Since I posted information about the proposed Mojave Village development, I’ve received more than 100 emails and a lot of social media comments. Some are strongly opposed. Some ask good questions. Some raise concerns I share. Some reflect understandable misunderstandings about what is actually being proposed, which is one reason I think providing more information is important. Others point to complications that aren’t obvious from a site plan or zoning map. And a few comments make accusations that I think deserve a response.
Rather than answer the same issues separately in emails and Facebook replies, I’ve pulled the major questions and concerns together here. My comments aren’t meant to argue with anyone or talk anyone into supporting the project. They’re meant to add information and context, explain what I’m thinking about, and hopefully help residents give me even more useful feedback before Thursday’s City Council meeting.
I have not decided how I will vote on Mojave Village. There are things in the revised proposal I like, things that concern me, and provisions in the proposed Development Agreement that I believe need to be strengthened. And I still have questions. I’m asking staff, digging through the plans and supporting documents, and doing some homework of my own.
Topics addressed below: what Mojave Village is (and isn’t); the General Plan and Land Use Map; existing zoning and property rights; the 160 STR-eligible units; water; traffic and Highway 91; 3,000-square-foot lots; affordable housing; sensitive lands and hillside grading; growth generally; parks, open space and dark skies; the short public-hearing schedule; claims of back-room decisions or corruption; and whether the Council listens to residents.
First: Which Project Are We Talking About?
Mojave Village is not the proposed development on Shivwits tribal land west of Ivins. That’s a completely different project over which Ivins has no land-use authority. Mojave Village is privately owned property inside Ivins, near Guy Lane and Fitness Way, so its land use and zoning are very much an Ivins decision. Adding to the understandable confusion, this proposal is also an expansion and substantial revision of the original Mojave Village land use and zoning change approved in September 2022.
What About the General Plan and Land Use Map?
Several people have essentially asked: Why bother having a plan if developers can just ask us to change it? That’s a very fair question.
The Land Use Map is part of the General Plan, and state law provides a process for amending it. But just because it can be amended doesn’t mean I think it should be amended every time someone asks. In fact, I’ve been arguing that Ivins needs to review its Land Use Map comprehensively rather than continually changing individual parcels as development proposals arrive. If we change a long-range plan too readily, eventually it isn’t much of a long-range plan.
That bothers me with Mojave Village too. One factor is that much of what is proposed remains residential, although at different densities. I’m also very aware of the Governor’s and Legislature’s continuing pressure on cities to allow more smaller-lot housing and a wider variety of housing types. We don’t make land-use decisions in a vacuum.
So one of the questions I’m asking isn’t simply, “Is this plan reasonable?” It’s also, “Are these the land uses and densities we believe belong here over the long term?” Those are different questions, and I think both matter.
Why Not Just Leave the Existing Zoning Alone?
We certainly can. The applicant is asking the City to change the Land Use Map and zoning, and the Council is not obligated to approve those changes simply because they were requested.
But saying no doesn’t preserve all 64 acres as open desert. The property is privately owned and already has development rights under its existing land-use designations and zoning. If the requested changes are denied, development can still occur under existing entitlements and rules, or the owner can return with another proposal.
So the question is more complicated than development versus no development. In significant part, it’s: What kind of development belongs here?
What About the 160 Short-Term Rentals (STRs)?
This is probably the concern I’ve heard most strongly. Several residents simply don’t want more STRs in Ivins, while others are concerned about traffic, water, public safety, absentee ownership and the gradual change from a residential community to more of a resort community.
I share those concerns. My opposition to expanding STRs in Ivins isn’t new, and my voting record on them has been 100% consistent. I’ve repeatedly voted against Land Use and Zoning changes that would create new STR opportunities. I was the only no vote on the original Mojave Village Resort Commercial zoning in 2022 because it allowed STRs. I’ve voted against all other proposals to expand Resort Commercial zoning for the same reason, with this wrinkle: I agreed to a Resort Commercial zone change only on the condition that STRs were specifically prohibited. So when I say I don’t support creating new STR areas in Ivins, that’s not a new position prompted by Mojave Village. It’s how I have always voted.
