Governor to sign controversial Utah inland port bill despite city outcry

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    March 18, 2018 5:52 p.m.

    Did the City delay development for 3 decades? It had it's chance. If the City can't decide, time to let the state see what it can do. Des News wrote an editorial a few years back to endorse the inland port. Des News should congratulate the Governor for getting it done. After all was said and done, more was said than done.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2018 9:39 a.m.

    This single decision by our Governor will cost the Republicans their hegemony in Utah for decades to come. It amazes me that a seasoned politician like Gary Herbert doesn't get that.

  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    March 10, 2018 9:10 a.m.

    ''the bill still leaves the city with the obligation to provide municipal services to the area, such as public safety and street maintenance, without a revenue source to pay for these additional services." Hmm. Then Salt Lake City should De-annex the area so it won't have to provide safety, streets, and additional services. That problem is easy to solve. The area then becomes just another suburb like Sandy, South Jordan, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Park City.

  • Capsaicin Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2018 7:12 a.m.

    Inland port. Think geneva steel sized eye-sore right next to the great salt lake. Created and managed by government instead of private interest. It’s going to be as mismanged as UTA and be an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars.

  • John Jackson Sandy, UT
    March 9, 2018 9:56 p.m.

    I would suggest even an inland trade hub might be selling the value of the land short. Being near an international airport, its greatest value is tourism. (Just my thought; Call me a fool, if you want.) That said, I don't understand the need for takeover. I see a Feb. 6 news article in which state leaders say they weren't interested in a hostile takeover. A month later and what have they done? Well, taken it over and certainly in hostile fashion. And, what of how back then the talk was of it to be for 3,000 to 5,000 acres. And, when all is said and done, it is 22,000 acres?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    March 9, 2018 4:32 p.m.

    The residents of SLC love to control others. They injected themselves into Legacy Parkway. They have very strong opinions about rural land most of them will never see.

    If for no other reason than giving the urban know-it-alls a taste of being on the other side, this is probably a good idea.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    March 9, 2018 2:47 p.m.

    "gildas" First, I don't believe you or I have all the facts to make intelligent decisions, but we do have historical FACTS to guide us. Here are several historical facts to consider: 1) Salt Lake City has a history of meddling in, and trying to control affairs not within their jurisdiction (the Legacy Highway is one example of this). 2) Salt Lake City likes to control every aspect of business even within their borders (example: they approached the LDS church about buying the roadway now known as the plaza, because they were cash strapped, then attempted to dictate to the church how this plaza would be used - even to allow anti LDS protestors to use it). 3) Salt Lake City has acquired as many water "rights" as possible, then dictates how our canyons can be used. I could go on, but in this case, it is the state who is putting up the money for this development, in an area that should never have been annexed in the first place.

    This project will benefit all of us. Salt Lake City will benefit the most, yet they aren't happy unless they have complete control (at our expense). I think the state is doing the right thing here.

  • goodnight-goodluck Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2018 2:36 p.m.

    Of course he will, they're all free market capitalists and promoters of small government and local control aren't they...

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 9, 2018 2:19 p.m.

    Interesting that this issue was only raised, as far as the readership is concerned, about two weeks ago, and now it's happening.

    I will say now, what I typed before: It's an idea we needed to discuss. As one poster stated on this thread: what is this inland port anyway?

    I am conservative, constitutionalist, not partisan, but I cannot avoid the conclusion that this is high-handeded arrogance. As always the people are not part of the conversation (and I'm not envisaging that part as being two minutes at the end of a long, frustrating meeting, when "the people" get to make a comment or two as long as they are very short).

    We seem never to be included in anything after an election; there is hubris and a reminder that "most men [and women] as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion".

    This should be a time of discussion not a rude assertion of dictatorial power.

    I hope the political status quo will be constitutionally overturned, next elections, replaced by independent candidates who respect the voters.

    Seems there's a need, btw, to drain the swamp, literally and spiritually.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 9, 2018 2:19 p.m.

    Interesting that this issue was only raised, as far as the readership is concerned, about two weeks ago, and now it's happening.

    I will say now, what I typed before: It's an idea we needed to discuss. As one poster stated on this thread: what is this inland port anyway?

    I am conservative, constitutionalist, not partisan, but I cannot avoid the conclusion that this is high-handeded arrogance. As always the people are not part of the conversation (and I'm not envisaging that part as being two minutes at the end of a long, frustrating meeting, when "the people" get to make a comment or two as long as they are very short).

    We seem never to be included in anything after an election; there is hubris and a reminder that "most men [and women] as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion".

    This should be a time of discussion not a rude assertion of dictatorial power.

    I hope the political status quo will be constitutionally overturned, next elections, replaced by independent candidates who respect the voters.

    Seems there's a need, btw, to drain the swamp, literally and spiritually.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2018 2:06 p.m.

