Talks stall between Utah governor, Salt Lake mayor on inland port

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    May 23, 2018 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Holy-Schamoly-What Baloney Kaysville, UT
    May 19, 2018 3:13 p.m.

    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?

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    May 19, 2018 2:14 p.m.

    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 7

    Help me understand. Exactly what parcels of land owned by Salt Lake City did the State grab, steal or confiscate?

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    May 19, 2018 9:19 a.m.


    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.

  • rfrmac South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2018 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    May 19, 2018 6:24 a.m.

    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.

  • PhxAggie Phoenix, AZ
    May 19, 2018 5:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Vadarbill West Valley, UT
    May 18, 2018 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    May 18, 2018 6:34 p.m.

    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

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 18, 2018 5:39 p.m.

    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).

  • Selznik Saint George, UT
    May 18, 2018 5:07 p.m.

    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?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    May 18, 2018 4:32 p.m.

    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 SLC.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2018 3:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    May 18, 2018 3:07 p.m.

    @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.

  • Flipphone Sandy, UT
    May 18, 2018 2:05 p.m.

    As long as inland port is built who cares what the Socialist mayor of Salt Lake City has to say.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    May 18, 2018 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    May 18, 2018 1:04 p.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    May 18, 2018 12:56 p.m.

    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 any other.