Herbert announces inland port compromise, calls special session for Wednesday

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Oomatrix Hyrum, UT
    July 18, 2018 8:49 a.m.

    We already can't breathe the air for much of the year and you want to bring more pollution to our valleys?! Children are dying of asthma. Babies are being miscarried - these are forced abortion due to pollution. This proposal has conflicts of interest as far as the eye can see. No wonder you want to hurry up and pass this monstrous policy without input from the citizens.

  • SopSax Provo, UT
    July 17, 2018 4:30 p.m.

    The opportunity for an inland port is not only for SLC, Salt Lake County or Utah. The nation needs an inland hub for commerce of all kinds - not just transport. It is an obvious choice to be in SLC. if the US Gov't. was to choose a location, this would still be the best decision. The debate over the original trade routes from east to west and from Western Canada to Mexico were just as obvious 100 and 200 years ago.

    The City's claims for tax shares, controls, rights and entitlements is very provincial when the scope of benefit is really intermountain if not national. Let all of our state reps provide input in order to dilute the selfishness, optimize the localized perspectives and aggregate the wisdom of all of us via the elected state officials who we have sent for the job. Stand back. Let them lead.
    Nothing is as irreversible as timing. An inland port will happen regardless of our arguments and there are alternative locations that can rise in the wake of our inability to support our state representatives. The opportunity for SLC is to take advantage of the fruits that spill into that city. We may hope that their neighbors will not be left out or snubbed by SLC's mayor.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    July 17, 2018 11:02 a.m.

    But would city and state leaders even need the mayor at this point?

    Salt Lake City hasn’t had a credible mayor since she was elected

  • Wasatch Al South Jordan, UT
    July 17, 2018 12:22 a.m.

    The session starts at 2:30 pm and they have eleven bills to discuss. That should give them about 15 minutes for each bill. That’s what you call quality deliberation in the Utah State Legislature.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    July 16, 2018 7:56 p.m.

    Utah leaders are leaders and beautiful and fun and brilliant; go for it, don't be shy. Leaders aren't timid. Start with something and over the decades we will adjust it. People rule.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    July 16, 2018 7:50 p.m.

    'We want the mayor'
    Meanwhile, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski hasn't played ball.

    Has the current mayor actually supported, or completed anything? She seems to change her stance on any issue more then Trump.

    I'm sure that the city council is tired of playing the role that a responsible mayor would be playing on major Salt Lake City issues.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    July 16, 2018 1:02 p.m.

    The SLC Mayor refused to join in the deliberations, even though invited. She could have always attended and then withdrew if things weren't going well. Maybe she thinks it is more effective to pout when you don't get your way. And make no mistake, SLC has thought of themselves as being the "upper crust" of Utah society for several decades. It would be interesting to see how many Utah State laws were passed to counter balance some SLC position or enforcement.

  • Glyz60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2018 12:36 p.m.

    The SLC Council continues to be out of control with taxpayer dollars. Erin Mendenhall forgot and often does, the residents elected her, not big business. Mayor Biskupski wanted public feedback, but Erin Mendenhall, Derek Kitchen, and the rest of the SLC Council refused. This has been ongoing with the SLC Council for years. It's the reason why there are 2 bonds; 1 new and 1 expiring to vote on (vote no), exponential yearly increases to SLC residents water/sewer/trash/storm water/customer service (?) charge of more than 12% of the total bill; a sales tax increase of 1/2% (county will add another 1/2%).

    The SLC Council gives away millions to developers and 10 to 20 year tax credits, spends copious amounts on more upper east bench trails, Parley's to Jordan River Trails, McClelland Trail, Bicycle Highway, another track for the hardly ridden S-Line, millions in art , beautiful new street lights for the developers (on our SLC Utility bill since 1/2012 $3.88 per 30 days), etc.

    Sure wish Ms. Mendenhall, Derek Kitchen and the rest had spend this much time over the last eight years on the homeless, addiction, and housing crisis we have now.

    This is totally unacceptable.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    July 16, 2018 11:43 a.m.

    @Strider303: "Somehow this doesn't sound good for the people of Utah."

    Minimizing the control exerted by the radical liberals in SLC over a Statewide resource is good for the people of Utah. This new compromise increases the power of SLC and so isn't as good for the people of the State. But it probably isn't terrible.

    Remember, in Utah the people created the State as the sovereign governmental entity. Cities and counties were and are created by the State simply for administrative convenience and to enable some diversity of neighborhoods and communities. Local government has no inherent powers nor rights. So there is no proper analogy between the feds over stepping their delegated powers and the State "interfering" in local matters because local governments have no inherent power.

    There is, however, a great analogy between SLC residents denying rural residents any say in how federal lands near them are used and the State of Utah telling SLC that is doesn't get control of a Statewide resource just because it is near them. SLC residents get to learn a bit how rural residents have felt for 100 years.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    July 16, 2018 11:15 a.m.

    Time to reset the clock on the inland port. Way to many unanswered questions.

  • Strider303 American Fork, UT
    July 16, 2018 11:06 a.m.

    I am curious as to what the "consensus" is. I find it curious that the "consensus" is reached before the public debate in the open. Wasn't this the same scenario that had Speaker Hughes self-appoint himself to the board of said project?

    If there is "consensus" why not announce it and save the dog and pony show for another time.

    Somehow this doesn't sound good for the people of Utah.