Salt Lake City can't even pave their own streets, while devoting their time
naming streets after people who have never even been here before.No, the State and the people of Utah should control this land, not the looney
leftie PC Police.
mcclark--- Just what exactly did Salt Lake City do with the land in question
the last 150 years? If it is of such value to them, why did they ignore it?
And how has "ownership" been transferred? It hasn't---the former
owners are still the owners. How the land will be developed will not likely be
decided by someone other than SLC, but again, if they cared so much about it why
didn't they do anything with it?
I'm pretty sure Mayor Biskupski's concerns are ideological and
political rather than practical. Those will be impossible to overcome. Better to
move forward without her.@ mcclark & Impartial 7Help
me understand. Exactly what parcels of land owned by Salt Lake City did the
State grab, steal or confiscate?
@rfrmac,SLC has made it clear what they are against in the current
bill numerous times. 1. They are against the State taking 100% of
the tax increment from the area for the next 25 years while still requiring the
City to deliver services. This would mean the need to hire as many as 100
police officers to cover the area as well as maintenance, utility workers, snow
removal and more while having to move the cost burden for this to the other
areas of the City.2. While the City controls initial zoning, any
appeals go to the Port Authority and they have final say. So if the City says a
project doesn't work in the area because it would cause problems due to
traffic, utilities, fire, or being to close to the Airport or a School. The
Port Authority can override the City without needing to provide a reason.
Additionally, if there is any incident at the nearby location, the City can be
sued because the Original zoning wouldn't allow the project. This is
because the Port Authority is setup to be immune from prosecution in cases such
as this causing double damage to the City.
I too do not see why the Major of Salt Lake City is so against it. If there is
something that is so objectionable, make it known and state your case with facts
in the newspaper or TV. I'm tired of "political justifications"
for making bad decisions. From what I've read so far, I hope the State
goes ahead with the project. This is far more than a City thing. I will
continue to read on the matter but so far, I think the Mayor is on the wrong
side of the fence here.
Many cities have turned into for profit corporations using their "city"
status to make gobs of money.One city charges $500,000 for a
building permit.Another tells its residents there's a water
shortage while selling "surplus" water out the back door in other
counties for big cash.Another city gives city employees bonuses on
how much money they can rake in for the city.We limit land use,
house sizes, road speeds, etc.. We should limit the size of cities to 100,000
people by law. That would solve many problems including rich cities from
building profit empires.Salt Lake City caused the $380 million cost
over run on the Legacy Highway, the $67 million Rio Grande mess, the Liberty
Park mess, the Pioneer Park mess. and the canyon mess.Perhaps the
State is weary of picking up the pieces and picking up the tab for failed
polices and bad management from an otherwise great city.
I think any city would be opposed to a new governing board for a section of
development that provides no tax revenue back to that city. SLC gets a bad deal
and is looking for their interest. They should have an incentive with a
percentage of the tax revenue. No revenue to the schools? How will the
authority determine how to spend and invest its revenue and consider it is not
an elected board. It's a strange control board by appointment that will
receive big revenues. What government agency will oversee this board? I'm
not a fan of SLC politics but I understand their viewpoint when there is no
percentage of taxes. It's easy for conservatives to be in favor of this
but if tables were turned we would not favor this land grab. If the state did
thistp any other community there would be local opposition.
After reviewing the article I cannot see what is so objectionable to Salt Lake
City. They appear to have representation and voice. Frankly I am more
comfortable that this deal will be better managed by the State than that of Salt
Lake City. It is good for the State and I think the right decision was made by
the State Legislature.
Salt Lake City has stockpiled water rights, and annexed bare ground, all so that
they could control future development, and yet they can't manage what they
already have. Shucks, a former mayor of Salt Lake even messed with the Legacy
highway, costing the state hundreds of millions in additional costs. Then when
they couldn't this highway in another county, they managed to get a
ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit imposed. In fact, were it not for the LDS
church's massive City Creek Development, the down town business district
would have died years ago. I say that the state should simply de-annex this
land and proceed without any imput from the city
Salt Lake City, especially under the current mayor, manages to mess up
everything they touch, especially if it might involve any sort of business
instead of just giving away tax dollars.The state should (and can)
designate the area as outside of SLC's purview and administrative control,
and build the port. Let the county run it, Mayor McAdams has done a
pretty good job (for a Democrat).
NoNamesAccepted - The way you use the phrase “those lefties”
appears to be intended to demean and belittle people who are , in fact, your
brothers and sisters in Christ. The Desert News encourages civil dialogue.
Can’t we discuss things without calling each other names?
Cities in Utah are administrative conveniences with no inherent authority. In
contrast, States are semi-sovereign states that have delegated only limited
power to the federal government.There is no hypocrisy in expecting
the constitution to be followed in both cases even when that means the State has
inherent power in both cases while the feds have limited power and cities have
no power.What is hypocritical is those lefties who always favor
federal authority over conservative States and conservative rural communities to
complain when the State exercises power over a liberal city.Considering how messed up most of SLC is, I see no reason to give them any say
at all in a new development important to the entire State. Indeed, the area
should be de-annexed from SLC to remove all city authority over the development.
This is the sentiment lefties typically express when it comes to any State or
local decision they don't like. Have the feds dictate and give us what we
want.Well, how do like them tables being turned on you? You're
getting a very small taste of what rural areas and conservative States have long
endured from activist judges.You'll understand if I laugh at
How hypocritical of the people who endlessly complain about "Federal
Overreach" to go ahead and do the very same thing they claim the Feds are
doing. As long as I am a taxpaying citizen of SLC I have every right to care
what happens. Have the state come to Sandy and grab a huge chunk of it for
themselves and see what you think then.
@Toosmartfor you;"SLC must have grounds upon which to sue. No doubt
they have standing but I doubt they have any grounds, except for some
disgruntled citizens. Certainly no land theft is occurring."Watch and learn, grasshopper.
As long as inland port is built who cares what the Socialist mayor of Salt Lake
City has to say.
No one is stealing any land. The deed to the property still resides with the
owner of the land. That's pretty basic. What is being changed is the way
the land is allowed to be used (power) and where the taxes will go (money) and
those are the exact two items I identified as being the problem, wasn't
it?Since you seem to have all the answers, may I assume you give
orders to the Mayor of Draper about what that office should be doing, and they
just follow whatever you say? SLC must have grounds upon which to sue. No
doubt they have standing but I doubt they have any grounds, except for some
disgruntled citizens. Certainly no land theft is occurring.
It's not a negotiation when someone else tries to steal your land. For all
the squawking from the governor and the legislature over "government
overreach" and "local control", they sure don't mind grabbing
property that doesn't belong to them. The only "negotiation" that
they will understand will be in court, by a judge. But, that would require SLC
to get their act together and file suit, which they should have done months ago.
Successful negotiation usually requires some give-and-take from each party.
Seeing none of that happening, I'll bet each side has drawn a line in the
sand and labeled it "Money" on one end and "Power" on the other
end and neither is willing to budge even a particle of sand. So it stalled.
In the case of a City vs a State, the City gets it's authority
from the State and the State can repeal, limit, restrict, redefine or whatever
they wish with that approval. I'm not saying that's necessarily a
good or a bad thing, just that's the way things are set up in this
country.Most politicians think their point of view is superior to