It is interesting to hear the comments from our Summit County Council regarding H.B. 356. This bill passed the Utah Legislature with minutes to spare and will divide all at-large councils, such as the Summit County Council, into five districts. At the time the bill was passed, Summit County was th e only county in Utah using the council form of government that was not districted.The result is our council members will no longer represent the entire county but instead will represent one of the five districts. This will supposedly promote greater participation from the east side of Summit County. Supporters of the bill also claim it will save money as candidates will only have to campaign in their own district rather than the entire county. According to KPCW, council member Roger Armstrong stated, “We’ve just been handed a flaming bag of excrement from the Legislature by districting the county seats, and instead of having this discussion as an unaffiliated, at-large legislative body, it’s now going to get divided into districts.” Armstrong went on to say, “If you think that the ‘not in my backyard’ problem was problematic, it’s now going to be a much louder drum.”In my view the most interesting comment elicited by KPCW comes from council member Canice Harte. Harte claimed the situation is “going to get ugly.” Harte has been supportive of plans for a public-private partnership on county-owned land in Jeremy Ranch, across the interstate from his neighborhood of Pinebrook. He uses this project as an example of potential conflicts created by the passage of H.B. 356.Harte told KPCW, “If in this theory, I’m the Pinebrook-Jeremy Ranch representative, and my people are vehemently opposed to this — as they will clearly articulate that they are — suddenly I have to change my whole position on this, because I represent, now, that group of people.”This statement is jaw dropping. Harte, as an at-large member of the Summit County Council, is supposed to represent his constituents throughout the entire county.  However, he spectacularly failed to do this when he voted to approve the Dakota Pacific project which had been overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of Summit County for nearly five years. If Mr. Harte seeks election to a particular Summit County district in the future, how can the residents of that district be sure he will advocate for their interests in light of his past actions?Vincent A. (Van) NovackPark City The post ‘A flaming ball …’ appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less