Clinton Townhome Project Sparks Controversy as Developer Canvasses for Signature Removals
A proposed townhome project in Clinton, Utah, has ignited a heated debate, with residents raising concerns about rapid growth and its potential impact on the city’s infrastructure. Developer Mike Hatch plans to build 266 townhomes and 75 single-family homes, a project approved by the Clinton City Council. However, a citizen group called "Pause the Clinton Townhome Project" launched a referendum effort to challenge the council’s decision, arguing that residents should have a greater say in how their community develops. The group’s efforts have now become entangled in controversy over signature removal tactics employed by the developer.
The heart of the dispute revolves around a video posted on the group’s Facebook page, showing individuals going door-to-door asking residents to remove their signatures from the referendum petition. Some residents in the video claimed these individuals stated they were "sent from the state," an assertion that proved to be false. Hatch confirmed that his company hired a firm to conduct the door-to-door canvassing, a practice permissible under Utah state law. This revelation has fueled accusations of misleading tactics and raised questions about the integrity of the signature gathering process.
"Pause the Clinton Townhome Project" members maintain that the developer’s actions undermined their efforts, causing them to fall short of the required signatures to put the project to a vote. Adam Larsen, a representative of the group, emphasized that their opposition is not about affordable housing itself, but rather about ensuring residents have a voice in shaping their community’s future. Larsen contends that the canvassing firm employed misleading information about the project and falsely presented themselves as acting under state authority, thereby influencing residents to remove their signatures.
Developer Mike Hatch defends the canvassing efforts, stating that the signature gatherers were trained on the project details and instructed to maintain integrity throughout the process. He acknowledged instances where gatherers deviated from these instructions, claiming that swift action was taken to address such situations. Hatch emphasizes the long-term benefits of the project, arguing that it will contribute to affordable housing options for Clinton residents. However, this claim has been met with skepticism by some residents who fear the new homes will be priced beyond their reach, exacerbating existing affordability challenges.
Concerns about the project’s potential strain on Clinton’s infrastructure are also central to the debate. Residents worry about increased traffic congestion and demands on water resources. Clinton City Manager Trevor Cahoon addressed these concerns, stating that the project underwent thorough assessments, including traffic studies and water usage analyses. He assured residents that Clinton has sufficient water shares to accommodate the planned development. Despite these assurances, some residents remain apprehensive about the long-term consequences of the project.
The controversy surrounding the Clinton townhome project highlights the complex interplay of development interests, resident concerns, and legal processes. While the developer maintains the project will ultimately benefit the community, opposition continues to raise questions about transparency, affordability, and the right of residents to actively participate in shaping their city’s growth. The debate underscores the ongoing tension between the need for housing and the desire to maintain a community’s character and ensure its sustainable development. As the project moves forward, the concerns raised by residents will undoubtedly continue to shape the conversation and potentially influence future developments in Clinton.