@ Allegheny, Meadville-"The GSL will never raise to those levels
again."Recently the environmentalists have been bemoaning the
fact that the GSL is at near record lows, about the same as circa 1870s (IIRC),
blaming global warming and all that. They ignore that the 1980s record high
levels came after huge population growths in Utah, and well into the period
where "global warming" was supposed to be taking place. The GSL may
reach the 4200' level again.Meanwhile, in your town of
Meadville the French Creek floods out the 5th Ward every couple of years and the
locals seem surprised every time. Best stick to your own water problems and let
Utahns worry about the Great Salt Lake.
Weston Jurney, The GSL will never raise to those levels again. We keep so much
water out the lake it would take a decade of historic rainfall to get it back to
were it was before the pioneers came.
Perhaps the City is thinking -- The STATE is insisting on moving the
prison no matter what, they are obviously are willing to pay WHATEVER it
takes, tax-payers are dumb enough to keep re-electing them no matter what
they [the State Legislators] do, SOThe City must be going - Why not
stiff the STATE for the absolute maximum amount they possibly can, ....and then
some?my opinion, 2nd guessing - but If "I" was a city
official, that is what I would do...
Public money going toward what will eventually be massive private profit. The
Utah way - the way of contemporary capitalism - sometimes called crony
capitalism which is of course redundant.
A decade or so ago, there was an entity that owned the property that Rio Tinto
owns today. This entity took a development plan to Salt Lake City. It was
quite a large mixed-use development. And then it died, and the entity sold it
to Rio Tinto, who has so far done nothing with it. There was, and is today,
water tables, wet lands, excessive costs of infrastructures, and other items.
It is costing the State $100 Million+- to just make the land use able for the
prison.The City has hope, but it will be very costly, and large
parcels will be left was wet lands. The users will really love the mosquitos.
I went out to that site some time back. Had my GPS set to show me elevations.
That area is below 4170' in altitude. The Great Salt Lake historically has
risen as high as 4200'. Can anybody besides me see a problem
Making lemonade out of lemons, it seems. However, it also seems to be wishful
thinking about a way to attract more business so they can tax them to support
Salt Lake City's high spending habits.
Some should be left for open spaces, walking and bike trails, trees and
vegetation that will help to take in the carbon dioxide in the valley and give
off oxygen. Also, businesses that won't be a heavy drain on the water
supply since we do live in a desert. Small businesses could be good. Looking at
what just happened in Oakland it shouldn't be a mini silicon valley to
drive housing costs out of sight. Food farms and farmers markets would be nice
there. With 10,000 seniors retiring every day in our country some could be used
for "affordable" housing geared to seniors needs. There could be walking
trails and a park around that to encourage exercise and activity. There could
also be cultural and educational venues as part of a mixed use community. It
should be mixed use that is high on walkability in the way it is designed.