House Republicans not ready to endorse prison move

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Cookie999 Albuquerque, NM
    Feb. 11, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    If Utah really wants to ease overcrowding they could take a second look at prison sentences of those who have already been in for say 10 or 15 years or longer. I know one person who received two life sentences for a crime which would have only received a single life sentence in surrounding states. New Mexico has six laws to help prisoners to get out of prison faster if they are complying with certain requirements. It seems also that certain employers are benefiting from prisoner labor more than victims of the prisoners' crimes are. I decline to name names at this time, as I feel it should be looked at on an individual basis. If the land developers want to make a profit off the land, they should be required to set aside a portion of those profits to pay for the prison move.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    The prison relocation has the potential to be one of the greatest boondoggles in Utah's history. The cost multipliers for the move include,retention of prison staff,relocation of inmates,water,
    access to prisoners by family,social workers and clergy. It seems that certain businesses and individuals want this in the worst way and that may be the reason to not move it at all. The projected benefits may not even materialize but the costs could easily skyrocket. It should be carefully analyzed and even postponed if questions aren't completely answered. The possibility of cost overruns in construction, litigation,meeting EPA, and OSHA rules could really drive the price up.

  • taichik provo, ut
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    move the refineries out of the salt lake basin, not the prison.

  • Tilka PORTLAND, OR
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Perhaps the legislators are hesitant to act too quickly before they can get in on the action or at least get campaign donations from the people and firms who will benefit from the relocation. Consider requiring a little more disclosure on what firms have been involved behind the scenes.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    Those who benefit by drivng cars pay the gasoline tax.

    Let the developers who will benefit foot the $102 million .

    How can they say the net cost will be $102 million when they have not identified the new prison location? Does it already have the infrastructure in place or will it require new roads, new electrical installations, new water and sewer upgrades to the new site?

    Seems to be way to early in the process to make decisons.

  • sally Kearns, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    The legislature plans to read the proposal before making a decision? That was the best part of the article.

  • skibird Spanish Fork, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    The prison as a whole isn't old. A couple of the buildings are old but the majority of the buildings were built in the mid 80s to early 90s, the newest housing facility was completed in 2000. Those that stand to make a bunch of money on this keep pointing to the oldest building to draw you attention away from the new ones that still have a lot of years left in them.

    While driving south on I15 as you fist see buildings after going under the Bangerter overpass look at those buildings. Do they look old? Of course not, they aren't. The State will not make a ton of cash since they'll give huge tax breaks to whoever buys the land eliminating the optimistic projections of tax revenue and the cost of rebuilding will always be over the projected amount.

  • KParker Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    "Dee said waiting until the next legislative session a year from now to endorse a move wouldn't be "fair to the public or to the people who have been working on it."

    To the people who have been "working on it!?"

    They can wait. They've been well-paid for their efforts. We aren't rushing into an expensive public decision to appease "who have been working on it."

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    Too many of our legislators have a conflict of interest in this matter. They want to slow it down to find aways around the conflicts so their companies can profit on the move.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    Consider the thousands of people who currently volunteer their service at the prison—If it is moved to a remote location, the prisoner rehabilitation rate will decline in direct correlation to the distance volunteers will have to drive.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:11 a.m.

    Why isn't anyone talking about the principle of the thing?

    Why should we the taxpayers pay to move a prison while real estate cronies with connections to our government make off with bundles of money?

    I thought utahns cared about morality? To me, moving the prison at taxpayer expense while enriching a select handful isn't moral.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    Double or triple the $102 million. No one ever sold a legislature on a program without taking an optimistic view. Add in the cost overruns, upgrades, inflation and kick-backs and this is going to cost the public a lot more.

    Yes, the land is valuable because it is conveniently located. Why shouldn't the citizens of Utah be the ones to benefit from that convenience? Leave it there.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    The prison requires so many repairs and upgrades due to the simple fact that it has aged. When you aggregate the value of the land and cost of repairs against moving it to lower cost and less desirable real estate it seems like a big win for the state. Have the Legislative auditors and various non political state employees evaluate bids to ensure that it is apolitical.

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    Are some people missing the point that it is going to cost basically just as much money to leave the prison right where it is?
    If it is moved, at least the state can sell the land it is currently on and recoup some of the cost.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    I am sure they are all innocent, just let them go, seriously, how about more bunk beds.

  • SundanceKid27 OREM, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    Growing up in Utah most of my life. Everytime my family drove by the prison it was a reminder of the importance of doing what is right. Or seeing the reality of poor decisions. I think having a prison in plain sight can be of value for everybody in society. To be able to see the reality of bad decisions and importance of obeying the law.

    Just my thought on keeping it where it is.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:43 p.m.

    This is such a good deal, and won't cost taxpayers anything?

    Well, it will cost $102 million, but to politicians, that is the same as nothing, since it is not their money.

    How about if all the politicians who vote for a move sign up to pay for that $102 million out of THEIR money, not ours!

    This whole scheme still stinks, and the unintended consequences and COSTS will be huge, but not revealed until it is too late to turn back.

    We should also demand full disclosure of the name of EVERY person who ever makes a dollar off this scheme. Following the money is always a good investigative tool, and we should know who is doing this to line their own pockets, and who may just honestly believe it is a good long term move for the state, corrections department, judicial system, and inmates and their families.

    Vote NO! on the move until we know how and why the TAXPAYERS will benefit more than the real estate speculators and politicians.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:25 p.m.

    Here's a thought, why not delay a vote until you have published the report for the public to read and study and then run on your announced vote for or against the measure.

    As this will involve significant effort, funding and funds changing hands, we could include it as a separate vote in this election cycle. It's a unique idea, public approval of spending money.

    Voting on an unread unstudied proposal is how Congress gave us the Farm Bill, ACA and almost all out laws.

    This proposal has boondoggle written all over it.

    IMO the legislature can and ought to do better.

    There isn't a tooth fairy, nor a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and I believe there isn't a silicon corridor around Point of the Mountain.