KANE CREEK DEVELOPMENT
Latest Information
SB 258
PASSAGE:
Short facts:
- Introduced February 19, 2024
- First committee hearing February 21, where it was presented by Chair Curtis Bramble, unanimously passed out of committee with no witnesses or questions (recording). The “hearing” lasted less than two minutes (see link and transcript below). At no point did Bramble mention that this bill would allow developers to write their own laws.
- Passed the Utah Senate one week later, one question (February 26)
- Passed the Utah House 5 days later, one questioner (March 1) on the last day of the legislative session. The “hearing”last approximately ten minutes. At no point did Dunnigan mention that this bill would allow developers to write their own laws. Dunnigan heavily emphasized the affordable housing component of the bill, but never mentioned that it was unenforceable. (See link below).
- All votes were unanimous (though some with absences) except one lone unexplained House “nay” vote.
The following links represent every video available of the legislative process regarding this SB 258. If you want to see the bill history and explore the links, this is the link: https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0258.html
Floor Debates
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 38 (2/23/2024) [SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 41 (2/26/2024) [SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 41 (2/26/2024) [1SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 41 (2/26/2024) [1SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 41 (2/26/2024) [1SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
- House Floor Audio, Day 45 (3/1/2024) [SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Dunnigan]
- House Floor Audio, Day 45 (3/1/2024) [ SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Dunnigan] [repeat of previous]
- Senate Floor Audio, Day 45 (3/1/2024) [2SB258 Municipal Incorporation Amendments, Bramble]
02-21-2024:
First and only committee hearing.
Transcript:
Sen. Curtis Bramble: Senate bill 258 amends the Utah municipal code to provide for incorporation, preliminary municipality is what it’s called, describes the requirements and procedures for applying, the responsibilities of the lieutenant governor, and such. This bill, it’s a work in progress. The lieutenant governor, they had some concerns, I just talked to the lieutenant governor’s chief of staff, they’re working those out – I suspect there’s gonna be an amendment to this bill that would apply to the counties of the third through the six class, not the first and the second class counties because they don’t think, it really doesn’t affect Utah or Salt Lake or the larger counties. I am open to questions.
Temporary committee chair: To the committee for clarifying questions. Not seeing any – is there anyone here from the public, or online can speak to this bill? [pause]
Bramble: Oh, and I might note senator McCay has a municipal incorporation bill that we may be moving his language into this bill. We heard it in [revenue tax?] this morning.
Temporary committee chair: All right. Not seen anyone in the public, or online.
Back to the committee.
Bramble: I move we pass SB 258 out favorably.
Temporary committee chair: Comments to the motion?
Don’t see any. Back to the maker of the motion and the sponsor of the bill?
Bramble: Waive waive.
Temporary committee chair: All right, all in favor of senate bill 258? [aye]. Any opposed? [silence]. Mr. chair? [bramble, who is the chair of the committee, retakes the chair position that he had to vacate temporary early while his bill was under consideration. This means the bill has passed out of committee and can go to a general floor vote to pass it].
02-23-2024: Full Senate floor “reading” #1
Transcript:
Curtis Bramble: This bill amends Utah municipal code to provide for the incorporation of what is called a preliminary municipality. It’s kind of the first step and looking if they want to become a full-blown city.
With that, I am open to questions.
President Adams: Thank you, Senator Bramble, for your *brief* presentation. Questions for the sponsor? Senator Winterton.
Winterton: So does this, uh…it just adds to the requirements of the municipality incorporation? Or is this something new?
Bramble: This is a new designation. It’s kind of a, a test run. If you meet the qualifications and the preliminary study and the feasibility study, and all that, then the entity eventually could apply to meet the criteria for incorporating as a town.
Winterton: Thank you for the clarification. I don’t want us to be waiving anything, because we’ve got some entities out there that have not checked all the boxes and I don’t want an end run.
Bramble: And that’s exactly what – this is not an end run.
[Winterton nods and smiles, and sort of waves his hand in understanding].
