Is Utah's Legislature mounting a power grab or simply planning?
A bill that is a priority of Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, a powerful GOP lawmaker from Layton, is generating concern despite passing out of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Whatever the outcome, SB337 has left a sour taste in the mouth of opponents who allege it is nothing more than a power grab that would be conducted under the 'shadowy' entity called the Beehive Development Agency made up of unaccountable board members who can do what they want with Utah land in the name of economic development.
'This horrible bill will bankrupt local governments by stealing tax revenues and defunding local services to give those funds to the shadowy lobbyists who prowl the hallways of the Governor's office and the Utah statehouse' said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. 'If you think democracy is expensive, try communism' said Frankel.
Harsh words for a bill that seeks to streamline the development of big projects, with community buy-in — but opponents see it as a bulldozer to fast-track development in a veil of secrecy.
Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said the bill is designed to encourage 'big' projects and cut through red tape.
'It could be potentially a nuclear plant. It could be large manufacturing, or it could be really, really grand scale, mixed use developments. And what we're trying to address here is not not a new subdivision and a Walmart or something like that, but things that have large, large, significant impact on the state of Utah,' Cullimore said
But there were doubters in the committee hearing Tuesday, advancing the bill on a 3-2 vote.
'I've read through this several times, and of course, I've gotten a few emails messages, and I think they have a major problem when government kind of takes over. And you know, there's a lot of this about local control, and you said you take this preemption thing, but explain to me how, how you believe that this actually gets government out of the way. Because I've heard that argument on on the other side of this bill,' said Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden.
Cullimore said the bill is about consolidation and coordination of big projects.
'We have a lot of efforts like I mentioned, whether it's various development authorities, whether it's various housing programs, economic incentives, development incentives. And really, what this is doing is creating this development agency to coordinate all of these efforts, bring this together, so that, you know, we have one group over here working on something, and maybe the appropriate tools over here, and nobody's actually putting those things together. And so if we're going to have all these efforts, I think it's best that we do this in a coordinated fashion, so that we're making government more efficient in that respect, and making sure that the tools that we have are being effectively used.'
He added that the newly created Beehive Development Agency would entertain three projects a year, and would not be a wholesale assault on local control.
Others in the hearing disagreed.
'This bill is huge, something this broad, should never be brought out during the final week, when no one has the time to properly read and understand such a broad, sweeping bill and its implications,' said Kristin Richie with the Utah Eagle Forum.
Under the measure, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity would employ a new tool called the Beehive Development Agency. The catch is it would be an independent nonprofit with power over expansive bonding, land use and taxing authority.
The bill may have good intent and has powerful supporters, but that did not deter critics, with Marryann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, asserting it represents a tipping point for the public.
'I think that that confidence and trust in the Legislature is at an all-time low, and I think this bill will tip a lot of people over the edge. It's too much of a power grab, and after the inland port, the baseball stadium, the hockey arena, the Point at the Mountain development,' she said. 'And a lot of people have just had it with the legislature. They feel like you guys up here are not responsive. They don't want statewide control. They want local control. They don't want a new entity with taxing authority. '
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
37 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say
Elon Musk 's public sparring with President Donald Trump last week may have briefly put a dent in Tesla's value, but analysts say they can't see any reason the feud would have a long-term impact on the company's business, including its robotaxi ambitions. The feud between Musk and Trump began with the Tesla CEO's criticism of the GOP's spending bill, which slashes EV tax credits and is estimated to add more than $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. The clash then escalated with threats coming from both sides: Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's companies, and the CEO fired back by saying he'd shut down SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft before reneging. During Musk's fight with Trump on Thursday, Tesla's stock dipped 14%, wiping out $138 billion from the company's market cap. The company recovered some of the losses the following day. Yet the CEO saw one of his biggest single-day hits to his net worth with an estimated $34 billion loss. Still, some analysts say this storm will pass. "Musk's and Trump's relationship has an impact on the stock and maybe investor sentiment, but as far as the actual business impact for Tesla, I never thought Trump getting elected was positive or that negative for Tesla," Seth Goldstein, Morningstar analyst, told Business Insider. "So with the feud that started between Trump and Musk, I never really viewed that as that positive or negative for Tesla either." While it may not be helpful to no longer be in Trump's good graces, Goldstein said the president has already made clear that he would cut EV subsidies, which the analyst viewed as having the most negative impact not just on Tesla but on all EV makers. Gene Munster, Tesla investor and managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, estimated in a Friday report that the elimination of the tax credits could reduce 2025 deliveries by 15%. Trump wishes Tesla well As far as Tesla's June robotaxi launch in Austin goes, which Musk says will unlock trillions of dollars of market value for his company, analysts say there's little reason to believe the administration would want to hinder progress there. "In my view, the White House has little to gain in standing in front of autonomy, given autonomy is central to physical AI, and for the US to be a leader globally in AI, it also needs to be a leader in physical AI," Munster said in his Friday report. "The bottom line, I expect cooler heads to prevail and the Federal Government will continue to support the growth of these services." Goldstein told BI that he doesn't see many avenues the administration could take to hinder Tesla's robotaxi progress. He said the Department of Transportation is reviewing