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
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama...
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- My view: Don't make women optional in marriage
- Letter: Dance dress code
- Robert Bennett: Make climate conversations...
- My view: Don't make women optional in... 103
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 87
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 65
- In our opinion: Religion in public life... 53
- Letter: Lateralist logic 40
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 40
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 39
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 35