Bramble: It’s kind of like an apprenticeship.
[Winterton smiles and sits down, Bramble smiles].
President Adams: All right. Further discussion? I see none? Senator Bramble, motion.
Bramble: Motion it is read for third time.
President Adams: All right, the motion it shall be read for a third time. Roll call vote. [roll call vote occurs]
21 aye, 0 nay, 9 absent.
2-23-2024
Day 41: Senate hearing
https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.jsp?meetingType=floor&stream=https://stream1.utleg.gov/vodsenate/smil:rSVID_154_022624_01.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=4241
Transcript:
Bramble: [says this is a motion to delete old bill 258 and substitute new bill for technical corrections to the language]. This is a bill that allows a preliminary incorporation, kind of a pilot, to determine whether they want to go forward with the city’s incorporation. I move the sub.
President Adams: Thank you, the motion is to substitute. Do we have discussion of the motion to sub? I don’t see any, I’ll place the motion, motion is too delete title and body, Senate il 258 and replace it with First Substitute Senate Bill 258. All in favor say Aye? [Ayes]. Any opposed, that motion passes, the bill is substituted.
2-23-2024
Day 41: Senate hearing
Transcript:
Bramble: What this does, this, us, makes this proposal a pilot project. With that, I’m open to questions.
Senator Milner: If someone is already in process on this, does this affect their process?
Bramble: This does not affect Ogden Valley, that is an incorporation of a city, not a preliminary—what this is called, is a um—let me pull it up—what Ogden Valley is doing is incorporating a city, this is a different—this would not affect them at all.
Milner: okay, that’s what I need to know.
Bramble: [laughs] I’ve gotten all kinds of email on it. This does not affect them at all. But if an area wants to say, “would this make sense to incorporate? Let’s try a preliminary municipality” this sets up a framework that they could then, eventually, if they lay all the groundwork, then they could become a city and they apply under the same provisions that Ogden Valley is doing. So.
Milner: Okay. Thank you.
President Adams: Thank you, further discussion, seeing none I’m going to you, Senator Bramble, for summation and a motion.
Bramble: then I would moose for passage of First Substitute Senate Bill 258.
President Adams: Thank you [calls for roll call vote, passes unanimously]
PASSAGE.
2-23-24:
Senate floor corrections for language
Sen. Curtis Bramble: Senate bill 258— this is the preliminary incorporation bill. Apparently there was, uh, additional language that, we thought we got all the sections, that use the term Mayor and we changed that to “board” for preliminary municipalities. So I move to reconsider our action, bring it again, and let me get an amended here.
President Adams: Give me the short title again?
Bramble: It’s for substitute senate bill 258 and it is, hang on a sec, “municipal incorporation amendments.”
President Adams: Do we have discussion? All in favor say Aye? [“aye”] opposed? [silence] Motion passes. We still have the bill in our possession, I assume, so I’m going to place it at the top of the third reading calendar. OK?
Bramble: Then I’ll just circle it.
President Adams: Get it to the top of the third reading calendar.
2-23-24
Senate floor amendment:
[Bramble makes motion to “uncircle” amended Bill.]
https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.jsp?meetingType=floor&stream=https://stream1.utleg.gov/vodsenate/smil:rSVID_154_022624_04.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3424
Bramble: What we’re doing with these provisional, what we call—preliminary municipalities. We’re not calling it mayor and council, we’re calling it board. [needed to amend the language]
[vote unanimous Aye]
Bramble: [notes that this is the fourth hearing]: This is merely a way to test the water, it’s a pilot program…I’m open to questions… [silence]. To be clear, this does not have retrospection applications and it does not affect regular municipal incorporation. With that, I call the question.
[Roll Call vote]: unanimous but with 8 absent —
Passes Senate, sent to House.
03-01-2024:[Text Wrapping Break]House hearing in which Rep. Dunnigan repeatedly claims that this bill is about affordable housing:
Transcript:
Speaker Schulz: Thank you Representative. The motion before us is that we adopt second substitute. Would you like to speak to that motion?
