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
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- In our opinion: Utah's caucus system needs...
- Michael Gerson: Common Core standards are not...
- Letters: Dismantle IRS
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Commentary claims liberals are shocked by...
- Letters: No welfare, ever 77
- Letters: Move to the center 37
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus... 33
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 33
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an... 32
- Richard Davis: Abortion laws should... 28
- Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem... 21
- Letters: The buck stops here 21