In our opinion: Inland port protesters should work with, not against, officials to continue clean air progress

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lib Living on Planet Zion SLC, UT
    June 20, 2019 3:56 p.m.

    Red-

    “so, shiny object it was. This is fun. Almost as much fun as that time time you told us about when you were at Band Camp.”

    The lack of bringing anything substantial or intellectual into the conversation should be beyond embarrassing Red. I’m truly embarrassed for you. In typical Alt-Rightist fashion you deflect and claim others of the identical behavior. It’s beyond nauseating yourself and “ilk” intentionally sabotage any type of adult dialogue whatsoever with adolescent nonsense. By offering retorts, such as “Band camp” for example, you cannot expected to be taken serious. No to mention the blatant disregard for factual information. As I’ve cited throughout there are numerous “studies” explaining in detail the negative impact of the port. For example, “Environmental racism at Utah’s inland port” {SL Tribune, 3/3/19} Possibly at some point you’ll actually thoroughly read the articles cited, prior to offering any partisan commentary. Then again the ongoing track record for relying on propaganda rather facts unfortunately speaks for itself. Deflect away Red. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 19, 2019 1:52 p.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" so, shiny object it was. This is fun. Almost as much fun as that time time you told us about when you were at Band Camp.

    So, do you have any proof yet that actually shows that an inland port is bad for the environment or will increase traffic?

    You evidence to date stated that an inland port would decrease traffic by 1% to 2% and would most likely decrease emissions, while providing many jobs and decreasing delivery time for goods.

    You haven't read the multiple studies I supplied, yet keep insisting that you know something about what they contain.

    So, again, shiny object, deflection, or actually answer the question. My guess is shiny object.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    June 19, 2019 12:41 p.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard -

    “But didn't you say that your favorite role was when you played Dorothy in an all male cast of the Wizard of Oz?”

    So, you still have absolutely nothing Red, accept the latest and most pathetic attempt of deflection by now apparently attacking the LGBTQ community. Rather constantly insinuating attendance to countless “liberal indoctrination centers”, possibly spend the identical time to actually educate yourself, rather meaningless, adolescent attacks. It’s quite pathetic. Do you actually have any quotes from ANY of your approved sources that supports your claims. So far the best you have done is to support my claims Red. Can you find something from a valid source like the AP, NY Times, The Economist, NPR, BBC, C-SPAN, Reuters, and PBS? Where are your sources? They seem to not contain any information that agrees with anything you claim Red. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 19, 2019 12:27 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so you still got nothing, and now I see can be distracted by shiny objects. But didn't you say that your favorite role was when you played Dorothy in an all male cast of the Wizard of Oz?

    Do you actually have any quotes from ANY of your approved sources that supports your claims. So far the best you have done is to support my claims.

    Can you find something from a valid source like the AP, NY Times, The Economist, NPR, BBC, C-SPAN, Reuters, and PBS? Where are your sources? They seem to not contain any information that agrees with anything you claim.

    So, shiny object, deflection, or will you actually try to give some evidence to back up your statements?

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 19, 2019 12:11 p.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard-

    “However, you did once state that you thought the moon landing was faked and until you step foot on the moon and could see for yourself the equipment that was left there and the footprints in the dust. But then again, you do claim to be from another planet and have some sort of means of interfacing with the the Earth internet system.”

    So, in other words “you got nothing” Red. Thank you for once again showing the depths some will go when they are clearly unable to add anything intellectual and substantial to conversation whatsoever. The ongoing deflection and lack of understanding the subject matter should be beyond embarrassing. Feel like I just went back and forth with my 5 year old nephew. Next time hopefully you’ll be able to stay on course better. Have a wonderful afternoon. You’re welcome Red.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 18, 2019 2:08 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" I already provide quotes from the study that YOU referenced. i am sorry that you were unable to read the quotes that I provided, but they are in my June 17, 2019 1:00 p.m. post.

    However, you did once state that you thought the moon landing was faked and until you step foot on the moon and could see for yourself the equipment that was left there and the footprints in the dust.

    But then again, you do claim to be from another planet and have some sort of means of interfacing with the the Earth internet system.

    Do you actually have any quotes from ANY of your approved sources that supports your claims.

    In every one of the studies I listed (and in the one study you found), I read them and each one of them said that an inland port benefits the economy, reduces truck traffic, and lowers emissions. They all contain the words "reduce emissions" and they all contain the words "reduces traffic".

    You can't find anything to show something contrary to that.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 18, 2019 1:18 p.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard-

    “is that what you learned at the Political Correctness Summer camp that you went to?”