Rep. Dunnigan: Yes, the bill itself provides for a preliminary municipality; this substitute says that municipality doesn’t come to be within four years it is dissolved and goes back to the county.
Speaker Schulz: Thank you Representative. Discussion to the motion to adopt second substitute. Representative Kyle on the motion to adopt second substitute.
Rep. Kyle: Will the sponsor yield?
Speaker Schulz: Rep. Dunnigan, will you yield?
Rep. Dunnigan: Yes, yes.
Rep. Kyle: I just wonder if this will substitute or will affect any ongoing incorporation efforts?
Rep. Dunnigan: No, and to add to that, this is the good annexation bill. This is not—I’m sorry, I supposed to say that to begin with. This is the good annexation bill. This is not the bad—but not the bad incorporation bill, that’s still to come.
Rep. Kyle: Thank you. [laughs]
Speaker Schulz: Thank you for Representative Dunnigan. Or sorry, Rep. Kyle. See no more lights, we’ll go ahead [something] the motion. The motion before us is that we adopt second substitute SB 58 [sic]. All in favor say aye. [Aye]. Any opposed? That motion passes, back to Rep. Dunnigan for presentation.
Rep. Dunnigan: Thank you. So I need to reiterate that so many of you have received emails about an incorporation change for a town that is Senate Bill 252. Bad, that’s bad. It’s my bill! Still bad. So this is Senate Bill 258. It’s a good bill. And if we can keep them separate. Okay, this bill addresses a major need in rural Utah for additional housing. So it allows the creation of a preliminary municipality so— it’s only available in classes of counties three to six. They cannot be contiguous contiguous to existing municipality. The LG office has to perform a feasibility study just like any other incorporation and they cannot levy any taxes or receive any taxes, sales tax or gas tax or discretionary tax levies. They must assume all the repair and maintenance costs of any county roads, inside this new preliminary municipality and also within half a mile of it. And there’s a sunset review. So, picture in rural Utah you have a piece of land and somebody wants to develop it and to build housing on it. And it’s not next to a municipality. This would allow them a period of time to create a preliminary township. They can start going forward they can do the zoning, they have to bond or put up collateral for 100% of the infrastructure costs up front. Again, they cannot levy taxes, they cannot receive taxes. So this is only going to be for special circumstances [breathe, pause]. And they have to as I said, pay for all the repair of the existing County roads. They have to include 10% of the project of housing has to be affordable housing, which will help some of the rural areas. They cannot have more than three landowners. And to begin with, the developers— the landowners, I should say—serves as a board chair like a mayor and it has three board members which is like city council members. And then once they hit that town requirement of 100 residents, then they have to convert to a town and elect a mayor and elect a city council. This just lets them get started, put in some housing, go ahead with the zoning and go ahead with the development and then the county will provide the services to the preliminary municipality. Again after four years, if they haven’t hit that 100 person threshold and become a real town then they dissolve and go back to the county. With that I’m open to questions, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you Rep. Dunnigan, discussion to the bill…Representative Cutler!
Speaker Schulz: Rep. Cutler: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions represent Dunnigan will yield to a series of questions?
Rep. Dunnigan: Yes, yes, thank you very much.
Rep. Cutler: Giving land use authority in the form of this… and creating a new type of political subdivision, a preliminary municipality, is a significant policy decision, especially given this land use authority to unelected officials. Could you speak to the limits on the land use authority that would be granted under this bill?
Rep. Dunnigan: Sure. They have the zoning authority. So it’s their land, it’s their town or preliminary town. So years ago, the threshold to create a town was I don’t know only a few hundred people and we had people creating towns—or only a few people I should say, so we had people or entities creating towns and they never had the ability to afford the municipal type services. So we set it at 100. But that’s not a magic number, that can be lowered. So this allows them to start out lower to see if they can become a town they have to do the feasibility study. One thing of importance is they do not have eminent domain authority. There’s no eminent domain authority, again, they cannot levy, collect or receive taxes. So there’s there’s no really financial incentive other than they want to build housing and this will give them an opportunity to do that.