There is an important distinction with Mojave Village, however. These aren’t simply 160 additional STR units being added to Ivins. The developer already has approval for 160 Resort Commercial units that can be used as STRs on the originally approved Mojave Village (2022) portion of the property. I voted no on that approval because I opposed adding more STR use. But at that time I was the only no vote.
The revised proposal would move those same 160 units to a different location. We don’t have to approve moving them. We could say no. But saying no doesn’t make the previously approved 160 units disappear. They could still be developed in their original location.
And, somewhat inconveniently for someone who doesn’t like STRs, I think the proposed new location is better. Conventional single-family homes would buffer the STR area from private residential property on the east, west and north. The south side borders BLM land. That gives existing residents substantially more separation from the STR development.
So the question for me isn’t simply, “Do I like STRs?” I don’t. The harder question is whether moving 160 previously approved STR-eligible units to a location where they should have less impact on existing residents makes sense as part of the overall project.
What About Water?
Water is probably the most frequently mentioned concern after STRs. People are understandably asking a basic question: Where is the water for all this development going to come from?
I take that seriously. I’ve repeatedly expressed concern about Southern Utah’s long-term water supply, particularly about how much we rely on projections of future supply and demand. It’s an issue I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand and explain. I’ve written 56 articles about water issues on my website over the past five years.
But there is an important limitation on what Ivins can do through an individual development application. Ivins receives its water through the Washington County Water Conservancy District. As long as WCWCD tells us it has the ability to provide the water and the applicant meets the City’s applicable requirements, it would be legally difficult for the City Council to substitute our own conclusion that the water isn’t available and deny a development on that basis.
That doesn’t make the broader water question go away. It means much of that question has to be addressed through regional water planning, conservation and long-range land-use decisions rather than trying to solve it one subdivision at a time.
And yes, asking residents to conserve water while watching continued development understandably creates frustration. But I think there’s a larger issue here. We need to think about water as a shared and limited community resource. Current residents have a legitimate interest in protecting a reliable long-term water supply, but people who own undeveloped property also have legitimate property rights and expectations. Neither group exists in isolation from the other.
Traffic and Highway 91
A number of you raised traffic concerns, particularly Highway 91 and the bottleneck through Santa Clara. One resident made me laugh by suggesting that if traffic gets bad enough, our new Highway 91 bike path may become the fastest way to St. George. Funny line. Serious issue. I share the concern, and this is one of the areas where I’m still asking questions.
There’s an important, and perhaps slightly ugly, truth about transportation planning that isn’t always obvious. A successful transportation plan doesn’t mean traffic won’t get worse. In fact, it assumes there will be more traffic. Cities don’t normally design roads to preserve today’s traffic conditions indefinitely. They plan a transportation network to accommodate future development and future traffic at what engineers consider an acceptable level of service.
Our traffic plan modeled Ivins traffic out to 2050. Traffic engineers grade roadway and intersection performance from Level of Service A through F. Very simply, A is free-flowing traffic; B and C become progressively busier; D means noticeably more delay and congestion but is still generally considered an acceptable operating level; E is approaching or at capacity; and F is essentially failure, where demand exceeds capacity and delays can become substantial. Our Transportation Master Plan generally treats A through D as acceptable.
So here’s the slightly uncomfortable part: a road can become considerably busier and more frustrating to drive and still be considered a transportation-planning success. What feels like deteriorating traffic to those of us who remember when Highway 91 was nearly empty may still receive a perfectly acceptable grade from a traffic engineer.
That doesn’t mean anything goes. There is a limit, and that’s what I’m trying to understand. I want to understand how well the development assumptions used in our traffic plan match what we’re actually seeing proposed today.
For example, I’m asking whether the model anticipated the density now proposed for Mojave Village, potential higher-density development on SITLA property, development on Shivwits land west of Ivins, and the amount of townhome and other development occurring along the Highway 91 corridor. If some of that wasn’t anticipated, what happens when we add it? Does Highway 91 remain within an acceptable Level of Service, or do some portions or intersections begin moving toward E or F?
