In response to the recent My View op-ed in favor of creating Millcreek City signed by Anna Clare Shepherd and others ("Millcreek should become its own city," July 31), I would like to point out that those on both sides of this issue quite naturally interpret facts and projections (such as those for future property tax rates) in a way that supports their point of view. Two examples from the Shepherd op-ed follow:
Shepherd implies that the 8,293 signatures collected by proponents of incorporation represented voters in favor. Actually, the original petition was for a feasibility study. Many signers did not realize that the signatures could and would be used to support placing the question on the November ballot.
The column frequently refers to the Millcreek "community." This ignores the fact that the new city would include a strip of territory stretching from the head of Millcreek Canyon to the Jordan River with a population of 65,533, an area with no historical or geographical cohesion, certainly not a community in any commonly understood sense of the word.
Voters should look carefully at arguments from both proponents and opponents of incorporation.
Sherilyn C. Bennion
- Robert Bennett: Obama has his own 'killer...
- In our opinion: Trouble on tap? Colleges...
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more than a...
- In our opinion: Labor Day revisited
- John Hoffmire: Monied interests and democracy
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- On second thought
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more... 46
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 45
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to... 39
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Letter: Society puzzles 33
- Join the discussion: Is Common Core... 32
- Jay Evensen: Utahns support Common... 31