Rep. Cutler: Thank you If I may follow up.
Speaker Schulz: Yes, you asked for a series of questions Rep. Cutler, that’s okay.
Rep. Cutler: Could a sponsor speak to—in the unlikely—I appreciate and value that they’ll have to bond for infrastructure upfront. In the unlikely event that the development is not successful. How does this get unwound? For example, if there’s a bankruptcy or if there are other financial problems during the development? Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Dunnigan: So the developer has to put up upfront the entire amount of money or bond to cover all of the infrastructure if they get started, and it goes bankrupt. All that protection is still there. It reverts back to the county but the county’s got all that money to go ahead and do it.
Rep. Cutler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Schulz: Thank you, Representative Cutler, for the discussion. Recognize Rep. Lund.
Rep. Lund: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This is a good bill. As you look at it—in these rural counties, we do everything we can to convince people to either build in within city limits so that they can enjoy the benefits and utilities within a city or a town. But very often we’re not sure how to how to how to build a new town or how to start a new little little area that could that could actually be incorporated. This bill gives us a runway as as rural county commissioners, this will help them and the, the zoning— the planning and zoning. This would help them and give them a runway on how to actually help with the preliminary municipality and I, I are [charged?] supported this bill. Thank you.
Speaker Schulz: Thank you Rep. Lund. To you Rep. Dunnigan for summation.
Rep: Dunnigan: So this is another tool. We’re working on housing issues and affordability. This is another tool that can I believe will help rural Utah and I like the part in there that it’s got 10% affordable housing that means some of the workers, you know within the community, they’ll be able to afford housing. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Schulz: Thank you, Rep. Dunnigan. Voting will now be open on second substitute SB 258, Municipal incorporation amendments. Seeing all present, having voted, voting is closed. Second substitute SB 258 passes this body with 71 yes votes. One no vote, it will be sent or sign was sent to the Senate for further consideration.
A bit of extra language about this bill:
This law adds a new subsection to the Utah Code, creating a new kind of municipality (which is an incorporated city or town, not a county). Normally, to become a town, a place must have at least 100 residents (a City must have at least 1,000). State law has a procedure by which an unincorporated part of a county may become a city or town. It involves getting signatures from the residents, certifying population, and other procedures. Until that occurs, the unincorporated area is subject to the general land use control of the county.
SB 258 creates a process by which an uninhabited area with no more than three landowners can become a “preliminary municipality.” Under this new law, a preliminary municipality has the same power as an ordinary municipality under Utah law – including, the law specifically notes, zoning and land use control (as well as control over utilities, buildings, subdivision, events, law enforcement, and more). The 1-3 landowners may control all development on their land until they reach a resident population of 100, when they must hold an election.
Under SB 258 creates a process by which landowners can create a PM. They petition the lieutenant governor, bypassing the County entirely. They must show only that they area they want to make into a PM is contiguous (except for some narrow exceptions regarding federal land), is not in a County of the first or second class (which is based on population size, so Washington County plus everything along the Wasatch Front minus Cache is exempt from this law), and is at least a quarter mile from another municipality, is at least 50% undeveloped, is owned by no more than three people, they intend to have at least seven people per square mile unless less density is needed to connect areas with a demonstrable community interest. Several of these requirements come from the normal town incorporation requirements.
Interestingly, the people who petition to become a preliminary municipality, must show that they intend that at least 10% of the housing in the PM is affordable housing. However, the term “affordable” appears nowhere else in the bill, except for the definition section, which defines it in the normal way as 80% of the area median income. I could not find anything that says they have to follow through on this intent in order to complete the process.
