I was going to call this article “What Mojave Village Can Teach Us About Working Together to Protect Our Community,” but that’s a bit much for a title! In my September “Monthly Ivins Update” email to residents, I asked residents to email me with their thoughts about Mojave Village. More than 200 took the time to email me directly. Most opposed the development and raised legitimate concerns about traffic, water, short-term rentals, density, and protecting the character of Ivins.
I responded to every email, often providing additional information or answering questions. Many of those exchanges turned into thoughtful, constructive conversations that helped both the residents and me better understand each other’s perspectives. And those discussions influenced how I approached the proposal.
But this article isn’t really about Mojave Village or whether the Council made the right decision. It’s about what we can all learn from the experience and how residents and the City can work together more effectively to shape the future of Ivins.
After three public hearings and weeks of discussion, the City Council unanimously approved a revised plan last week. Understandably, residents wonder whether their comments made any difference. They question whether the Council really listens to residents, takes our General Plan seriously, or simply gives developers what they want. Those are serious questions, and they deserve more than a defensive response.
Some people may imagine that serving on the City Council means we get to decide what happens in Ivins simply because we think it’s a good idea. I wish we had that much power! The reality is that we don’t have the luxury of doing whatever we want. We have to work within state law, existing property rights, our ordinances, and the authority the City actually has. That’s why residents deserve an explanation of how land-use decisions work, what the City can and can’t control, and how residents can help shape the outcome.
And residents did help shape the outcome in this case, even though many opposed approving the development. Their questions and concerns contributed to further discussions, revisions to the plan, and additional protections and commitments negotiated with the developer. But the outcome also illustrates something important: being heard doesn’t always mean getting the vote you hoped for. That’s worth discussing, because Mojave Village won’t be the last difficult land-use decision we face.
So, what can we learn from this experience? Here are eight questions worth asking, and some answers that can help us move forward together.
What development rights already exist?
Before opposing a proposal, find out what the property owner can already build and what additional approvals are being requested. In Mojave Village, 220 units, including 160 eligible for short-term rentals, had already been approved. The new proposal sought 92 additional units. That didn’t make the additional density automatically acceptable, but it changed the decision before the Council. Voting no would not have left the property undeveloped or erased those earlier approvals.
This distinction matters because some decisions involve rights a property owner already has, while others involve requests for changes the Council has discretion to approve or deny, subject to the law. Knowing which situation we’re dealing with helps everyone focus on the questions the City can actually decide.
What can the City actually influence?
When a developer requests additional density, that’s an opportunity to examine impacts, seek appropriate protections, and discuss public benefits. A concern about hillside grading might lead to clearer limits on land disturbance. Questions about a proposed layout might lead to better separation from existing neighborhoods. Concerns about smaller lots might lead to commitments about the sizes of homes actually built. None of those outcomes is guaranteed, and conditions must be legally appropriate, but specific concerns give us something concrete to examine.
How can you make your concerns more meaningful?
Saying “I’m opposed” is entirely legitimate, and residents shouldn’t feel they need an engineering degree or a legal education to participate. But explaining why you’re concerned can make your comments much more useful. Tell us where traffic already backs up, which views you worry about losing, or how a proposed retaining wall might affect your neighborhood. Better yet, share a personal experience that brings the concern to life. Real-world examples help us understand impacts that may not be obvious from maps, studies, or development plans. And don’t underestimate the value of asking questions. Sometimes the most important contribution is asking about something that hasn’t been adequately explained or studied.
When is the best time to get involved?
As early as possible! The earlier we hear about a concern, the more opportunity there is to explore alternatives, ask for additional information, or negotiate changes. By the time a final agreement reaches the Council for a vote, some options may already be difficult to revisit. Getting involved early doesn’t guarantee the outcome you want, but it gives your concerns a better chance of influencing the discussion.
What does the Council owe residents?
