Anyone who listens to the show might be shocked to learn that I support Senator Chris Buttars legislation that would require students to have parental consent before joining clubs at high schools.   The intent of the bill is to require parental consent before joining a “gay straight alliance” at a high school.   Because all clubs must be treated equitably, all clubs will require the signature.

From the Tribune:

The move to restrict gay student support clubs in high schools resurfaced at the Legislature on Tuesday and passed its first committee hearing with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.
The controversial and complicated bill that affects all school clubs, curriculum-based or not, failed last year when House Republicans avoided the debate late in the session.
The legislation is the brainchild of Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who believes so-called gay-straight alliances are “conditioning” clubs aiming to recruit students to a gay lifestyle.
Confident he has the support of a majority of senators, Buttars asked Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, to start the bill in the House.
Tilton’s view differs from Buttars’. He says he isn’t trying to eliminate gay-straight alliances but he wants parents to be aware their children are members and have a chance to review any material presented to the club. Although he has never attended an alliance meeting, Tilton believes alliance members sometimes inappropriately discuss sexuality. 

First, let me be clear, that my reasons for supporting this legislation are much different than Senator Buttars.

In a perfect world, all parents would responsibly teach their children about sex and the consequences of sexual activity before marriage.    In a perfect world, teenagers wouldn’t engage in premarital sex and expose themselves to such tragedies as unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

But we don’t live in a perfect world, and because the ignorant and or irresponsible sexual behavior of  teenagers would otherwise harm themselves, others and society in general, it is necessary to teach sex ed in the public schools.   It’s an unfortunate necessity.   It’s another example of policy and law being written to target the lowest common denominator of society while at the same time being universally applied to affect all of us.

The public schools are a terrible venue for the exploration and understanding of human sexuality.    Sex is a serious matter that ultimately means different things to different people making an effective meaningful approach in public schools nearly impossible.

Parents have the right to teach their children about sex as they see fit.   That could be in a scientific, social and/or religious context or all of the above.   Parents also have the right to be aware of what is being taught to their children in the public schools.    And when a parent objects to the material and ideas on sex presented by or made available by the public schools, the parent has the right to preclude their child from such exposure- even if the child disagrees with the parent.

Sex ed is different than a club exploring, defining and understanding human sexual activity and orientation.   Sex ed is a preventative measure, while clubs based upon sexual orientation are exploratory.    Exploring human sexuality is way beyond the scope of the role of public schools.
That being said, I  don’t think these clubs are based upon actual sexual activity, orgies or “recruiting” people to become gay.  Those arguments are silliness based in ignorance.  The intention of the clubs is actually pretty good- to provide a safe place for teens struggling with their sexual identity and to promote understanding and tolerance of people with different sexual orientations.   Some argue that some kids can’t tell their parents they think they might be gay, and that they need a safe place to go.
And as worthy as those intentions are, they do not trump the right of the parents to be the sole determinants of what their child is exposed to.   When it comes to something as central to human identity as sexuality, a parent has an imperative right to know exactly what the public schools are making available to their kids.

It’s important to remember that this legislation does not ban gay clubs.    Minors are still free to join the clubs and their existance is by no means under threat.

The Utah State University Speech and Debate Team returned from their final
conference tournament this weekend at Pacific University in Forest Grove
Oregon.  Not only did they take first at the tournament and first in the
conference, they dominated the tournament.  The ten students that attended
the tournament returned with 38 trophies and the Northwest Forensic
Conference Championship.  One of the most impressive feats was the teams
“closing out” of several events.  This is where they take all the top awards
in an event.  Competing against 25 other universities at the tournament, USU
took first, second, third and fourth place in debate; first, second, third,
fourth and fifth place in Informative Speaking; first, second, third and
sixth place in Persuasive Speaking; and  first and second place in both
After Dinner Speaking and Impromptu Speaking.  The team also received a
special award given to only one school at the tournament called the “Quality
Team Award.”  This award went to the team that had the greatest number of
points per student entered.  Whereas USU had one of the smaller teams at the
tournament, the USU team won more awards than any school in attendance.
For the entire tournament, the team’s win-loss record in debate was 50 wins
and 8 losses.
Competing in  the Northwest Forensic Conference, Utah State was awarded
(for the third consecutive year)  first place in the conference.  Awards are
also given to the top speakers in the conference based upon the results of
all three conference tournaments.  USU’ s Di Lewis placed first in the all
conference awards and Trevor Linderman and Mike Smith tied for third place.

