©2019 Zane Larsen, designed and every word written by Zane Larsen

Issues / Frequently Asked Questions

Zane's stances on Kaysville topics

What position are you running for?

I am running for the 2-year term opening in the Kaysville, UT City Council.

Why are you running for city council?

To be frank, I do not actually WANT to be on the city council. Government and government processes put a bad taste in my mouth. Honestly, I think the reason most people actually just stay as far away as they can from politics is because the time and effort spent doesn't feel worth it. For example, when a new tax or "fee" (aka tax) is presented, a person will spend hours and hours to voice their opinion, oppose, argue, or present counter points/logic. Or they could just work a couple more hours here and there at their job to cover the new increase, and be free from the stress and hassle.

Well, I'm here to try and be that person who spends the time for the regular citizen. I have no background in politics other than supporting pro-2nd Amendment rallies at the Utah State capital and frequently attending and speaking at Kaysville City Council meetings strongly urging them to listen to the majority of the people and not spend their money on yet another program or thing that is not actually needed. I feel that gives me a better perspective as a regular citizen who just wants to live my life and not realize the government is there versus those with careers in politics or academia.

With your help, maybe we can stop all the spending and over-growth of our local city government.

How have you financed your campaign, or who has donated to you?

For itemized expenditure and specific donations, please see my campaign Financial Disclosure page.

What do you believe is the "Proper Role of Government"?

Much of my stances on topics that affect the city comes from what I believe is the "proper role of government" and I will often refer back to this section.

I believe that government was created by the people to do those things which people could rightly already do for themselves, and they cannot give that which they do not possess.

If I may quote from a 1968 speech by then Elder Ezra Taft Benson, former US Secretary of Agriculture (starting at ~15:00):

  • "For man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly  guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft. So he joins together with his neighbors and hires and sheriff. At this moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves, nothing more. But suppose Pioneer A wants another horse for his wagon, he doesn't have the money to buy one, but since Pioneer B has an extra horse, he decides that he's entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not. If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as Pioneer B wishes to keep his property, Pioneer A has no just claim to it. If A has no proper power to take B's property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that B give his extra horse to A, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have."

Additional resources:


City Fiber Project

Update 10/06/2019:
Due to the city's ever changing model, I've had to update this section yet again.

Largely, I'm against this project, especially the Light Hub and inter-local agreement. In general I can settle for government branching out into areas where I don't think it should if one condition is met:

  • Those who use the thing, are the ones who pay for it. No one else.

    • For this fiber project, this is impossible for government to ensure. When the city bonds for a loan, tax payers and property/business owners assume all this risk. Even if the system is designed that subscribers (in Kaysville's case, those who don't opt-out) pay all the fees, there is still risk that if it was poorly estimated or there are budget overruns that general funds and tax "revenue" will be used to make up the difference. This means that even those who "opt out" are still assuming liability and are subsidizing the network. When a private entity pursues such a venture, the private corporation/entity and their creditors (usually banks) take the risk. That is an infinitely better model and it greatly incentivizes the entity to stay within budget and offer quality service at an affordable price to attract subscribers. It is very telling that so few businesses have taken that risk to offer fiber optic internet to the home. If the project is too risky or "too expensive" to where *only* those who use it pay for all of its costs, well then I put forth the project is not only not worth it, it is not actually desired badly enough.

  • Next, if the project must be pushed through, then the fiber lines and power lines should both be buried at the same time. At least we'll get better protection for both fiber and our truly most important (and real) utility, electricity.

    • I believe that the integrity and reliability of the city's power is far, far more important to every citizen than the convenience of faster internet, but power concerns are covered below.

  • Secondly, in the "utility" model has that has that those receiving government aid and internet for a reduced price per month, would also receive Kaysville Fiber for a reduced price per month.

    • What does a person who is already on government assistance (aka forced tax payer charity) need with even faster internet? Do they have very expensive phones or computers or entertainment systems that need the faster internet? If so, they probably shouldn't be receiving other people's money already.

    • I think if these people want the internet they should have to pay for it or go to the library where internet is already provided. And if they can afford to pay for their own connection, they probably don't need tax payer's money to begin with.

  • Thirdly, in the "utility" model it was also proposed that certain elderly people don't have the internet at all won't be required to pay the utility fee. It is wrong to go about picking and choosing who pays a utility or not. This proves that fiber is not a "utility" and to insist that it is, is deeply flawed and wrong.