Meaningful public participation is a two-way responsibility. Just as residents have an important role in shaping decisions, the City has an obligation to make that participation worthwhile. Residents deserve clear information, adequate notice, reasonable time to study complicated proposals, and meaningful opportunities to ask questions and express concerns.
In September, the Planning Commission and Council public hearings on Mojave Village were scheduled just two days apart. While that hasn’t happened often, it has happened before. And two days simply isn’t enough time for residents or Council members to digest what happened at the Planning Commission meeting before the Council holds its hearing.
So we held a second Council public hearing two weeks later and established a policy requiring at least two weeks between those hearings in the future. We also continued discussing the proposal for an additional two weeks rather than rushing to a vote.
The Council also needs to explain what is already permitted, what additional approvals are being requested, what the law allows us to consider, and why we ultimately decide as we do. Residents shouldn’t have to guess which concerns can influence a decision or whether their comments received serious consideration.
If residents say no, why can’t the Council just vote no?
The Council has a responsibility to listen to residents, but a public hearing isn’t a referendum. The number of people supporting or opposing a proposal doesn’t, by itself, determine what the City can legally approve or deny. Even unanimous opposition doesn’t erase existing property rights or give the Council authority it doesn’t have. And there are important differences between a developer exercising rights already granted under existing zoning and asking the City to approve additional density or change the zoning.
Water is a good example of the limits on our authority. Ivins depends on the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) for its water supply. The District determines whether it can provide water service for new development. I have serious concerns about our long-term water supply, but those concerns alone don’t give the Council legal grounds to deny a development that otherwise meets applicable requirements and has the necessary water-service assurances from WCWCD.
State law also limits our discretion. It protects certain development rights, regulates how cities make land-use decisions, and requires us to plan for moderate-income housing, adopt goals, and take steps toward achieving them. We can’t simply ignore those laws, disregard existing approvals, or impose conditions that aren’t legally justified. And while our General Plan is an important guide for the community’s future, it doesn’t automatically override existing zoning or property rights.
But none of that means the Council is powerless. When a developer requests a zoning change or additional density, we have an opportunity to evaluate whether that change is appropriate, consider its impacts, and seek legally appropriate protections and public benefits. We must weigh residents’ concerns alongside the General Plan, applicable law, infrastructure, neighboring properties, and the merits of the proposal. Sometimes those considerations support approval, sometimes they support changes, and sometimes they support saying no.
None of this diminishes the importance of public opinion. It simply explains why listening and agreeing aren’t always the same thing. Residents who want a “no” vote can still help improve a proposal even when the final vote is yes. And sometimes their concerns help demonstrate why a requested change shouldn’t be approved at all.
Does public involvement end when the Council votes?
A Development Agreement isn’t successful just because its wording sounds good at a Council meeting. What matters is whether the project built years later complies with the approved plans, conditions, and applicable ordinances. Residents can continue asking questions about grading, lighting, construction impacts, and whether promised improvements are being delivered. The City, in turn, must follow through on enforcement where requirements apply.
How can we keep the conversation going?
Finally, remember that we share more common ground than a heated debate might suggest. Residents who oppose a particular development and those who support it, including City Council members, both care deeply about Ivins and want to protect what makes our community special. We may disagree about how best to do that, but it doesn’t mean either side cares any less. We can disagree firmly, ask difficult questions, and hold one another accountable without assuming bad motives.
Mojave Village taught me that additional time, resident involvement, and careful negotiation can improve a proposal, even when the final decision doesn’t satisfy everyone. It also shows me that we need to explain the rules and limitations of land-use decisions much more clearly. As Ivins grows, the goal shouldn’t be to eliminate disagreement. It should be to make our disagreements more informed and constructive, our conversations more useful, and our decisions better for the community we all care about.
And one final invitation: Please keep the conversation going! Please email me at mike@MikeScott4Ivins.com. I read and respond to every email, and the back-and-forth conversations often help me understand concerns more fully. Sometimes we even change each other’s minds!