Utah legislator questions Salt Lake City mayoral candidate's role on air quality board as 'politically motivated'

Senator backing Sen. Luz Escamilla for mayor opposes appointment of Councilwoman Erin Mendenhall

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tryingtosmile Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2019 8:30 a.m.

    It doesn't matter do you see anyone or any political will to go against the polluters? The board director of the Inland Port stated it didn't matter about air pollution becuase you won;t be able to determine if it is from the port or the expansion of the airport. So to me with his statement all the the pollution will be not be determined and given a pass To say science can't pick out where it is coming from. SO you can put all the monitors you want up all over the state but they will argue it just like they did for tobacco, climate change,Pesticides you name it. All other things they say will cost somebody somewhere money. The Trump adminstration is even turning back regulation on asbestos. Not enough science to prove it is harmful. So go ahead put people on the board the board has NO teeth to do anything.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2019 8:11 a.m.

    "Apparently she wanted something to wave around … for whatever political ambitions she had. If that's true, then I would question whether or not the main purpose of her service on the board was really for air quality or if it was for other political purposes."

    There are only two question that should be answered in any evaluation of Erin Mendenhall's position: (1) has she proposed an action that is within the law? and (2) will the proposed action do anything to improve the quality of the air we must breathe? If the answers are "yes" and "yes," then I, for one, am grateful to her.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2019 10:14 a.m.

    "Utah legislator questions Salt Lake City mayoral candidate's role on air quality board as 'politically motivated'"

    A Politician being politically motivated? Tell me it ain't so....

    Or, are we having a "stating the obvious contest"?