federal standards for autonomous vehicle safety. "In theory, if Trump wanted to see Musk face retaliation and target Tesla, they could, say, require autonomous vehicles to have lidar in order to be approved by the federal government for operation, but I don't think they're going to get that detailed," Goldstein said. "I think that Trump could more easily just target SpaceX by just cutting their contracts if he really wanted to hurt Elon, versus making some really weird, nuanced policy." Spokespeople for the DOT and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. In a note on Friday, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote that Musk's feud with Trump doesn't impact the "longer-term vectors that drive the stock's value." "AI leadership, autonomy/robotics, manufacturing, supply chain re-architecture, renewable power, critical infrastructure... Tesla still holds so many valuable cards that are largely apolitical, in our opinion," Jonas wrote. By late Friday afternoon, the online jabs had slowed down, but the Trump-Musk alliance remained on ice. The president told NBC News on Saturday that he doesn't expect to mend his relationship with Musk and warned the CEO against supporting Democratic candidates. Still, during a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, Trump said he hadn't thought about Musk but wished him and his company well. "I mean, I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy | Opinion There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. Show Caption Hide Caption 'Two big egos.' Americans not surprised by Trump-Musk feud Americans across the country say they're not surprised by the public feud between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: 1. Trump and GOP used taxpayers' money to purchase Elon Musk's support As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. 2. Elon Musk, despite all the tush-kissing, never liked or respected Donald Trump Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. 3. DOGE was nonsense, and Republicans never really liked Musk For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's No Tax On Tips Crusade Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ending federal income taxes on tips, one of President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledges in the 2024 election, could potentially backfire as Americans grow weary of tipping, experts have told Newsweek. No tax on tips was something the president said he would enact "first thing" if he won the November election. The idea, launched in the service industry behemoth that is Las Vegas, quickly took hold with the electorate, so much so that his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris was quick to pledge the same relief for tipped workers should she win the White House race. Fast forward 5 months into the second Trump administration, the pledge hasn't yet been enacted, but the idea is certainly beginning to take shape. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans have proposed a new tax deduction on tipped income up to $160,000 while keeping payroll taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Other legislative efforts have also been made. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced the No Tax on Tips Act to Congress in January, which would establish a new tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tips, subject to certain restrictions. "Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, 'No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hardworking Americans," Cruz said on the Senate floor. The bill passed the chamber in May with support from both parties. Lawmakers are clearly keen on the idea, and the proposal is certainly popular with the American public, too. Polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies back in July 2024 showed that 67 percent of Americans do not believe tips given to service workers should be taxed. But the proposal, if enacted, could have some unintended consequences, business experts have told Newsweek. Tipping Culture Fatigue Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, told Newsweek the policy could "reinforce tipping in the short term but erode it over time," pointing to a growing phenomenon of tipping fatigue—a weariness among consumers increasingly asked to tip in situations where it wasn't previously expected. A BankRate survey conducted between April and May this year found that 41 percent of Americans believe tipping is "out of control" and that businesses should better compensate their employees instead of relying on gratuities to provide a wage. Thirty-eight percent reported being annoyed with pre-entered tip screens, which are usually used in automated checkouts, particularly in cafes or fast food restaurants. Still, the generosity of many Americans could pull through, at least for a short while. "By framing tips as a tax-free bonus, the policy may temporarily boost the perceived generosity and importance of tipping, encouraging consumers to view it as a more impactful way to support service workers," Palomarez said. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva But it's unlikely to be straightforward. "Cultural norms around tipping are sticky," he said. "By signaling that tipped workers deserve special tax treatment, the policy may further divide and complicate service industry compensation norms—bolstering tips in some sectors like restaurants while emphasizing reform calls in others like delivery services or app-based platforms. Over time, this could lead to service charges or higher base pay as consumers question tipping." Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer's Tax and Accounting Division North America, warned that "the perception that tipped employees have a tax advantage may discourage tipping or at least the same amount of tipping by customers who are fully taxed on their incomes." Pay Boost for Workers While tipping fatigue is certainly on the rise, the pay boost for workers in the service industry is tangible. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that middle-income households could pocket an extra $1,800 per year under the plan. Joseph Camberato, CEO at emphasized that the policy is not necessarily designed to address tipping culture—for all its pros and cons—at large. "We've all seen those 'tip' prompts at self-checkout machines for things you grabbed off a shelf yourself," Camberato told Newsweek. "This policy doesn't fix that, and honestly, it's not meant to. It's for the 1.8 million restaurant servers who rely on tips to pay their bills. For them, not getting taxed on that income is a big deal. This policy targets the right group and gives them a meaningful raise, basically overnight." He added, "If anything, it's going to help the people who deserve tips the most like servers, bartenders, hospitality workers, walk away with more money. Remember, they usually get taxed 15 to 20 percent on tips. Take that off the table, and it's like giving them a 15 to 20 percent raise. "If you're already a tipper, you're not suddenly going to stop because of this bill. But the person on the other side of the transaction is going to be walking away with more money, and that's the point."