Individual results are as follows
Bryce Draper- 2nd After Dinner Speaking, 3rd place Jr Persuasive Speaking,
2nd Poetry Interpretation, 2nd Jr Novice Prose Interpretation
Nick West- 1st in After Dinner Speaking
Di Lewis – 1st place Jr Persuasive Speaking, 2nd Jr Prose Interpretation
Trevor Linderman- 2nd place Jr. Informative Speaking, 6th place Jr
Persuasive Speaking
Nate Dutson -1st place Impromptu
Trevor and Nate also placed 2nd in Duo Interpretation
Ben Reading- 2nd place in Impromptu
Natalie Cook- First place Novice Informative Speaking, 3rd place Jr
Informative Speaking
Mike Smith – First Place Jr Informative Speaking, 2nd place Jr Persuasive
Speaking
Jane McBride – 5th Place Jr Informative Speaking
Shannon Johnson 4th place Sr Informative Speaking, 1st place Sr Persuasive
Speaking

The debate results were as follows:
Mike Smith and Shannon Johnson went undefeated at the tournament and placed
1st
Natalie Cook and Bryce Draper placed 2nd
Jane McBride and Nick West placed 3rd
Trevor Linderman and Di Lewis placed 4th

In Debate Speaker Awards
Di Lewis was the top speaker of the tournament
Shannon Johnson placed 2nd
Mike Smith placed 3rd
Trevor Linderman placed 8th

In Novice Division Debate Speaker Awards
Nate Dutson placed 4th
Ben Reading placed 8th

This is the speech and debate team’s last tournament this year.  If you
have further questions about the team please contact Tom Worthen at
994-0023.  The director of the team is Tom Worthen.  The assistant coach is
Tom Grover.  The team thanks all those who have helped make this year’s team
possible.  Special thanks go to our generous donors and to the Language and
Philosophy Department and the College of Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences.

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People….

Should the Willow Park Zoo charge a fee? Would you pay a fee to go to the zoo?

More responses to our Iraq Paradigm Challenge

A new challenge… the Thad Box Conservative Rebuttal challenge

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

KVNU’s For the People offers the following tribute to Reggie Theus:  CLICK HERE TO LISTEN.

We look forward to his visit to Logan on February 5, when we know the Spectrum will show him an extra dose of Aggie hospitality!

Former News Quiz champion Craig Limesand participated in the Polar Plunge out at Hyrum Dam for Special Olympics and has posted pictures on his blog.

Way to go, Craig!

There’s no one in Mormonism that’s too big to do an interview with John Dehlin (frequent KVNU’s For the People guest host and North Logan resident) on Mormon Stories.   John just posted the first part of an interview he did with Dr. Richard Bushman on Joseph Smith.

I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but I am really excited to do so.   I have read Dr. Bushman’s book, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.     That book is one of the most important contributions ever to Mormon Studies.   I am not a professional historian, but I felt that the book read like some of Leonard Arrington’s- whose great accomplishment was the ability to write an exhausitve religious history that was both appreciated and accepted as accurate by both believers and skeptics, a nearly impossible feat.

Joseph Smith was a complicated man, a man I personally believe to be inspired, but complicated with weaknesses and shortcomings nonetheless.    In the passionate debate over the past two centuries about Joseph Smith, it’s been fairly rare to have an honest discussion about him.   Followers have been afraid to concede weaknesses and shortcomings in the man and his ministry, while opponents have been unwilling to concede goodness and virtue.    In reality, when we talk about Joseph Smith, we usually get two different men who only share a name, title, birthdate and martyrdom.

One of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about the State of the Union addresses by any President are the brightlines established for the pie in the sky policy goals- they’re always well beyond the President’s term and stewardship over the policy in office:

Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we’ve done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks — and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

2017?

Come on, Mr. President.   You have less than two years as President between now and 2017 and can make no gaurantees about what policy direction your successor will take.  We could have two more Presidents between now and 2017.
2017 is very convienient, because by 2017, the 2007 State of the Union will long be forgotten and there will be no relevent accountability for George W. Bush.    If the President was really serious about energy policy, or anything else in his speech from last night, his brightline would have set goals with target dates on or before January 21, 2009.