None of this means we should shrug our shoulders at traffic generated by Mojave Village or other development along Highway 91. We still need to understand this project’s impacts and make sure the developer pays for improvements that can legally and proportionately be attributed to those impacts.
And there is one problem our Ivins Transportation Master Plan can’t solve by itself: Santa Clara. We can plan our own streets, but a bottleneck outside our city limits requires coordination with our neighbors.
The 132 Homes on 3,000-Square-Foot Lots
I’m giving this one a lot of thought. Ivins only recently created the R-1-3 zone allowing 3,000-square-foot lots. We did that to provide another opportunity for smaller and potentially more attainable homes.
But 132 of these lots in one project is significant. This is new territory for Ivins. Frankly, I’d be more comfortable “experimenting” with this new zone with fewer lots first and seeing how well it works.
On the other hand, if we’re going to have a concentration of small lots, I think this location has some things going for it. Immediately across Fitness Way are existing townhomes with even smaller individual lot footprints. And the 132 homes would be right next to the 6+ acre Chinle Park property the City purchased last year.
For long-range planning purposes, we estimate Ivins needs a little over three additional acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents. So we’re fortunate the City bought this park property last year. Small lots next to a substantial public park make more sense to me than the same small lots isolated somewhere without nearby open space.
So I’m cautious about having so many small lots, but I’m not automatically opposed to them simply because they’re small.
Is This Affordable Housing?
I would be careful about calling these homes “affordable housing.” Smaller lots and smaller homes may make housing more attainable, but this proposal doesn’t guarantee sales prices, establish income qualifications or otherwise ensure that the homes will actually be affordable.
I don’t want to give a development credit for providing “affordable housing” unless there’s something that actually makes the housing affordable.
Sensitive Lands and the Hillside
This is one of my biggest concerns with the entire proposal. Parts of the property are on sensitive hillside land and will be highly visible. My concern isn’t just what the development looks like when everything is finished. I’m also concerned about what Ivins could be looking at during the years it takes to build it.
Grading a hillside isn’t like clearing a flat building lot. Once the natural terrain and vegetation are disturbed, the visual impact can be substantial and it can take a very long time for the land to recover.
We’ve seen a version of that problem before. Sentierre is a good cautionary example. That site was graded almost 10 years ago, but construction proceeded much more slowly than anticipated. Years later, relatively few homes have been built and much of the disturbed land is sitting idle. That’s exactly the kind of outcome I don’t want us to repeat.
Development can slow or stop for all sorts of reasons: economic conditions change, financing becomes more difficult, ownership changes, or the market simply doesn’t develop as expected. The City can’t guarantee that once a developer starts grading, the buildings will quickly follow.
That’s why I think sensitive lands require a higher level of care. We need to think not only about how much land can ultimately be disturbed and what the finished development will look like, but also about when disturbance occurs, how development is phased, how long disturbed land might remain exposed, and what happens if construction stops.
Why Can’t We Just Stop Development for a Couple of Years?
Because cities don’t have an unlimited ability to tell people they can’t develop privately owned land. Property owners have rights under existing zoning and Utah law, and cities have legal obligations when considering development applications.
That doesn’t mean developers get whatever they want. We impose legally appropriate conditions, negotiate Development Agreements and enforce our ordinances. And when an applicant asks us to change existing land-use designations or zoning, we have considerably more policy discretion than when someone simply proposes development already permitted under existing zoning.
The challenge is finding the right balance between private property rights, state law and protecting the qualities that make Ivins a special place to live.
Parks, Open Space, Dark Skies and the Character of Ivins
Several comments weren’t really about density calculations or zoning terminology. They were about something harder to put into a spreadsheet: what kind of place Ivins is becoming. People mentioned our desert, wildlife, hiking, dark skies, open space, views and quiet character.
Those concerns matter a lot to me. They aren’t decorative extras we consider after everything important has already been decided.
I should probably disclose a “conflict of interest” here: Patty and I started the Ivins Night Sky Initiative in 2019 because we wanted to find ways to improve outdoor lighting and protect our night sky. So yes, I am biased in favor of being able to protect our night sky.