    “you did state that communism should be implemented immediately, and that you want reopen Topaz as a implement Political Correctness camps for the non-believers.”

    How elementary. The deflection is quite entertaining Red. Thank you proving severe ongoing intellectual shortcomings by once again doubling down. So apparently you still have nothing to offer whatsoever. Again, you are wandering off topic. (Sort of reminds me of a toddler when you ask them to do something they don't like). Do you actually have any quotes that support more of your absurd claims as I’ve requested or just continued empty rhetoric? You’re welcome Red.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 18, 2019 12:40 p.m.

    To "Liberal Existing on Planet Zion" is that what you learned at the Political Correctness Summer camp that you went to?

    Again, you are wandering off topic. (Sort of reminds me of a toddler when you ask them to do something they don't like).

    Do you actually have any quotes from ANY of your approved sources that supports your claims.

    In every one of the studies I listed (and in the one study you found), I read them and each one of them said that an inland port benefits the economy, reduces truck traffic, and lowers emissions.

    You can't find anything to show something contrary to that.

    But then again, you did state that communism should be implemented immediately, and that you want reopen Topaz as a implement Political Correctness camps for the non-believers.

  • Liberal Existing on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 11:39 a.m.

    Red-

    “somebody that says communism is the best system out there, and wants to implement Political Correctness camps for the non-believers.”

    Doubling down on outlandish claims, due to the fact you clearly have nothing intellectual to offer. Date, time and article that I made such statements. That’s nice deflection, but that doesn't change the issue. The documents you listed actually don’t support your claims whatsoever. Possibly if you read them, rather citing select snippets you might understand. Again. Who cares what other cities have to say. Should SLC follow the liquor laws of “other cities”?
    Nice try, but you could at least read the studies before citing them Red.

    “get a 2 bit ambulance chaser to debate me on this topic because a 2 bit ambulance chaser would at least have some bad evidence to back up their claims.”

    Deflection anyone? I’ll gladly take the “2 bit ambulance chaser” nonsense as the highest compliment possible, especially considering only one of us possess an Ivy League law degree, while the other infers attendance to countless “liberal indoctrination centers” they’ve previously admitted they in fact haven’t attended, better yet graduated. You’re welcome Red.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 17, 2019 2:09 p.m.

    To "Lib Survival on Planet Utah" wow, one of your best deflections yet. But not surprising from somebody that says communism is the best system out there, and wants to implement Political Correctness camps for the non-believers.

    That is a nice deflection from you, but that doesn't change the issue. Can you please stay on topic, which is the inland port. The documents that I listed actually do support my claims, you would know if you actually read them. They are very similar to the one that you listed, except they are for other cities.

    Nice try, but you could at least read the studies before criticizing them.

    Once again, point for me, loss for you.

    I think I will see if I can get a 2 bit ambulance chaser to debate me on this topic because a 2 bit ambulance chaser would at least have some bad evidence to back up their claims.

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 17, 2019 1:28 p.m.

    Red-

    Deep yawn. If I may apply your verbiage again. “Do you know what empty rhetoric is? Based on your posts I don't think you do. You use a lot of words, but don't actually say anything, and rarely answer direct questions. ‘You claim knowledge of things that you know little to nothing about and cannot back up the claims that you do make with any information.’ (?) Those of us that prefer factual information realize “studies” indicate that we clearly have cause of man made climate change, regardless of Limbaugh/Infowars style propaganda, paid for by go private sources. Your deflections, and inability to understand the subject matter would make for great laughs, if the topic wasn’t so dire. However, lets go back to the original point, which is that you haven’t supplied MULTIPLE documents as you claim, because the sources you cited previously make no mention of your claims. Can you finally point to the document provided Red? Do you have anything from your approved list of acceptable sources that can actually contradict the studies that I have listed? I doubt it Red, but I will give you the chance to admit that you have nothing.” You’re welcome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 17, 2019 1:00 p.m.

    To "Lib Survival on Planet Utah" do you know what empty rhetoric is? Because based on your posts I don't think you do.

    You see you use a lot of words, but don't actually say anything or rarely answer questions. You claim knowledge of things that you know little to nothing about and cannot back up the claims that you do make with any information.

    The scientific studies that I have read that indicate that we have no idea what is causes climate change have been paid for by government and private sources.

    In the document you listed it states in the concept that an inland port "would also likely reduce emissions in the area." That sure sounds like what I have stated.

