Spring City needs compromise and reconciliation to move forward

We write in response to the recent “Another Look” column by Melanie Cook and the letter to the editor by Scott Newman, both published in the Aug. 28 edition of the Messenger. These columns addressed the proposed ordinance to subdivide the one acre-plus lots that have been a defining characteristic of historic Spring City.

Both of us have been heavily involved with historic preservation; we’ve restored homes here in Spring City, headed up restoration efforts in the Spring City Hall and our Activity Center, and have tirelessly worked at fundraising for preservation projects.

We’ve been patrons of the arts and we’ve also helped with Spring City initiatives. Chris has served full terms on the city council and as mayor.

We’re absolutely in favor of retaining the large lots in Spring City, and we believe that their subdivision will threaten our National Historic District designation.

We love the town in so many ways, and we are dismayed at the atmosphere of contention that is currently tearing at the fabric of civility and friendship in town. We are exhausted by the barrage of criticism from many parties and the inflammatory publicity that is currently being generated.

At the root of these issues, we see some significant differences that is increasing the acrimony between various parties.

For many years Spring City has had a diverse population that has contributed to a less unified point of view here: the ranchers, farmers and lifelong residents have often invested their whole lives in the town, reared their families here, and contributed to city government, church, school and economic welfare; the historic preservationists, who have saved many of the old houses and public buildings, have invested countless hours of service and millions of dollars to retain the lovely old buildings and the open space that is so unique; the artists, who have depicted the town with such love and who have helped the town become more economically viable, have made an enormous contribution; and the entrepreneurs who have created jobs, services and generated dollars have prevented the town’s economic demise.

All these residents have their own reasons for valuing Spring City, and sometimes their differences create competing goals.

Who should have a say, and how much weight should be given to the various demands of those who want to influence the future of our town?

Should the demands of those people who have invested more money outweigh the needs of those who have given all they have? Should young families, who are the lifeblood of the town’s future, outrank those seniors who come to town to build or restore their dream retirement homes? Should those who love the pioneer-era design ethic here have more say than those whose means are modest and who also want to call Spring City home? Should newcomers have more say than lifetime residents?


Is a lawsuit an appropriate action to take in a city with such modest funds and a small population?

Let’s say up front that we both disagree with the lawsuit—we believe that although the attorneys are acting on behalf of the plaintiffs on a pro bono basis, the city still must defend itself against the lawsuit, and if the lawsuit runs its full course, it will cost the city tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The city does carry insurance to cover legal fees, but that has been virtually used up by their defense against the restraining order that was demanded in the lawsuit, and which the judge denied last week.

We disagree with many of the assertions the lawsuit makes, but we also feel that a non-profit that was created to help preserve Spring City should not be a plaintiff in a suit against Spring City itself. The Friends of Historic Spring City has always cooperated with the city in achieving great things here. This lawsuit threatens that legacy.

A compromise and a willingness to share fairly in the best interest of the town is in order.

On one hand, four city council members have shown a pattern of not considering the comments made in public meetings, of ignoring the recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and of disregarding data that contradicts their positions.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs and the Friends, in their public comments and in the lawsuit itself, seek a disproportionate “say” in the way the city is run, the approach to growth in the town, in how infrastructure is maintained, and the way our citizens are regarded.

There’s a misunderstanding about what may be put on the ballot in November, as well. A referendum against an ordinance that has been passed is possible, as is an initiative that would be binding. We have been advised that an opinion poll as suggested by the plaintiffs is not allowed under state law or the Spring City code.

The most difficult aspect of this small-town tempest, though, is the level of acrimony that the discussions in the press, in social media, and the lawsuit has generated. We should be able to disagree with one another, and to acknowledge the desire for a solid future, by parties who don’t see eye-to-eye.

The city council has given hundreds of hours to the welfare of the town, as have the Friends, the ordinary citizens, the Daughters of Utah Pioneers, the teachers, the business owners, the fathers and mothers, the farmers and ranchers. All of us should have a say, and our love for our town should predominate in these discussions.

The villainization of one another needs to stop, and we need to try to heal the rifts between parties and proceed forward in a more conciliatory way.

Chris Anderson is the current mayor of Spring City
Alison Anderson is a former president of Friends of Historic Spring City