    • Some ask, "Well, why hasn't Comcast built fiber in Kaysville already, or why won't Comcast even service my street? I have no options!" I believe in the greed in Comcast, and I am certainly not convinced it is just because of maintaining the "status quo" and/or they are lazy or don't want to earn more money. I believe even in that behemoth company there are business concerns of risk vs reward/profit balances. As I mentioned earlier, if there were enough demand and profit potential, the faster internet would be provided.

  • Fourthly, not very long ago, Comcast used to require a 2-year subscription when signing up for their service and there were large fees to exit the contract early. I believe this is when Comcast was still building their cable infrastructure and the contract was to protect the investment.

  • Fifthly, I am certainly not convinced that after all the years of "build out" and expense that some other technology will not supersede a direct wired connection to every home. Yes, fiber has been around a while and is a proven technology, but so were wired phones. Fiber optics will likely remain the backbone of any network but that doesn't mean it will or is even now necessary to connect directly to every home. Yes, wireless has inherent problems with interference by weather and the physical properties of water, but recent examples of the explosive proliferation of wireless handheld devices does prove what the vast majority of consumers want, and that is convenience and a connection wherever they are. There are fewer and fewer who want some dedicated room with a computer to sit down at. I believe these market indicators are part of why businesses *aren't* really moving forward with spreading fiber to homes.

  • Sixthly, I have serious concerns that the following questions have not been addressed properly:

    • If the Kaysville City government owns the fiber lines (the current agreement is that Light Hub will actually own the fiber network, not Kaysville), will the city (or Light Hub) be monitoring *any* of the user's data, information, and/or use"?

    • What assurances, and more importantly laws, does the city have in place to properly protect the privacy of its fiber users?

  • Next, I can only believe, or hope to believe, that those in our local city government care about our citizens, but forcing citizens to "opt out" vs "opt in" is a very dishonest move. "Opt-out" schemas do not show who truly supports the project, only those who are informed enough to not support it. The city has done an astounding job of not informing its residents. It is instead forcing citizens to make an irrevocable decision about a cost that will last THIRTY years without knowing what exactly the city's fees will be, the price of the ISPs, what options of ISPs there are, or even if the quality of service is any good! No reviews, no consumer reports, no definite price, no cancelling. Is that how a regular person researches something they want to buy or sign up for? NO. NEVER.

  • Finally, and surely my least popular opinion, is that many people will search for a home so their children can attend a specific school or live in specific types of neighborhoods. That is something very important to those people, and that's a good thing. If a person finds their current internet or lack of options so detestable or unworkable, I would suggest to them to reevaluate their home priorities or even moving to a different location with better internet.

Kaysville Power

I believe that electricity is the most important utility the city provides to its citizens. Before any other topic it should be addressed first.

There have been such frequent problems with power in recent years that it has even turned into an internet meme even used by the Kaysville Fire Department, "CAUTION DO NOT HIT POLE".

I do not understand why the integrity and reliability of our power is not a higher concern. No lights, no internet, no heating (for most), no cooking (again, for most), no air conditioning, no swamp cooler, no TV, movies, or music without electricity. A simple wind storm, ice, falling tree, automobile or even a bird can cause so much more inconvenience, havoc, and even dangerous health conditions for people.

Our power lines should be buried and protected. I bet some of the work could be off-loaded to each community and neighborhood that would even be willing to dig their own trenches.

During a fiber open house, one city financial expert estimated that it would cost at least 20 million dollars to bury all of Kaysville's power lines. At the time of this writing, the Kaysville Electric Enterprise Fund has in excess of 7 million dollars. That sounds like an awfully good start to the project that would likely take years anyway. Couple that with burying the fiber optic lines and two items get protected for the price of one.

Fire Station on west side of Kaysville

I feel that it will be necessary in the future, but I'm not convinced that time is now and it would only be a band-aid for a larger problem that will continue to persist. Now granted it may be a decent, however expensive, band-aid with increased complexity and coordination of services that will probably have other unforeseen issues, but it is not the root of the problem. What is the root of the problem? Response time.

What causes response time to be lower? Distance, traffic, few paths over/under I-15 and a too-narrow bridge over the railroad on 200 N. The proper way to improve response time isn't to just build more locations, but to reduce traffic through wider roads, increased number of direct paths between east and west Kaysville, and more I-15 access points such as Burton Lane or making use of the old rest stops.

