YouTube Video (4:39:25)
- Ostler: When you went and got the applications signed was the phasing proposal part of the packet signed?
- Edwards: No, I don’t believe it was?
That is correct, the packet that the petition signers signed, was NOT what was presented to the council. The organizers added more material. We know that if we alter the packet for the referendum, it is thrown out. Why is it fair for the petitioners to alter their packet of petitions? How do we know the signers of the petition really agree with what was presented?
On the city council agenda packet posted on the Utah State Website from the city on Nov. 28, 2019: The packet that Terrance Edwards, representing the Wimbleton Subdivision, submitted doesn’t have the “phasing option” attached but has all the signatures attached to the packet that Wimbelton residents signed.
Before the phase option, it was all or none. The phase option breaks up the trails into various sub-sections, and allows for them to take some of the optional trails, vs all of the optional trails in the subdivision. Keep in mind, we don’t ever believe these should have been designated as “optional”. How are trails that are paved and used “optional”?
On Dec. 2, 2019 – the proposed phasing option Attachment #8 appears – however, all the signatures and dates of signatures of Wimbleton residents are the same. The audio at the top here, confirms that what the residents signed, was different than the final proposal which was approved by the city council. Is that legally OK?