The property owners must, with the information above, submit some pretty basic plat maps and descriptions and contact information. This starts a process that involves collecting information and notifying various parties of what’s happening. A feasibility study occurs under the lieutenant governor’s office, which looks at both of the criteria above as well as issues like tax revenue and fiscal impact. It also is supposed to include an analysis of whether there is sufficient water available to support the municipality when the proposed development is complete. However, I could not find anything in the law that made positive findings on any of these factors mandatory (except that the town would make enough tax revenue to cover its expenses). There must be a public hearing, and the opportunity for the county to review and comment. Again, however, neither the public nor the county has any ability to change or require anything from this plan, other than ensuring that the very basic qualifications listed above are met.
Once this early process is complete, the landowners can file to become the preliminary municipality. They form a board of three members and one board chair. None of these people need to reside within the preliminary municipality. There are no qualifications for these board members or the chair, but they assume all of the powers of a City council and mayor. The county has 30 days to appoint a single board member of the five.
There are a couple of small exceptions to the municipality powers. They can’t impose a tax and they can’t assert eminent domain.
They may enter into an interlocal agreement with a special district to provide utility services to the preliminary municipality.
This law requires the county to provide all services and utility connections to the preliminary municipality that it provides in other areas of the county, at the same rates, and with reasonable connection fees. The preliminary municipality must comply with county rules and tech specs for utility and other service connections only if they connect to the county system.
A preliminary municipality appears to only be responsible for roads that are inside their territory, about their territory, or are within half a mile and connect to their territory. This does not include *upgrading* roads to which they’ll be adding considerable traffic.
Within 30 days after the population reaches 100 people, the board must file a petition to become a town. An election to elect an ordinary town council and mayor must occur in the next general election.
The resident population of the PM reaching 100 appears to be the only requirement for the preliminary municipality to become a regular town. So the other requirement around affordable housing and anything else are only necessary to show at the beginning, when they are in the “intent” phase, but aren’t actually binding.
We can still stop this development from ruining Kane Creek.
Voice Your Concerns
Write the developers and tell them why this is the wrong development for Moab: [email protected]
Developer Information
Kane Creek Preservation and Development, LLC; 10466 Iverson Lane; Highland, UT 84003
NATIONAL PARK LEVEL SCENERY SHOULD NOT HAVE AN EXCAVATOR
We must stop the destruction.
Timeline of events
Ancient and Historic:
For thousands of years: Ancient indigenous peoples (sometimes called the Anasazi or Ancestral Puebloans), now descended by the Hopi and Puebloan tribes, farm the floodplain now known as King's Bottom. They hunt with chipped stone arrows, build their homes and storage structures on the upper benches, carve art and messages into the cliffs, and bury and honor their dead in soft-dug pits and walled-in alcoves.
1930s:
The Civilian Conservation Corps blasts and hacks the first developed trail from the Moab valley into the downstream Colorado River canyon to King's Bottom.
1930s-60s
Using some of the dynamite also commonly used in the area for uranium mining, descendants of settlers blast out big caves in the lower cliffs along the floodplain. Later, these caverns and the floodplain host the "Egg Ranch," which is exactly what it sounds like. The Kane Creek Road is often locally still called the "Egg Ranch Road."
1950s-80s
1992
The Grand County (Moab area) Commission re-zones part of the land along the Kane Creek Road to C3 (now called Highway Commercial). According to a Commissioner's editorial and notes from the time, it is supposed to be a 10-acre campground. However, the person writing the ordinance's map description, it appears mistakenly, writes the zone change to cover around 100 acres mostly on the uphill side of the road. Grand County and the developers have not yet publicized any official government act that changed the floodplain zoning from Range and Grazing, which has a 5 acre minimum lot size and would not allow anything close to this development. It is also uncertain whether the allegedly mistaken map description is legally binding.
1985
This is approximately the last year that any publicly available satellite imagery shows that the property is being irrigated to any visible degree.
2017
Craig Weston, a resident of Highland, Utah (near Salt Lake City) buys the land at King's Bottom (the floodplain area along the river). After purchase, Weston operates a small campground that has 1.5 stars on TripAdvisor, the lowest rated campground in Moab on the site.