I’m watching the State of the Union, and Nancy Pelosi is not clapping for any statement the President makes in relationship to the Occupation in Iraq.    I would guess that this is because she see’s the President’s account of what is happening in Iraq as inaccurate, his policy failed, and his credibility zero.

However, that’s not how the demogogues of the right will spin this tomorrow.    I predict right now that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will take Nancy Pelosi’s lack of clapping as an outward admission that she really wants to see America lose.

Ridiculous.

In the second hour of tonight’s show, caller Doug suggested that the public be heard on the zoning enforcement issue.   We promised to provide contact information on this blog.

MAYOR
Randy Watts
(435) 716-9002
mayor@loganutah.org

CITY COUNCIL
Steven Taylor, Chairman
(435) 755-7044

sctaylor@loganutah.org

Joseph Needham
(435) 752-7149

joecn007@hotmail.com

Tami Pyfer
(435) 753-7529

tpyfer@loganutah.org

Laraine Swenson

(435) 755-8183

lswenson@loganutah.org

Steve Thompson

(435) 753-8254

Steve.Thompson@takicasuals.net

Tonight on an expanded special hour of KVNU’s For the People…

You’ve heard two nights worth of discussion on zoning enforcement in Logan, and it’s time for you to weigh in. We’re live and we’ll take your calls on your reaction to zoning enforcement in Logan, reclaiming inner Logan and the Lucherini case. It’s the 2nd week of the Utah Legislature. We’ll talk Beehive politics. And it’s the State of the Union tonight, we’ll preview the contents of the Presidents speech….

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on a special bonus hour of KVNU’s For the People….

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• 1/23 Gaurdian Unlimited: The Republican Revolt
  
• 1/23 AP: Bush to defend Iraq plan
• 1/23 Salt Lake Tribune: Do School Vouchers Belong in Utah?
• 1/23 Washington Post: Bush to face skeptical Congress

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…..

A continuation of last night’s discussion about zoning enforcement in Logan City. Tonight in the five o’clock hour are interviews are with Logan City Development Director Jay Nielsen and Logan City Council Chairman Steven Taylor. In an expanded special edition of For the People in the 6 o clock hour we’ll talk State of the Union, Utah Legislature Politics including School Vouchers, and our Iraq Occupation Conservative-Liberal Paradigm Challenge.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

Directionless strategy is costing America dearly.   From today’s Chicago Sun-Tribune:

In addition, this country pays very steep economic costs — what economists call “opportunity costs” — the costs of what is not done with the scarce financial resources we are devoting to war in Iraq. The price is particularly apparent as the president prepares to introduce a budget calling for cuts in child care, in education, in health care, and more.

Rep. John Murtha, the salty old Marine who chairs the House Armed Services Appropriations Committee, has been calling for redeploying the troops, and for letting the Iraqis settle their own civil war. This week, Murtha put out a document to remind people of the real domestic costs of staying in a war that costs nearly $9 billion a month, or $120 billion a year — not counting the interest costs, the costs of veterans’ health care and pensions, etc.

The president cuts Medicare and Medicaid in his FY 2007 budget: $5 billion will be cut over five years from Medicaid — money that the country will spend in 2½ weeks in Iraq; $36 billion is slated for cuts in Medicare — or about what the president will spend in a little more than 4½ months in Iraq.

The cost of six hours in Iraq would pay for the cuts in the National Institutes of Health research budget, cuts that are occurring even as scientists are starting to leave the field because of funding shortages.

For the cost of every 1½ months in Iraq — about $15 billion — we could provide health insurance for one year for 9 million children who now go without. Children who go without adequate health care when they are young find it more difficult to learn, and are more likely to develop chronic illnesses. We are not only stealing from their promise, we are adding to our own future health care bills.

At the price of 12 hours in Iraq, the president’s budget cuts off food packages for 400,000 elderly poor people from the supplemental food program.

For the cost of 2½ days in Iraq, we could help 463,000 low-income students attend college, by paying to reverse the Perkins Loan program reductions in Bush’s FY ’07 budget. Thirteen days would enable us to reverse the cuts in funding for over 40 education programs, ranging from support for drug-free schools, to federal support for technology centers.