    @stevo123
    The land west of the airport is higher in elevation than west SLC neighborhoods (which is why the Jordan River naturally flows through west Salt Lake and had to be channelized past the airport in order to prevent flooding in Rose Park). Most of the northwest quadrant was dry even during the 1980's

    @Makid
    Less than a decade ago, the same developer who built Lake Park in West Valley (a project that resulted in increased water quality and wildlife habitat) proposed a environmentally sensitive residential community of roughly 30,000 people, Environmentalists opposed it for largely spurious reasons (pets will chase the birds, etc.) and the negative PR adverse developer traded their land with Kennecott and moved their project to the southwest portion of the valley. Kennecott offered portions of their newly acquired land to the state for a prison. The state took it because it was politically cheap (but financially expensive), forcing the city to do what it had committed to do since the 1980's - provide services

    @Nuschler121 Environmental extremism is the enemy of environmentalism. Zealotry (religious, environmental, etc.) usually makes things worse.

  • Nuschler121 Villa Rica, GA
    March 9, 2018 12:00 p.m.

    To Counter Intelligence:

    Please read any book by Edward Abbey. “The Monkey Wrench Gang” and “Desert Solitaire” are superb. Here was a man, a volunteer Park Ranger who worked at Arches. He saw how our pristine land was being turned into a parking lot, He LOVED Utah as I love this land I have hiked and backpacked into. “Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints.”

    Even Zion’s stopped car traffic down along the Virgin River. Here are some of Abbey’s quotes:

    “May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.”

    “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

    --“WILDERNESS IS NOT A LUXURY BUT A NECESSITY of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”

    ― Edward Abbey

    Think of the children to come. This is THEIR LAND TOO!

    Thank you.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 9, 2018 11:13 a.m.

    If this land is swamp every time the lake is high, why does anyone want to build there?

    And what is an inland port anyway?

    It seems we are coming into the middle of a conversation. Does some news paper writer care to explain this from the ground up?

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    March 9, 2018 10:36 a.m.

    @ Counter intelligence,

    All of the plans for the area were designed either by Salt Lake City or with Salt Lake City as a joint partner.

    No developer wanted to build there because of the swampy nature and the need to provide some upfront funding (matched by SLC) to provide infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, power, etc.).

    So the land sat and sat and sat. Every few year, SLC would try to get support for development and nothing. They then began working with the land owners on an Inland Port idea in conjunction with World Trade Center Utah. The State got wind of this and figured since they could stick their noses into SLC's business again.

    This time though, they completely took over the project, kicked SLC to the curb while still demanding that SLC provide services and support for the project.

    SLC should de-annex the land that isn't built on or under contract and basically for the State to support the whole thing themselves. The City should also scale back it's support on infrastructure for the new prison since they won't get any of that money back either.

  • sherlock holmes Roosevelt, UT
    March 9, 2018 10:13 a.m.

    This proposal could provide economic benefits to the entire state, even and especially the rural counties. I applaud the legislature and governor for being willing to look at the big picture.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2018 9:48 a.m.

    I usually agree with the gov. Not on this one. I am against anything that cause people in mexico or california to move to Utah. Go away!! You won't like it here!!!

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    March 9, 2018 9:41 a.m.

    @ Counter intelligence, In the 1980's that land was a swamp, as the lake was much higher.

  • Nuschler121 Villa Rica, GA
    March 9, 2018 9:31 a.m.

    “Pyle also declined to say which specific businesses were involved”

    Whoa! Slow down Governor! This land has been here for 3.4 billion years! Why the hurry?

    The bottom line always seems to be about making money for folks already rich while dismissing the majority of residents!

    Put LONG term plans into writing. Let’s have public meetings so that the people have input. Allow land experts, attorneys who work in land disputes, professors of geology and geography AND business professionals to go over maps and plans. Let them write up findings and then have MORE public meetings.

    Governance has been taken away from citizens and handed over to large corporations.

    We need for Utahans to take back our state. We need long term goals that benefit all citizens! Not quick rich schemes of outsiders who are only here to make money for a few.

    Let’s not sell off our land, our common good, our Utah!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2018 8:55 a.m.

    SLC annexed the land in the 80's , then proceeded to thwart development, pressured by environmentalists who pushed an unconstitutional belief that development could be stopped by withholding services (it can only be stopped by buying the land)
    If it weren't for environmental extremists, the last proposal, an environmentally friendly residential community that saved wetlands, cleaned up an old trash dump and connected people via transit to the top employment centers in the state, would have been under constriction by now.

    The current circumstance is entirely SLC 's own fault

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 9, 2018 7:58 a.m.

    Vote Him Out! Vote Him Out! Vote Him Out!

  • Egyptian origins Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2018 6:07 a.m.

    This does not surprise me. It is the Republican Party Platform mentality that when elected into any office they believe the people voted them in to do their own will not the will of the people. Such that when criticized the elected Republican official shrugs it off as the minority voice believing he has authority to do his will being approved by the majority to whom are now subjected to his will. This is the Republican view of a Republican Form of Government.

    As for me and my political affiliations I keep promoting a Constitutional Republic.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 9, 2018 1:31 a.m.

    If Jackie hates it, it must be good.

  • AFlor BR, 00
    March 9, 2018 1:10 a.m.

    Interesting move

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    March 8, 2018 11:56 p.m.

    This is a pretty blatant attempt for the state to steal money from the capitol city in order to stick it to people they disagree with politically. It's about green and politics, and nothing more.