But protecting those characteristics doesn’t mean nothing can ever be built. It means we need to pay attention to how and where development occurs and what protections we put in place before it happens.
Was This Deliberately Sprung on Residents at the Last Minute?
I have no reason to believe anyone deliberately arranged the schedule to suppress public input or is trying to “sneak” Mojave Village through. This proposed plan, or versions of it, have been discussed in at least two public meetings over the past few months. But it was just a concept, until now. But I do agree strongly with the criticism of the timing of these public hearings.
I don’t like having the Planning Commission public hearing Tuesday and the City Council public hearing Thursday. I think it is really, really bad. Typically there’s a couple of weeks between the two. Particularly for a proposal this significant, residents need time to understand what’s being proposed, hear what comes out of Planning Commission, think about it, ask questions, and then decide what they want to tell the City Council. And the City Council needs time for all the same reasons.
Holding both hearings in the same week makes meaningful public participation more difficult. Whether intentional or not, I don’t believe it’s a good process.
But Thursday’s hearing doesn’t mean the Council has to make a final decision Thursday. If important questions remain, if the Development Agreement isn’t where the Council thinks it needs to be, or if additional public input is warranted, I definitely want us to take more time before making a decision.
That seems especially important with a project of this scale. These 374 units could eventually add roughly 1,000 people to Ivins. That’s equivalent to about 10% of our current population in a single development. A decision of that magnitude deserves enough time for residents, staff and the Council to understand what we’re approving and get it right.
What About Claims of Back-Room Decisions?
I’ve also heard the suggestion that the City decided months ago that it would approve whatever zoning the developer wanted. That isn’t true.
The developer and the City have had discussions over the past several months about a variety of concepts for this property. That’s not unusual. Developers regularly talk with staff and elected officials about possible projects before deciding what they actually want to propose. Those discussions can be useful because applicants hear concerns early and sometimes change their plans in response.
But no decision was made that the City would change the zoning to whatever the developer wanted. The proposal before us still requires the public Planning Commission and City Council processes and ultimately a decision by the Council.
And About ‘Someone’s Pocket Getting Lined’…
I understand being angry about development decisions. I understand believing the Council made a terrible decision. And I certainly understand believing I made a terrible decision. There are probably people willing to provide examples.
But suggesting that public officials are approving developments because someone is personally paying them is a very serious accusation. If anyone has evidence of that, please bring it forward. It should be investigated.
If there’s no evidence, then let’s argue vigorously about the actual proposal, the General Plan, zoning, STRs, water, traffic, density, sensitive lands and whether the Council is making good decisions. There’s plenty there for us to disagree about without accusing people of corruption.
Does the Council Care What Residents Think?
I don’t agree with the claim that the Council doesn’t care what residents think. Listening to residents doesn’t mean the Council will always reach the decision every resident wants. Residents themselves often strongly disagree with one another.
Our job is to listen, understand the facts, follow the law, consider property rights and the City’s plans, and then make the decision we believe is best for Ivins. Sometimes we’ll get it right. Sometimes we’ll get it wrong. And you should absolutely hold us accountable for both.
My responsibility also isn’t simply to count the emails for and against a project. I need to listen to residents, understand the facts, apply our plans and ordinances, keep one eye on the Governor and Legislature, follow state law, respect the applicant’s property rights, and ultimately make the decision I believe is best for Ivins.
So Where Am I Right Now?
I haven’t decided how I’m voting on Mojave Village. There are things about the proposal I like, including relocating the STR-eligible units farther from existing neighborhoods and creating residential buffers around them. There are other things that concern me a lot, particularly the amount of small-lot development and development of sensitive hillside land. And I still have a lot of unanswered questions.
If all my concerns could be satisfactorily addressed through strong, enforceable conditions in the Development Agreement, that would make me much more comfortable with it.
So please keep the comments coming. You don’t have to agree with me, and I’m not trying to talk anyone into supporting the project. I’m trying to give you enough information to make your comments more useful to me. If, after hearing more, you still think it’s a terrible idea, tell me why. And if you think I’m missing something, tell me that too. That’s exactly what public input is supposed to do.