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

In recent years, Logan City officials have begun focusing on an effort to enforce zoning laws that in past years and decades have either not been or inconsistently enforced.

The intention was to restore the quality of older neighborhoods, particularly those in “inner Logan”.   There were complaints of homes being split up into multiple units, too many residents in units, cars parked on lawns, and loud parties late into the night.   In short, many felt what had been once been beautiful neighborhoods with owner occupied units had deteriorated into high turnover, low maintained rental units- often illegally converted.  The topic of neighborhood reclamation in inner Logan through zoning enforcement even became an issue in the 2005 municipal election.

From Councilwoman Tami Pyfer’s website, posted immediately after the 2005 general election:

I will continue to support the enforcement of occupancy and zoning ordinances. Our enforcement process must prevent illegal uses while still protecting those property owners who legally rent their units.

Mayor Watts also campaigned upon an effort to enforce zoning laws and reclaim “inner Logan”.

The task of enforcement has fallen to Logan City’s Department of Community Development, headed by Jay Nielsen.  Right now the system is complaint based, meaning that the city only responds to complaints by citizens, which are kept anonymous by the city except if the case goes to court, or meter readers with the City’s Light and Power department.   

The task of enforcement is a complicated one.   A long history of sporadic, inconsistent or hands off code enforcement by the City combined with various changes in zoning has left a sea of legal and illegal rental properties swirled together, making discerning between the two difficult if not impossible.   Further complicating the question of legalities are Logan City’s records.  The City has no records of building permits before 1962, which could establish whether some of the older rental properties are legal or not.

When a question arises about whether a rental property can be grandfathered into current zoning, based upon it’s original compliance with the zoning at the time the building or unit was constructed, the burden of proof lies with the property owner.  From the City of Logan’s website:

Grandfathering is the process of establishing that an existing nonconformity was established legally and that the use has been “continuously occupied” since it was established.  The research is conducted by the Department of Community Development staff, however, the burden of proof to establish a that a nonconformity is legally existing rests with the property owner.

As you can imagine, many of these properties are decades old, have had multiple owners and the task of proving “continuous occupancy” over long periods of time can be a Herculean effort.

Tonight we speak with Steven Lucherini, his parents Ray and Carol Lucherini, live in Logan in a home they purchased in 1978.   The Lucherini’s live in the upstairs of the home, and in the past 28 years have rented out the downstairs.   Logan City became aware of the arrangement and felt that the basement apartment was in violation of current zoning, which only permits single family units in the area.  The Lucherini’s argue that they have rented the basement apartment for decades and that the basement apartment was originally and legally built as a part of the home. The Lucherini’s initiated a review and appeal process to determine if the home could be grandfathered, which ultimately ended in denial.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: 

• Logan City Zoning Maps
• Logan City: How to “Grandfather”
• TamiPyfer.com
• 11/07/05 Utah Statesman: Candidates ready for election
• 05/16/04 Herald Journal: Rental War

Today’s Tribune has an excellent article on school vouchers.   The article explains a Milwaukee program that is touted by advocates and lobbyists for school vouchers, and the Utah proposal, which is markedly different.

The Utah proposal, unlike Milwaukee, would allow vouchers for the entires student population.    Any parent could pull their kids from public schools and put them in a private school.    If they can afford it.

Here’s the problem, folks.    The voucher money from the state isn’t necessarily going to cover the tuition for a private school.     Infact, it is likely to only cover a small portion of it.   Why?  Simple economics.  Any time you have an increased amount of money (school vouchers) chasing a fixed number of goods and services, it drives the price up.     Access to the good private schools will be determined by which parents have the resources to pay the most above the rate of the voucher.    As a result, even though parents will have choice in the voucher system, they won’t necessarily have access to quality alternatives.      Children of poor, working and middle class students will be left behind in public schools that are percieved as or are actually failing.

From Bruce Smith’s column in today’s Herald Journal:

But when the final buzzer sounded and the Aggies won the game by one point the ugliness began. The Spectrum officials must have anticipated that the students were going to rush the floor if the Aggies won because they had a dozen or so ushers stationed on the student side. They attempted to stretch a rope in front of the student section to stop them from charging onto the floor at the end of the game.

