Letter: Prison move ideas

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    There are lobbyists making millions over this. Lease any property until new prison is paid in full.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 22, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    2 bits,

    "surplus land". The land is not surplus it is currently being used. Our Utah legislature without a plan for where the new prison will be, what the new prison will cost has decided to move the prison and free up that land for development. You may not want to call it "crony capitalism", but it sure isn't very good public policy. The legislature has taken a jump without knowing where they are landing and they have committed a lot of Utah taxpayer dollars to do so.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 21, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    IF... you have some proof it's "crony capitalism"... put that proof out there. Otherwise... just saying it doesn't make it so.

    How is selling surplus land to the highest bidder "crony capitalism"? Once we build the other facility.. this one becomes surplus, and SHOULD be sold (to benefit the tax payers of Utah).

    IF you have some proof that it benefits any legislator... just put your theory (and some proof you know some legislator who will benefit) out there.. that's all I ask.

    last comment...

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    March 21, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    Crony capitalism strikes again.

    Put it up for a popular vote Utah.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 21, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    The new facility is probably going to cost more than the old one is worth (kinda like when you sell your house and move to a bigger one). But I think you are on the right track.

    Whatever we get when we sell the old facility will help offset at least some of the cost of building the new one.

    I think to prevent the possibility of there being any people saying some legislator gave his brother in law a good deal... they need to sell it to the highest bidder. That way if anybody thinks somebody's getting it cheep, all they have to do is outbid them. Kinda takes the possibility of giving a relative a sweet deal out of the equation.


    Once we sell it... the developer owns it.

    We can't sell it.... and then pretend we still own it and can tell the developer what they can do with it. We don't own it anymore. We can zone it, but we really need to respect the new owner's rights of ownership and let them develop it and sell off parts of it to make back their investment.


  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 21, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    A more simple idea is this. Sell the developers the land that the prison is on for the same price that it will cost to build a new one. Some discounts could be given due to the age, but you ge the idea.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 21, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    I think there should be parks included in the development (and there usually is). Developers are not interested in making it a crappy place to live. They are already building many schools and parks in that area. But I don't know that it ALL needs to be one huge park. That's a little extreme (all or nothing).

    Maybe some parks, and some housing, and some schools, and some businesses, and some of everything?

    We aren't NYC. We don't need a central park (in the suburbs). We already have lots of parks in our neighborhoods, and we have the canyons, and the deserts, and LOTS of open space in every direction (which NYC doesn't have).

    Central Park is great, but try to find a scrap of grass anywhere else in the city... We aren't like NYC and I don't want to try to be like NYC.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 21, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    You realize if we turn it into a huge park... you and me (Utah tax payers) get to pay 100% of the cost of the new land and construction... right?

    If we sell it (like you do when you move)... we can use the money we got from selling the old place to buy the new place. Instead of having to come up with 100% of the cost of the new place.

    Selling the land to the highest bidder is a way to reduce the costs of the move. It's been used by every State (Democrat or Republican) and every family that moves to a new house. It's normal finance 101.... use the equity in the old to help buy the new.

    The State got this land very cheep in the 50's. It's valuable now. Selling it may allow the move to happen without a lot of new taxes, bonds, etc.

    No sell... they have to find a way to get 100% of the cost for the move from me (and you).

    That's right. Instead of getting the money from the winning bidder... 100% falls to the tax payers. I don't want that bill.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 21, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Best idea that I've heard yet. Cudos to the letter writer.

    I'm still in favor of turning the whole thing into a great big regional park featuring the ponds. That way no developers, who run the legislature, would get a dime.