My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:59:49 AM
Creation date
1/30/2009 9:45:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/05/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Zonin"g Bulletin <br /> <br />the case, the people's constitutionally-provided initiative power would be <br />ineffective and illusory. The court concluded that because ~ 20A-7-401 <br />prohibited a legal right provided to the people by the Constitution, it <br />was unconstitutional. Accordingly, SPC's argument that Hansen's initia- <br />tive must be prohibited in light of ~ 20A-7 -401's ban on voter initiation <br />of land use ordinance necessarily failed. " <br />The court next rejected SPC's alternative argument that Hansen's ini- <br />tiative should be prohibited because it was administrative in nature and <br />thus outside the scope of the voter's constitutionally-provided legislative <br />power. The court agreed that only matters of a legislative nature were <br />within the scope of. the people's constitutionally-provided legislative <br />power. Initiative measures that addressed administrative action were not <br />suitable for legislative action by the people through initiative. An initia- <br />tive seeking to undo an accomplished action taken pursuant to existing <br />law (such as adoption of budgets) would most likely be considered an <br />administrative action. On the other hand, an initiative seeking "to en- <br />act or modify a statute or ordinance of broad application," most likely <br />would be considered legislative in nature. The court found that Hansen's <br />initiative "modified the framework" to be applied to all coal-fired power <br />generation facilities seeking a conditional use permit in the county. As <br />such, the court concluded that it was clearly legislative in nature and <br />therefore within the people's constitutionally-provided initiative power. <br /> <br />See also: Bird v. Sorenson, 16 Utah 2d1, 394 P.2d 808 (1964) (rejected <br />by, Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 120 Wis. 2d 304, 354 N. W.2d 747 <br />(Ct. App. 1984)). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court noted that the only way voter"initiative power <br />could be prohibited was if citizens gave the legislature the constitu- <br />tional authority to suspend or forbid that poy.rer. . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.1" <br /> <br />", ./ <br /> <br />."! <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />. @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />.~\ <br />J <br /> <br />"') <br /> <br />., <br />) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.