Reader comments
Officials accused of misdirecting road funds to transit

Tyran, Pleasant Grove UT | 7:03 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

If the legislature wanted to determine what projects should be funded then the legislature should have set the priorities. County and city officials are much more in tune with the wants and needs of their communities and that was reflected by their actions.

Now, because local officials didn't play by the legislature's unwritten expectations, the legislature is planning to play the whining kid who takes his ball home and spoils the game for everyone because people didn't play by his rules.

Ben Franklin | 7:49 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The Legislature needs to get off the backs of the counties. In Salt Lake County, we voted to raise taxes on ourselves to fund projects. I want my local leaders, not a state-run body, deciding where those funds should go. Why do we have Sen. Valentine (Utah County) and representatives from the four corners of the state worrying about how Salt Lake County spends its funds?!

SLCWatch | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The Legislature wanted more road funding than...the voter referendum for Transit funds would allow. It was clear the vote was for transit, not roads and the legislature tried an end run on that intent. So if they didn't get what they wanted...Maybe it's because the county saw the legislative grab for what it was.

Comments continue below

Z | 8:42 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The Legislature has been trying to shove this through as a roads issue for months. However, it is instructive to remember the history of the tax hike. Salt Lake County originally wanted to raise property taxes to pay for the transit lines. At the 11th hour, the governor and legislature stepped in with a proposal for a mixed roads and transit sales tax. 25% was to be reserved for corridor perservation, and the rest was to be split between transit and roads.

The implication was that the majority would go to transit, and that was how it was sold to the electorate. However, the funding ratios were never specified in the bill; instead, the legislature said "Trust us, this is a transit bill." So we trusted them, and voted in the tax increase.

As soon as it was official, their tune changed. This was a road construction bill, pure and simple. Rather than go the rational route and raise gasoline taxes to pay for road construction, they are now trying to subvert the demonstrated will of the electorate on transit and force more money into more roads. So much for trust.

Transit (Monorail dream) | 8:42 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Why can't we learn our lessons in life? Mass transit and monorail are the utopian dreams of so many socialists out there. Unfortunately, reality never enters their brain, when you look at life in America and see that 99% of the people still need to drive their cars to get to work. So letï¿½s see, why don't we take 99% of the tax money for transportation and put that into building safe and efficient roads, then the socialists can use the other 1% for their buses, bike trails, and monorail systems. That sounds fair to me.

Instead we get scammed by our leaders as they take more and more of our money year after year and spend it unwisely on these grand mass transit projects. WAKE UP EVERYONE!

Mike | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Sen. Curtis, a Republican who barely won re-election in his Sandy district, and Sen Valentine from Provo, are clearly out of step with what the residents of SL county want. The state Legislature has tried to impose their will on SL county at every step of the way on transportation. If the county leaders had to use a little subterfuge to do the right thing for the people of SL county, kudos to them.

J in SLC | 9:39 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Thank you SL County! We need more and better mass-transit options, not more air pollution.

Tyler | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

It boggles my mind that our legislative leaders are so surprised at this. Every poll taken leading up to this bill being passed, EVERY poll, said that their constituents overwhelmingly wanted more rail projects done. Valentine and his crew are lucky they were able to pass their bill when they did when it was obvious that a property tax increase iniative was all but assured to pass that would have funded rail projects only. The arrogance of our Legislature continues to amaze me.

judy | 11:01 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Great to hear that mass-transit is winning out. We have lived in Washington DC and Chicago and without the mass-transit forsight in the past, I can't imagine how awful it would have been. It is bad enough now. Keep building mass-transit.

Deaf & Blind | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

I See and Hear bad side about this Whole STUPID Governemnt in Utah. Road is 1st, UTA is somewhere 100th or something and PARATRANSIT is last. I use to take Regular UTA bus in my neighborhood and now it is gone. Under ADA Law (American Disability Act), no Paratransit service be allow to serve any people with disability outside of 3/4 mile when there are no regular public bus service. Many people and myself voted tax increase toward the UTA Mass Transit System and most of the money went to road project. So, it is all the whole Government System fault and same to Mr. John English UTA President (whatever he is). NO MONEY TO UTA AND TAKE AWAY MY BUS SERVICE. My english may not be perfect for a deaf person myself, so don't give me a bad time. I remember after the election that most of those UTAH people voted yes on tax increase toward UTA Mass Transit System. And then few days after the election that I found that government want to use that money for the public roads and UTA last!

Re: Transit (Monorail dream) | 12:17 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Drew, or is it Michael, you're lame arguments against transit make Richard Eyreï¿½s fuzzy math with Oreos seem compelling.

Jonny Fairplay | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Poor John Valentine warns of impending problems for Salt Lake County leaders for having the temerity to direct sales-tax money to mass transit.

I guess Salt Lake County better get all their lobbyists together and work out how to make him happy, sounds like Valentine is whoring himself, looking for some sugar daddy lobbyist money to finance a junket somewhere warm following the 2008 Legislative session.

facts | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Thank goodness for legislative auditors that keep everyone honest. The county had rules to abide by and they did not. Just because they needed something different than what the money was appropriated for does not allow them to go off spending it. If the county wants mass transit, let the county residents pay for it. The state benefits from roads not local trax.

Re: facts | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Did anyone else hear the twilight zone music when you read "facts" post?

"If the county wants mass transit, let the county residents pay for it."

That is exactly what happened! The residents of SALT LAKE COUNTY overwhelmingly VOTED to increase their sales tax to pay for TRANSIT!

Brian | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The only reason I voted for the law is so that roads like the Mountain View Corridor could be completed sooner to reduce the truck traffic along I-15. As far as I am concerned mass-transit is poorly managed. My daughter tried to use it to go to college but her car was stolen from the Sandy mass-transit station - when I called UTA about it they said they can't patrol the stations and their efforts are directed more towards making sure traks passengers pay their fare. They don't seem to care about parking lot or personal security. The buses for the most part are mostly empty. I took my 6 year old son on the bus one day and three thugs took turns slugging an old man as they left the bus. They were only seven of us on the bus, eight with the bus drive. We called the police. Neither the bus nor the train go where I work. Nor are their plans for it. County officials - build the roads or we'll vote you out!!! Mass-transit has left a sour taste in my mouth.

SL Coundy did right | 1:52 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

In this instance the County Council and Local leaders simply did what the voters expected. They shouldn't be penalized for that.

[There might be other things some sort of "penalty" or "corrective action" may well be in order - just not on this one!]

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.