Comments about ‘Residents rally to protest changes to canyons, foothills ordinance’

Re: "The rally, organized by Save Our Canyons . . . ."

The very name of the organization demonstrates the folly of its position -- Save OUR Canyons.

That selfish, leftist, what's-yours-is-mine attitude underlies about 99% of the problems extant in today's world.

@procuradorfiscal: The sentiment that the peaks and canyons should belong to everyone is not selfish or leftist or communist. It's simply a recognition that keeping such places pristine is a public good. Not only any free-market economist but also any econ 101 student will acknowledge that an unregulated market produces outcomes which aren't socially optimal when dealing with externalities like those involved in public goods.

I suppose you'll just condemn him as another bleeding-heart liberal, but among the first to voice this sentiment around here was Brigham Young: "Are you not dissatisfied, and is there not bitterness in your feelings, the moment you find a kanyon put in the possession of an individual, and power given unto him to control the timber, wood, rock, grass, and, in short, all its facilities? Does there not something start up in your breast, that causes you to feel very uncomfortable?" --Journal of Discourses 1:210.

By the by, thanks to people who had more foresight, most of the canyons really are owned by all of us. Thank goodness for (conservative!) conservationists like Pinchot and TR and for the USFS, as well as for the Wilderness Act.

I'm not sure the greatest gondolas on earth sign gives the impression the protester wants to give.

Unlike the first commenter, I would honor, not vilify what has been done over the years to preserve OUR canyons. I grew up in Salt Lake, having camped there many times in the 70's as a scout and later as a teenage backpacker. I moved away many years ago, but returned with my children and grandchildren last Summer and hiked to Mary's Lake and Doughnut Falls. I was so pleased to see so little had changed in 35 years and that, despite all the development in the valleys, these canyons remain much the same.

I'm a "Conservative" in a lot of other aspects but on the environment, I'm a strong preservationist. Kudos to all the far-sighted people who have kept nature the way it was. Keep up the great work and don't give up!!

Four angry backcountry skiers who don't want to share their precious powder do not constitute a rally.

Throughout this entire process, rational people have been asking SOC to produce data that shows the gondola will have any environmental/watershed impact that's not negligible...and they haven't produced it. Know why? Because there isn't any. So SOC is throwing around words like "watershed" as a scare tactic, when the reality is the impact is negligible.

Save us from Save Our Canyons...

Oh please! Companies which take stewardship over certain plots of land acutally help perserve the land better than having the government administer the property. This land will be better cared for and you wont notice the difference because a gondola goes over the mountain. Also the claim that this will effect the drinking water is bogus and is a ploy just to cost the taxpayer millions in dollars going toward studies with no basis in them.

Save us from Save Our Canyons!

@The Hammer
"you wont notice the difference because a gondola goes over the mountain"
I take it you must be blind. I would certainly notice.

Prodicus brings up a good point. Brigham Young was among the first to advocate protecting our canyons. Not sure how many people are aware but he was somewhat of an environmentalist. I'm a conservative but I also think we need to take care of this beautiful earth we live in. We don't need a gondola scarring the mountainside and we don't need more traffic in Big Cottonwood, which is exactly what would happen.

Watershed: Resorts use all sorts of chemicals to: treat lift towers (Snowbird sprays their towers with an ammonia mixture), treat race courses (various chemicals used, varies by resort), induce snow in snow-making (some controversy over the effect of these). Not too mention all the runoff from the parking lots full of leaking oil, gas, and other substances. The point is that with projected long-term snow drought (aside from debated climate change) and snow projected to be more and more concentrated at upper north facing bowls(ie ski resorts), our water supply will become less dependable (less snow=shorter reserve time) and lower-quality. High quality water does attract business (for example micron who needed high-quality water for their manufacturing).
We are still filtering run-off from the mining era, you can still see red streams in the Wasatch polluted by old mine tailings.
Historically the early settlers nearly ruined the Wasatch and the Fed's had to come in and save us from our industry. We deforested, mined, and polluted the forest. Development threatens to do the same.
No water/low-quality water=lower health, less business. We need high quality water to grow. Period.

Who wants to make a bet that the developer is going to win?

This IS Utah by the way. Any developer with a dollar to give to one of our legislators get's his/her way.

Always.

Amazing how enviros will protest anything and everything. Be nice if the nuts just would go away.

I would love to see a law that bans these enviros from using anything that they protest like skiing or gas.

Leave nothing but scorched earth non-protesting, sit at home, using up natural resources, and selling your children inheritance to the lowest bidder to rid us of the natural beauty in Utah, Should not be aloud in state parks and especially national parks, because they could care less about them from there living room or SUV anyway.

Re: "The sentiment that the peaks and canyons should belong to everyone is not selfish or leftist or communist."

Yeah, it is.

If you want to control your own canyon, fine. That's the American way. But, if you want to exercise unrighteous dominion over someone else's, that's just the opposite. And it places you on some pretty thin spiritual ice.

Whining, demonstrating, organizing, protesting, passing confiscatory laws -- those are all UN-American activities. Calling them something else to justify one's bad acts doesn't change their essential nature.

@procuradorfiscal: It's clear that your claim that the government should have nothing to do with forest and mountain property is itself antithetical to "the American Way"; forests and parks have been a proud part of what makes this nation great for a long time.

The idea that government has no power to prevent people doing things with their property that harm others is likewise far from American ideals, and calling that "unrighteous dominion" is clearly wresting the scriptures.

Demonstrating, organizing, and protesting abuses of power aren't "un-American"-- they're how this nation was founded.

Perhaps you're looking for "the Somalian Way," where there's no government in place to protect the public interest and people's protests against abuses are countered with brutal violence.

Just cut the trees down. Who needs them? Build whatever you want wherever you want. Why not? Just develop the canyons to their fullest potential. The only land worth anything has human domination over it. Survival of the fittest, right? Who needs wild places? Why not just pave a 4-lane road from Brighton to Park City? The land on both sides of the 4-lane road could be sold to the highest bidder and more people could build houses and businesses along it. After all, once it's developed, it'll be worth something.

After all, the only good land out there is land that can be sold for a price. That's the Utah way.