It didn’t work; the students paid absolutely no attention to the ushers or the rope. As the final buzzer sounded, several hundred of them streamed onto the floor. The majority of them just wanted to give their favorite player a pat on the back and congratulate the team for their win.

Unfortunately, instead of giving the Aggie players a pat on the back, many of the students took the opportunity to get into the face of the Boise State coach and players still on the floor and began taunting them. They were totally obnoxious toward the opposing team members and showed absolutely no class.

Fortunately the Boise State players demonstrated some self control and just ignored the best they could the tasteless in-your-face taunting of the students and got off the floor as quickly as they could. Who knows what ugly scene would have taken place if one of the Boise State players had been provoked enough to take a swing at one of the obnoxious taunting students. Fortunately that didn’t happen.

I wasn’t at the game. I didn’t see the crowd afterward in first person. I have reviewed several video clips of the end of the game on YouTube (see here and here ), however, and I can’t see where any Aggie fans confronted any Boise State players.

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Maybe it did. Did any of you see what happened?

Even if it didn’t happen, the issue is a legitimate one. I have been attending Utah State basketball games since I was a small child, and I have witnessed true mayhem at the Spectrum. Not only is the Spectrum crowd loud and smart, but it usually has a couple of jackasses peppered through the crowd on good occassion.

A few wild Spectrum crowd moments I remember attending:

• A streaker at halftime that ran down the stairs and attempted an escape out the large tunnell before he was tackled and apprehended.
• The infamous Jerry Tarkanian water bomb. From the Las Vegas Review Journal, “That night, a group of engineering students tried to get even by placing a water bomb under the UNLV bench. When Tarkanian sat down at the start of the game, boom! He was drenched.”
• Idiots throwing gum at refs during the 2002 NIT Game. From the Statesman, “Following a controversial no-call on what the crowd viewed meant disaster with the Aggies down 72-69. A pack of gum was thrown at a referee. He immediately called a technical foul on the crowd, who came out to see the opening round of the National Invitational Tournament.” Many feel that pack of gum cost the Aggies the game.
• Toilet paper at tipoff of any ESPN/televised game. USU students used to throw toilet paper en masse from the stands following tip off of any major televised game (see this YouTube video). The stunt was intended to get USU on highlight reels. Stew Morrill didn’t appreciate the “tradition” or the technical fouls that came with it and respect for Stew has ended this tradition.
• Debris reigns down on UC Irvine and Jerry Green as he beats the Aggies with an amazing last second shot that ended USU’s 31 game home winning streak. In response, many in the crowd pelted the Anteaters with Cokes, Candy and other items as they walked up the tunnel. The large canvas that covers nearly all of the visitor tunnel was immediately installed following this game and remains to this day.
• Debris thrown on several occassions. I have seen significant amounts of debris thrown by the crowd following losses to Pacific, New Mexico State and others. Especially with questionable reffing.

So the Spectrum has a long history of not only loud and racous behavior, but also totally inappropriate actions on the part of a few. I don’t know what more the University can do to stop idiots at games. Prosecution of people storming the floor is logistically impossible and probably a little heavy handed and unreasonable.

So, you’re a somewhat known Senator from Kansas (certainly not a household name) who wants to run for President.    How do you raise your profile and give your campaign momentum from the start?

Sam Brownback brilliantly announced the same weekend as Hillary Clinton.   It’s not intuitive.   Intuition says that Hillary gets all the press and overshadows the otherwise unknown Republican longshot.   But the media handles things funny.    Maybe it’s in the name of balance, maybe not,  but on all the cable news reports and newspapers, reports of Clinton’s Democratic candidacy was juxtaposed with Republican Brownback’s announcement.     Brownback rocketed his profile by announcing his candidacy on the weekend where he became the Republican ying to Clinton’s Democratic yang.   Strange as it may sound, Brownback used Clinton’s coattails.

Brownback even got a sympathy story from CNN’s Candy Crowly this morning on his low profile and how he was being overshadowed by Clinton- complete with several cuts from his announcement speech.

As the talking heads proceeded throughout the day, it became clear that the pecking order of Republican candidates has changed.   One and two are still Giuliani and McCain, but third is no longer Mitt Romney.  It’s Sam Brownback.   And Senator Brownback can thank Hillary Clinton for the political leap frog.