Let's compare Kaysville to their closest neighbor that has already went through these growing pains, Layton. As of 2019:



Now, for the sake of simplicity in this comparison we shall assume each station is approximately equivalent to the others (it should be noted this is very likely not a true assumption as response equipment, facility size, personnel and apparatuses available at each location likely varies greatly). It is almost assuredly that the Kaysville fire station is larger as Fruit Heights has a contract with Kaysville for fire and ambulance services (with an additional population of ~6,200 and a land area of ~2.29 square miles).

With that said, the current single Kaysville fire station services approximately 24.7% more residents (~32,000) than the average Layton fire station (~25,666). If a second station were added in Kaysville, each station would then serve about 39.6% fewer residents (~16,000) than each of Layton's fire stations (~25,666).

The current single Kaysville fire station covers approximately 41.8% more land area (10.5 sq. miles) than the average Layton fire station (~7.4 sq. miles). If a second station were added in Kaysville, each station would then cover about 41% less area (5.25 sq. miles) than each of Layton's fire stations (~7.4 sq. miles).

Now that is just a single example, I'm sure if more cities were analyzed the population and area coverage would vary as widely as the size, apparatuses, and personnel do at those various fire stations.

It also should be noted that the Kaysville fire station is
So, as I said earlier, I can perhaps see the need growing, but I don't think Kaysville is there yet. I strongly believe every resident of the city would be better served if access to and across I-15 were greatly improved through another on/off ramp and a wider and better designed bridge at or near Burton Lane.

City Hall Expansion & Remodel

What service is the city providing me, as a citizen, that I am not satisfied with that will be improved with a larger and too expensive city hall? None.

I'm not positive it really IS needed or if the city has taken on unnecessary projects/activities, and thus workers. Regardless, it's ridiculously over priced and there are so, so many other comparatively trivial in comparative expense, solutions. "Oh, but that won't look as nice!" I do not care, and I'm positive most citizens do not either. What is gained to the tax payer to have more expensive government buildings? Nothing.

Buildings funded off the backs of tax payers should be nothing more than "adequate". They should be built simply, out of the cheapest materials available, but sturdy. If a person can work for decades at a maintenance shop built with cheap steel frames and metal siding, why can't government buildings? I still do not understand why the Kaysville City Hall has one of the most (if not the most) expensive exteriors available.


I'm not one to resist growth and development of the city. If someone with land wants to sell, and someone with money wants to buy, invest, and build - more power to them.

I have no problem with small lot sizes, such the recent request along west 200N to rezone A-5 (Heavy Agricultural >=210,000 sq. ft.) to a R8 (Single Family >=8,000 sq. ft.) that is bordered by R-A (Agricultural Residential >= 21,780 sq. ft.) - EXCEPT I do take issue with the size of homes planned on those small lot sizes. I am  against this trend to build as large of a home as possible on the smallest lot size available. I can only presume this is to maximize profits for the realtors and developers - that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't fit the neighboring houses and there is an ever increasing number of people who struggle to find affordable housing.

I believe if a lot size is small, the house should be small also.

Parks & Recreation

I'm against all the selective entertainment, sports and recreation that is government, I mean tax payer, funded. Why are baseball/softball fields, tennis & pickleball courts, movie nights in the park and etc the "blessed" forms of recreation?

There is a lot of push for a swimming pool, skate park, dog park or even a full blow rec-center. When does it stop? The answer is never. Everyone will push until their niche is catered to. The purpose of government isn't to provide recreation and entertainment. Again, the people who use these should be the ones who 100% fund them.

Let me pose a question:
Why is it when taxes need to be raised or "fees" (aka taxes) created it is *always* for truly essential services such as roads, police and fire?

Because that's what nearly everyone believes in, because those are the real reason government was created, and because that's what politicians know won't make them look bad, or as bad, to ask more money for.

My plan is to take money from unessential (and immorally funded) "services" should the real services need additional funding. Then the people can be asked "Would you like an $8 "fee" per month on your bill to keep movie night in the park that you never attend? No? I'm not surprised."

Should Kaysville City Build A Dog Park?

