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
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- School fees: Is Utah really family friendly?
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- Letter: Society puzzles
- 20 of the most influential and innovative...
- Equality in family life does not mean sameness
- Jay Evensen: Utahns support Common Core, even...
- Michael Gerson: State of Israel: History...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb:... 82
- Letter: Police brutality 62
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 48
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Richard Davis: The State Board can do... 42
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 39
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Letter: Society puzzles 32