2020
Weston, now "Kane Springs LLC," submits a plan to Grand County for approval for a 100 unit "glamping" campground in the floodplain and the mouth of Pritchett Canyon.
2020
Weston gets a letter from FEMA, based on the developer's engineer's findings, saying that if they pile enough dirt onto the floodplain, it will no longer count as floodplain and structures can be built there.
2021
2021
Weston adds two partners, resort developer Tom Gottlieb of San Francisco and Aspen, and Trent Arnold. Around this time the developers, now incorporated as "Kane Creek Preservation and Development," buy the approximately 100 acres of upper bench land adjoining the floodplain from Charles Nelson.
2021
Weston tells the Moab newspaper in late October that he plans to build a "research and innovation hub," "workforce housing," and a "sanctuary" for native plants. He says he envisions 30-50 housing units, but "mostly a center for research and development."
Late 2021 or Early 2022
The developers place a sign along the road by the development which reads "Kane Creek Natural Vegetation Restoration Project: Native Species Nursery," with a contact email. No other signage explaining the development has ever been placed at the site.
Early 2022
In January and February, the developers create and submit a revised site plan with a vastly expanded project (both from a 100-unit "glampground" as well as the "30-50 homes" and an "innovation hub"). This proposal includes 582 "dwelling units," 72,000 square feet of commercial space, the same "glampground," several 3-story condos, and an "amenity center" with multiple pools, a restaurant, a climbing wall, and other attractions (it looks like a country club in the plans).
Early 2022
The developers' traffic study notes that the developers expect 90% of the dwellings to be "recreational homes" (which in traffic study language means "vacation homes"), that it is "resort-style," that only "a small portion of the commercial space and amenities is proposed to be open to the public," that it will feature "private luxury stores," and that "it is unlikely the commercial space will draw consumers from Moab City based on the price point of goods and services on-site."
2022
Local luxury realty firm Sotheby's circulates a brochure among agents touting the "Kane Creek...highly amenitized luxury community." The brochure refers to 2-bedroom duplexes "around $1,500,000," "5,000 square foot, custom single family home[s]," and asks "what percentage of [your clients] would *not* be interested in renting their second home?"
2022
Craig Weston's attorney registers a new corporation (LLC) called the "Utah Workforce Housing Alliance." Weston's brother Kael Weston, an activist in the Democratic Party, is the sole person named on the paperwork. 3 months later and less than a month before the election, the "Utah Workforce Housing Alliance" donates $6,000 to the Grand County Republican Party, which makes the corporation the local Party's largest donor. This donation, because of its timing, does not need to be publicly disclosed until after the election. Later, Kael Weston tells the Salt Lake Tribune that he knew nothing about the contribution. The local party spends money to support the campaigns (either through advertising or direct contributions) of 3 County Commission candidates and a County Attorney candidate. Two of the supported Commission candidates and the County Attorney candidate win the election. The previous County Attorney, who had expressed doubts about the project, is ousted.
Fall 2022
The Grand County Commission forms the required "Improvement District" to oversee the proposed development's privately owned sewer plant, appointing 3 County Commissioners to the board. Shortly after, the developers' attorney writes a letter to ask the Improvement District to delay meeting so the various alleged "deficiencies" in the the public noticing and other aspects of the District's formation can be addressed.
2022
Craig Weston and Trent Arnold, two of the 3 developers (Tom Gottlieb of Geolo Capital and Aspen is the third) evict approximately 16 (number depending on who you ask) lower-income and mostly older people who had been living on the upper part of the property, mostly in trailers.
Winter Early 2023
At the end of the Utah state legislative session, legislator Curtis Bramble inserts a rider into a House Bill 22 that he said targeted an Improvement District in Grand County. It automatically dissolves any District's board that was created within certain dates but did not meet within 100 days. It provides for the creation of a new District board, which may only consist of property owners in that District, or their agents. The Kane Creek developers quickly form a new sewer plant oversight board consisting only of themselves.
