Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corridor Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates resolution urging West Salt Lake County cities to preserve highway corridor
Summary
House Resolution 3, introduced Feb. 22, 1996, urged West Salt Lake County municipalities to coordinate on preserving a corridor for a future highway to avoid costly right-of-way acquisition; sponsors cited the Bangerter Highway precedent and warned of displacement, while some members argued the legislature should not tell cities what to do.
House members debated House Resolution 3 on Feb. 22, 1996, a nonbinding measure described in the record as encouraging communities on the west side of Salt Lake County to coordinate and preserve a corridor for a future highway. The sponsor said the step would save the state money long term and reduce painful displacement of residents.
The sponsor (identified in the transcript as 'Armont Evans') told the chamber the resolution ‘‘urges those cities to get together and decide where that corridor is’’ and compared the proposal to earlier corridor-preservation efforts that enabled the construction of Bangerter Highway. He said the resolution is intended to be unobtrusive and to invite local councils and community input.
Opponents warned the resolution risks overreach into local decision-making. One member asked why the legislature must tell cities to coordinate and said the preservation occurred previously without the body’s urging. Another member cautioned against ‘‘telling the cities and towns’’ what to do, arguing local entities should make such judgments. The sponsor responded the resolution merely asks for coordination and cited Riverton as an example where 18 families faced displacement in a small community.
The motion record in the transcript includes a reported recorded vote earlier in the sequence noting '5 yes 0 no 6 absence' on a related reading of House Resolution 3; later floor discussion continued. The transcript does not include a clear final roll-call vote outcome for the later debate portion nor any text of an adopted plan for corridor routing in the record provided.
The debate highlights tension between the legislature’s interest in long-term cost savings for state infrastructure and concerns about municipal autonomy in land-use decisions. The resolution is nonbinding; any corridor preservation would require further local planning and likely additional statutory or funding steps not specified in the transcript.
