|
November 27, 2002
News specialist John Daley reporting
New documents show the city hasn't always been clear on what
it wanted in the Main Street Plaza deal.
|
Related
Stories
More
Info
|
|
What were Salt Lake City's original intentions regarding the
public easement when it made the deal to sell one block of Main
Street to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Today, some old documents ignited a new battle over that very
question.
That could be a key issue as this debate unfolds, particularly
if there's another court fight.
But Mayor Rocky Anderson and the former City Attorney are at
odds over whether the city seriously contemplated giving up
the easement here.
If a court were to strike down free speech restrictions imposed
by the LDS Church, would the city give up its public access
easement across the land?
Back in 1999, then-City Attorney Roger Cutler and his staff
grappled with that key issue.
In a letter written at the time to the ACLU uncovered this week
by the Deseret News, Cutler wrote, "It is more probable
that, if forced to choose, the city would elect to deed the
easement to the (church)."
To those who support the LDS Church's position, this letter
would seem significant.
But Salt Lake's mayor, who is opposed to giving up the easement,
sees it another way.
"One
wonders why the city attorney would have put into the contract
language guaranteeing the easement and providing the easement
would still remain with the city, even if the restrictions declared
to be unconstitutional if that isn't what he really meant and
if that isn't what the city really meant," Anderson says.
Indeed, Cutler himself testified in court, "this transaction
would not have occurred from the city's point of view but for
there being a pedestrian passage..."
We asked Cutler today if there is a contradiction between what
he said in court -- about how the city considered the easement
essential -- and what he wrote to the ACLU -- that the city
might give up the easement.
His response: there is a difference between a legal opinion
and public policy.
"From
a legal point of view, I agree with what Mayor Anderson has
said. I think the city has a legally defensible position, that
if it did not want to give up the easement, that if they were
sued, for example, they would be victorious," Cutler says.
"The second question is an entirely different one. Is that
fair? Is that equitable? Should there be a policy change in
light of that decision?" he says.
The City Council plans to revisit some of the original dealings
in this matter. That will happen December 10.
Next week, the council will decide if it will schedule a public
hearing on the entire Main Street issue. That hearing may be
set for December 17.
|