Spring 2023
The Grand County Republican Party receives another round of donations either directly from Weston or from LLCs registered to his home or business address. The donations total $4,000.
Summer 2023
49 Moab area residents file a protest against the state's permitting of the private sewer plant, but the state grants the permit.
Summer 2023
Fall 2023
The developers submit an application to Grand County for a Conditional Use Permit to build a sewer plant on the property. Public hearings and votes have not yet been scheduled.
December 2023
January 2024
Moab locals and visitors, few of whom were previously aware of the process, now wintess a major earthmoving operation. A County Commission meeting on the 16th, to review the progress of the development, attracts hundreds of attendees and dozens of speakers. The only person to speak in favor of the project is Tom Gottlieb, one of the developers, who delivers a prepared statement via Zoom touting his conservationist credentials and the benefits of the development.
Late January 2024 - Present
Citizens hold a community meeting at Star Hall, forming a watchdog group with the goal of stopping the development entirely, purchasing the site, rehabilitating the damaged land, and turning it into a public park. They begin an outreach and public education campaign and form teams to collect information about the history, scientific analysis, legal and policy issues, and cultural interest regarding the site and the development. We fundraise with the primary goal of funding a legal campaign and the supporting scientific and outreach work to stop the development and return it to the local community.
Coming up (as of March 2024)
- The Conditional Use Permit hearings and vote to build a sewer plant
- A public hearing and protest period on the developers' application to change their water rights
- The process, and County Commission vote on the approval, of the "preliminary plat," site plan and subdivision plan
- The County's formal response and/or plan of action regarding possible zoning errors that would preclude much of the development
- The County's formal response and/or plan of action regarding the issue of "resource extraction" (AKA gravel mining) on the benches in a zone that doesn't allow that use
- The developer's efforts to get enough gravel to fill the site, and the possibility of flooding before they are finished
- The fallout from massively ripping down and reshaping close to 180 acres of ground in an area with a high density of indigenous American archaeological sites
- Watching the developers try to get the funds, permits, rights-of-way and federal law clearance to get about 3 miles of narrow road more than tripled in size—handling onsite issues of: the immediately adjacent and underneath Colorado River; a dozen or more flash waterfall channels that empty directly onto the road; several ancient petroglyph panels; designated critical habitat for multiple endangered species; overhanging cliffs that drop road-blocking stones; two campgrounds and a popular Jeep trailhead that share the narrow bench between river and cliff; uncertain and tangled existing rights-of-way; a patchwork of land owned by the federal government, Nature Conservancy, and several private landowners; the need to move a large regional powerline; and a hostile local population.
Key Concerns
Unified Community Opposition
Community opposition to this project is strong, as it threatens the scenic landscape, wildlife habitat, and cherished recreational areas that define our local identity and attract visitors to Moab.
National Park Quality Landscape
In any place less spectacular than Moab, the land around the proposed development would qualify for national park status. In addition to scenic beauty, it hosts numerous ancient indigenous sites and critical habitat for more than one endangered species and borders a Wilderness Study Area.
Building on Riparian Floodplain
In order to build this, the developers are piling between 4-12 vertical feet of sand and gravel on the Colorado River floodplain. This ground is where they plan to put hundreds of luxury homes, condos, country club, and private sewer infrastructure.
Errors + Omissions in Permitting
While we haven’t yet had the chance to prove this in court, our research has uncovered what we believe to be multiple skipped or inadequate steps in the various permitting processes. Local law and government appear unprepared for a development of this size in a place this much on the edge.
Interference with Local Government
The developers and their allies in state government have more than once interceded in local political or government affairs to change laws and fund candidates that would be more likely to allow this development.
Exclusive Luxury Resort
The developers pay a lot of lip service to affordable housing, but their own documents describe this as “an exclusive residential estate,” “resort style,” and “highly amenitized,” containing “private luxury stores,” $1.5 million duplex, 5,000 sq ft custom homes, and 90% vacation homes.
Location
About Us
News
Information
Get Involved
Donate