No. It is the responsibility of the animal owner(s) to care and provide for the health and welfare of their pet(s) and livestock, not the tax payers. If an owner cannot reasonably do so without the support of tax payers, then I put forth that said owner should sell or surrender their pet(s) and/or livestock.

The only persuasive argument would be if those who used the dog park bear 100% of the burden and costs of purchasing, maintaining, and taxing said land and facilities. Even so, this is yet another call for niche catering to a certain special interest group. These sort of coercion’s never stop until each person has been catered to specifically in some way or the government runs out of other people’s money. The latter is the expected result.

If the demand is high then it sounds like the perfect and profitable business opportunity for an entrepreneur, not something else to pile on the back of tax payers. If such a facility would not be a self-sustainable business without the aid of tax payer's money, then the demand for the venture is in reality too low and yet even more reason government shouldn't be involved.

Should Kaysville build a Rec. Center, Swimming Pool, Skate Park and etc?

Just as my answer above for a Dog Park: No, unless the people that use it bear 100% of all costs for purchasing, building, maintaining, and taxing of said land and facilities.

Every one of these types of recreation and entertainment amenities are yet another call for niche catering to a certain special interest group. These sort of coercion’s never stop until each person has been catered to specifically in some way or the government runs out of other people’s money. The latter is the expected result.

If the demand is high then it sounds like the perfect and profitable business opportunity for an entrepreneur, not something else to pile on the back of tax payers. If such a facility would not be a self-sustainable business without the aid of tax payer's money, then the demand for the venture is in reality too low and yet even more reason government shouldn't be involved.

With the National Debt so high and out of control, how do you feel about cities receiving federal funding?

I personally believe that the national debt is easily the #1 problem facing this country and congress keeps kicking that can down the road and it is only getting worse. It is astounding how few are actually concerned about it. I think if anything will be the demise of America, it will be debt.

This is a particularly difficult question so let me attempt to answer it somewhat in two parts.

First, it is my belief that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds in so many areas. That which is created cannot be greater than its creator. The States created the Federal Government and it cannot not be greater than the collective States. But things have been flipped on their head and now the Federal Government is the “parent” and the States are the “children”, and like in some families the children are following the poor example of their parents - all the way down to our local city government levels (and even into many families who've spent themselves into debt and credit problems). The States have surrendered their rights for the dangled carrot of other people’s money. This has been going on for decades and is not a new or recent problem.

Now, should the local states or even municipalities accept Federal funding for whatever project? Well, that money shouldn’t even exist directly to the municipality. Issues should be handled and resolved at the lowest level possible. It should be neighbors that help the individual, community that helps neighbors, municipality the serves the the community, County that assists the municipality, and the State that lifts the County. Then, only in the most extreme circumstances would the Federal Government be assisting the State.

Unfortunately, evil, self-serving and sometimes well meaning but ignorant or blind politicians have long since demolished and corrupted that framework well before most, if not all, of our time. This dilemma shouldn’t exist but it does. 

It may be worthy of note that this question is one of very few that I have not directly answered. That is because it’s a scenario that you’re a putz for taking advantage of it and a schmuck if you don’t. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t. Each instance or occurrence would have to be closely examined as they’d be very subjective to individual municipal circumstances. Is it really needed or just a wasteful want/entitlement?

How can this situation be fixed? Top down changes in the Federal Government or bottom up from the people? Probably both is necessary but I believe it won’t happen until the people want it to change and likely that’ll take triple digit inflation. See Venezuela.

Are you a Republican or Democrat?

Kaysville City council elections are non-partisan, meaning that no official declaration of political party is asked nor required.

However, my goal is to answer every question to the best of my ability.

I am not affiliated with any particular political party. I'm sure that a number of my beliefs can be found in most political parties, but I term myself a conservative. I believe that the Bill of Rights enumerates mankind's sacred, God-given rights and they are immutable. They are not granted from the Government but, rather, list restrictions on government power and influence.

I believe most problems in government are caused by the misappropriation and misspending of taxes where a few benefit at the expense of most.

I think government spending should be run like "us regular folks" have to run our own lives and finances:

  • Spend less than you earn.

  • Save for the future or "rainy day".

  • Accept debt when no other option is possible and then repay debt as soon as possible to minimize money lost to interest.

Government has no right to redistribute wealth no matter how well meaning. This has lead to decades of problems of government incentivizing single parent homes, laziness, and people not taking responsibility for their own lives and well being.

This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now