On last night’s show, I brought up a concept we’ve discussed before- that in American politics many of us are now aligning our positions based upon what our team is rather than what our personal political philosophies and values are.     We are treating our politics like Sports in that we cheer for our team regardless of their performance or strategy.   That’s fine in sports.   I’ve been a Jazz fan since I was 8 years old and stuck with the team for the last 3 years of difficulty.   I also love the Aggies and even go to football games at Romney Stadium.

But politics should be different.    I think we should define what our personal political philosophies and values are and let those be the guiding factors of our positions on issues.   We often criticize politicians for not having a moral compass or consistent positions, but what about ourselves?   Could these politicians be a reflection of the people they represent.

Too often today, we look at policy decisions through which “team” is making the decision rather than judging the policy on its own merits against our personal political philosophies and morals.  So when George Bush wants to escalate the Occupation in Iraq with 21,500 additional troops, some conservatives think, “Well, he does wear my team’s jersey, so I support the decision.”    Likewise, some liberals react to any Bush policy with the thought, “He wears the other teams jersey, which means he’s out of touch, doesn’t care about the little guy and is evil!  I am in opposition!”

I firmly believe that the Occupation in Iraq, in American public discourse, is hardly grounded any longer in actual political values and philosophies traditioinally tied to conservative and liberal schools of thought.    Right now it’s all about which politicians are wearing which teams jersey.

So I challenge you- our audience for whom this forum was created- to explain to me how your position on the War in Iraq is grounded in your personal political philosphy as a conservative or a liberal.    Prove to me that this audience and this valley is different than the rest of the majority of Americans.   Prove to me that you have an independent position!

Now, for me to call out the audience requires me to participate.   I will also write up a statement of how my personal values as a libertarian are directly tied to my position on the Occupation in Iraq.

You can participate by calling into the show or by emailing Ryan and I.    It would probably be easiest to fully express yourself by emailing your position, which we will publish on this site and read on the air.    You’re welcome to go either route.

A strong, relevent voice has come out against UVSC becoming a University.   From today’s Deseret News:

The longtime former leader of the school now known as Utah Valley State College says a proposed move to university status is a misguided effort.      In fact, he doesn’t support it at all.
“I think they’re going the wrong way,” Wilson W. Sorensen told the Deseret Morning News. “We have enough universities already.”

Sorensen later complains that he was not asked to testify before the Legislature.    That’s because the UVSC question is not one based upon whether the state needs another University or can even financially support one.   Rather, it’s a political decision wherein the large and powerful Utah County delegation is bringing home the bacon at the cost of further financially straining Utah’s other institutions of higher learning.   In an interview we did last week with Logan Rep. Fred Hunsaker, he indicated the Utah County delegation had already met on the issue and that it looked like a done deal.

In an interview last week with UVSC President William Sederburg, he argued that UVSC’s mission creep isn’t a threat to other institutions because the issue, in his words is not a “zero sum game”.    That would mean that the State is now willing to significantly expand it’s permanant financial commitment to higher ed, not just a one time $10 million allocation, which clearly the State is not.

Last night Ryan and I attended the Logan City Council meeting and were treated to some real political fireworks- on more than one issue.

The biggest explosion of the night came when Logan Downtown Alliance manager Gene Needham addressed the council regarding the hotel controversy (see here if not familiar) and in general the use of a city owned property on the corner of 200 North and Main.

Needham wants to see the property opened up to proposals for development, specifically a Marriott hotel.   The City maintains that the free market has spoken and that Marriott has expressed a preference for the location at 700 South Main with Wasatch Properties.   They argued that this was a manifestation of the free market, and that essentially nothing could be done by the city to intervene.

Well, not exactly.  The city offered Wasatch an incentive package for their project on south main.   There’s really nothing wrong with  this- it happens with big developments, stores and projects all the time in Logan and municipalities across America.    Just don’t call artificial incentives created by government free market forces.
When Needham argued that Marriott preferred the property at 200 North and Main, he was all but called a liar by Councilwoman Tami Pyfer.    The way Needham was treated as inappropriate.
Needham argued that the city should allow free market forces to guide the use of the 200 North property.   In response, City Attorney Kimber Housley astutely argued that the free market requires a willing buyer and seller, and that the city was not obligated to be a seller.

In the end, both sides would have liked to have claimed the ground of the “free market”, but neither could.