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