Deseret News | Protect Indian village site in Draper with easement, groups say

Reader comments
Protect Indian village site in Draper with easement, groups say

Mike | 8:08 a.m. May 22, 2009

Who gives a crap about what the environmentalists want. If this area is a historical site, then protect it because of its historical significance. Utah does not have a good track record of protecting sites like this. Let Curtis and Diehl spread their corruption and negative influence somewhere else.

Reed | 11:11 a.m. May 22, 2009

By all means, Mike, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Conflict? | 11:15 a.m. May 22, 2009

From the story:

"UTA board member Terry Diehl has been associated with Whitewater. He has declared a conflict of interest on the matter with UTA, the agency has said. Though Frankel wonders if he declared the conflict only after he began work with Whitewater."

Of course he declared the conflict after he began work with Whitewater. Before he began work for Whitewater, there was no conflict to declare. Duh!

Comments continue below

Tammi Diaz | 11:44 a.m. May 22, 2009

Utah Transit Authority is Number One in Government Waste in Public Transit! Utah Transit is a Good Example of Corporate Welfare and Corporate Greed in Action!

Utahhhhhhhhhh | 11:45 a.m. May 22, 2009

The achaeological site needs to be protected. The wetlands need to be preserve.

There are federal laws already on the law books that protect archaeological sites: 25 USC section 3101; 42 USC section 4321; 16 USC section 1531; 16 USC section 470; 16 USC section 470aa; 25 USC section 3001, etc.

UTA infrastructural development cost derives from federal funds. Therefore, Stats using federal funds abide by federal laws.

Sensitive Site? | 12:22 a.m. May 23, 2009

If the site was so sensitive, how come the archeaolgists were so eager to carry off more than half the assets and UDOT allowed to dump a bunch of construction debris on what was left?

The reality is that much of the property to the north of the "sensitive" property is privately owned. If the stakeholders don't agree to moving the site closer to Bangerter Highway, the development can still be built with no interference from the Army Corps or so-called "environmentalists" and any Native American relics on the private property can be bulldozed and/or sold on eBay.

Kim | 3:31 p.m. July 9, 2009

The site is Utah History for pete's sake. UTA should know better than to destroy a piece of history so old. I sure hope Huntsman signs it before it is to late.

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.