Survey Conducted by The Weber Sentinel, October 2003 Survey of candidates for city offices, 2003 election cycle Sentinel Staff feedback@webersentinel.com In the second week of October, the Weber Sentinel sent a list of 8 survey questions to each candidate for city office in the towns we deliver to: Farr West, Harrisville, Hooper, Marriott-Slaterville, North Ogden, Ogden, Plain City, Pleasant View and West Haven (we attempted to reach the Huntsville city office, but no one was ever there). We received replies from candidates in each city except for Farr West, although it cannot be certain that anyone who isn't listed here did not attempt to reply. The crunch of an early publication schedule and the large number of mailed surveys prevented us from re-contacting each candidate to be sure. Below is the list of questions the candidates received, along with and explanation of why we think the question is important. We believe that the most serious infringements of basic rights generally occur at the city level, not at the federal level, and often involve property rights. Afterward we list the replies of each respondent. Unfortunately, only three who responded kept within the allotted 100-word limit, which was probably inadequate to begin with. Still, we congratulate Matthew Godfrey, Steve Huntsman, and another respondent who unfortunately forgot to sign his or her name to the survey, for keeping their remarks brief and within the 100 words. Other replies have had to be abridged in order to fit them in the paper. If you want to be sure whether you understand your candidate properly, contact them to see if our condensation is accurate or if they have something to add. We took care to convey the original intent of the responses as well as we could understand them. Publisher's questions and views: l. Do you approve of the trend in local governments to regulate or control private as well as public property? This socialistic trend is dangerous to all property owners. Control is the essence of ownership. If governments can control private property they in essence have ownership of it, hence socialism/ communism. 2. A city council member's first loyalty should be to A) the wishes of constituents, B) the principles of the Constitution. This is the question that separates statesmen from politicians. Politicians do what is "popular" while statesmen do what is morally right even in the face of displeased constituents. As Americans we are forever indebted to the founding fathers of our country because they put principles above popularity and we, the often-selfish posterity, are the beneficiaries. 3. Should forcibly collected tax revenue go to provide entertainment such as swimming pools, sports programs, senior centers, and skate parks? If governments own, control and force funding for entities which are elective, meaning those that do not provide for the common defense and welfare, then they move further down the dangerous and slippery path to socialism. 4. Should governments be monopoly owners of businesses that could be operated by private enterprise? Governments should rarely if ever be monopoly owners. An example of how this is abused is the water delivery system. Local cities often deny use of private land until landowners agree to connect or participate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with communities working together, but when they mandate participation and funding they have taken ownership. Aside from the fact that private systems are almost always more efficient, the monopoly question is even more disconcerting. 5. Should planning commissions have discretion to decide how private property must be used before granting permits? Planning commissions were originally set up to advise the elected officials concerning the wise planning of public property. In many cities they have metamorphasized into an unelected socialistic dictatorship. Planning commissions are out of line when they pass any decision on private property. 6. Is it legitimate for city government to plan private as well as public property? This question is similar to the question above except it includes the city's full body of hired staff, elected and appointed officials. Our hired city staffs could be slimmed, the city council agenda items could be reduced enormously and the satisfaction level would soar if city concentration was on public property where is should be and not on private property where it should not be. 7. Do zoning laws allow individual land-use decisions to be made based on whether a neighbor is being harmed, or are all restricted the same regardless of whether there is an impact? Zoning laws impose usage restrictions from a government entity onto multiple private land and neighbor situations. There is no allowance for individual circumstances or neighboring land issues. The danger of "zones" can easily be seen when a zone is changed. At once, by mandate of a council vote, everyone in that zone has new restrictions on his land without the important consideration of individual circumstances. 8. Do you think zoning laws help or hinder business efforts to control costs, prices and congestion? Zoning laws limit business location opportunities resulting in increased, costs which are passed to the consumer. Traffic is congested and drive times increase as businesses are compressed into one area. Natural economics would put businesses in the best locations to serve the consumers.