelming majority of our budget. Donate
Volunteer Needs We have ongoing online research projects for anyone who can collect and record needed information. Click below or email us at [email protected]
A new Utah law, effective May 1, and seemingly tailored (yet again) for the Kane Springs Development, allows developers who own unincorporated land to create a “preliminary municipality” on vacant land, appointing a mayor and town council to pass all land use laws with the same powers as the elected government of an ordinary town.
Though the ramifications of this bill spread far outside Moab, this would allow the developers of the proposed, controversial luxury resort at Kane Creek, who were just denied a sewage treatment plant permit, to completely bypass county law, while also forcing the county and Moab City governments to pay for things like road expansion.
The law, sponsored by State Senator Curtis Bramble, allows up to three “preliminary municipalities” per year to bypass County land use controls by incorporating and passing their own laws governing development, so long as they meet a few simple criteria—which are mostly there to ensure that the developers actually build a municipality there.
The law was introduced March 19th, less than two weeks for the end of Utah’s legislative session. It was subject to less than four minutes of Senate hearings with no witnesses and one question, and less than ten minutes of House hearings with no witnesses and one questioner. It received no media coverage.
In the hearings and in subsequent talks with Utah residents, both State Sen. Bramble and House Rep. Dunning, the bill’s sponsors, have emphasized that the bill is “about affordable housing.” However, SB 258 requires only that developers “intend,” at the initial application phase, to make 10% of the units onsite affordable housing. The concept appears nowhere else in the bill and is thus completely nonbinding.
Though the law exempts Utah’s larger counties for unexplained reasons, it applies to the more real counties in the state. It is most likely to affect two counties that have tangled with the state or developers on where and how developers can build—Summit County (Park City) and Grand County (Moab).
A similar bill in 2023, HB 359, which appeared to be tailored to assist an unpopular development in Summit County, was repealed in a special session. Moab citizen group Kane Creek Development Watch calls upon the Utah Legislature, especially those legislators who appear to have voted for this bill without paying attention to its contents, to repeal SB 258 as a fundamental contradiction to the idea of democratic government—allowing 3 or fewer landowners to write their own laws, overriding those passed by the democratically elected County government.
SB 258’s sponsor, State Sen. Bramble, is a Provo Republican who has twice previously sponsored legislation that overturned a law or government action in Moab or Grand County. The last time, in 2023, was to help the Kane Creek developers control their sewer plant oversight board. It dissolved the County’s board and allowed the developers to create their own. Bramble admitted to the Moab newspaper that the law was targeted at Grand County.
New Utah law, SB 258, went in effect May 1st, 2024
Allows a developer to create a “preliminary municipality” on his private property so long as he intends to develop it to at least 100 residents within 6 years
A “preliminary municipality” has all the powers of a city or town, including all land use, zoning, and utility authority, except taxation and eminent domain
This allows developers to completely bypass County laws and build what they want
The City Council and Mayor and (called the Board and Board Chair in most of the new law) are appointed by the landowners (except one member of 4 Council may be appointed by the County)
Only three proposed preliminary municipalities may apply per year
Complete requirements for approval to make this new town:
No minimum population (can be zero)
3 or fewer landowners and all agree (Kane Creek proposed development has 3)
Contiguous land area (unless some federal land is needed to connect common interest ares)
Within 1 county
At least 50% of land area undeveloped
At least 0.25 miles from an existing city or town
Cannot be in 1st or 2nd class counties: Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, or Washington
The proposed municipality cannot contain parts of another proposed municipality or annexation area
Developers must “INTEND”
When fully developed, residents (undefined re: vacation homes) will be at least 100
Average population density of at least 7 people per square mile
10% of total housing is affordable (note: affordable housing appears ONLY as an “intent” in the initial application. The affordable housing “requirement” is not binding as it appears nowhere else in this law).
A state assessment of the development plan must conclude that, once developed, it is likely to generate enough tax revenue to cover its municipal expenses
The public and other government agencies have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal, but the review process has no ability to change anything. The sole requirements are the ones above.
As soon as the population of the preliminary municipality reaches 100 people, that it must transition to an ordinary town and hold elections. It must do this within six years, or it is dissolved, and the control, duties, and infrastructure revert to the county.
Early in the process, developers are required to post a bond, a cash deposit, or a letter of credit showing that they can pay for the completion of the infrastructure in their plan. They are gradually refunded this money as they build infrastructure. If they fail to complete within the time period, the remainder of the money stays with the municipality. However, the municipality would be run by the board and board chair that the developers appointed. The legislation does not specify how a letter of credit might ensure that money to complete infrastructure strays available in the event of bankruptcy or dissolution of the development company.
Moab residents and visitors alike are in an uproar because as you are reading this, Trent Arnold, Tom Gottleib, and Craig Weston are having a National Park quality landscape scraped and filled to make room for luxury homes for the Uber Rich. The area is rich in Archeological resources, and is the gateway to Moab’s most beloved trails. This has to STOP. View the article here.