    Your deflections have been a great laugh. However, lets go back to the original point, which is that I have supplied MULTIPLE documents, and can now point to the document that you provided that show that inland ports reduce truck traffic and cut emissions.

    Do you have anything from your approved list of acceptable sources that can actually contradict the studies that I have listed?

    I doubt it, but I will give you the chance to admit that you have nothing.

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 17, 2019 12:12 p.m.

    Red-

    “the empty rhetoric would stop if you didn't keep posting.”

    States the poster that infers attendance to numerous “liberal indoctrination centers” they’ve previously ranted about on this forum. One that constantly cites select snippets rather the complete articles mentioned. One that continually posts blatant propaganda regarding “95% C.I.” even though they have been constantly debunked by myself and numerous posters. One that regularly cites propaganda “studies” from partisan “think tanks”. The examples are endless unfortunately Red.

    “scientific studies that have been done on global warming the best you can say is we don't know what the cause is.”

    “Scientific studies” as you see them Red. Funded by whom in particular?

    “They also state several times throughout the document that it will reduce emissions and even give recommendations on how to accomplish that.”

    Nonsense. You’ve spent as much time reading the articles cited as you have Mueller’s report. Zero!

    Nice try, but your propaganda doesn’t equate as actual evidence Red. If you disagree, prove it with factual information, rather repetitive empty rhetoric. You’re welcome.

    1 LikeReport

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 17, 2019 8:43 a.m.

    To "Lib on Planet Zion" the empty rhetoric would stop if you didn't keep posting.

    However, I never said that "globing warming is a Chinese Hoax". I have been consistent in saying that if you look at the scientific studies that have been done on global warming the best you can say is we don't know what the cause is.

    Lets look at some of their key findings. From the report's conclusion "An inland port would
    decrease this regional truck travel." They also state several times throughout the document that it will reduce emissions and even give recommendations on how to accomplish that.

    Nice try, but again your only piece of evidence (not from your approved list) supports my claims. If you disagree, give the quotes.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    June 14, 2019 1:58 p.m.

    Red-

    The ongoing empty rhetoric does not strengthen an already tremendously weak argument regardless of the frivolous attempts and repetitive use of punctuation.

    “You have environmentalist groups protesting the ports, that doesn't change the facts contained in the reports.”

    “emissions from large trucks is reduced. That won't change the inversions in Utah because inversions are natural and occur regardless of pollutants.”

    So, you admit man made globing warming is a “Chinese Hoax”, yet you have the audacity to state others on this forum are the“science deniers”. Only in the low informational mind of a Alt-Rightist sycophant Red. Furthermore. The “sources” you reference are garbage and are ongoing empty rhetoric. Valid sources would be the AP, NY Times, The Economist, NPR, BBC, C-SPAN, Reuters, and PBS, none which you’ve cited.

    "Traffic Impact of an Inland Port - Hampton Roads Transportation Planning" only confirms my statements. Read the abstract.”

    Readings comprehension please. The entire article rather select snippets. You’re welcome

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 13, 2019 12:57 p.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" you asked "Empty rhetoric anyone?" The answer to that is YOU.

    As for your questions. You have environmentalist groups protesting the ports, that doesn't change the facts contained in the reports. They are just like you. They see the report and don't like the facts so they protest and claim things contrary to what the scientists and professionals know.

    If you actually read all of the reports, you would see that emissions from large trucks is reduced. That won't change the inversions in Utah because inversions are natural and occur regardless of pollutants. Traffic won't be significantly altered because most traffic on the roads is personal cars not trucks hauling things. It does reduce the number of trucks on the road.

    Those articles you reference are garbage and are empty rhetoric. You see, the only valid sources are the AP, NY Times, The Economist, NPR, BBC, C-SPAN, Reuters, and PBS.

    Your article "Traffic Impact of an Inland Port - Hampton Roads Transportation Planning" only confirms my statements. That report says to relieve traffic, lower emissions an inland port is needed. Read the abstract.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    June 13, 2019 12:08 p.m.

    Red-

    “you may think they are not studies, but that is your right. You don't have to accept facts when they are presented. You are free to deny science.”

    Empty rhetoric anyone? You never answered my questions as usual. Deny science you claim? For example, like calling man made global warming a “Chinese hoax”? Epic failure once again Red. Yourself and “ilk” do not recognize or acknowledge science when it stares you all directly in the face. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 13, 2019 11:53 a.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" you may think they are not studies, but that is your right. You don't have to accept facts when they are presented. You are free to deny science.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 13, 2019 10:59 a.m.

    Red-

    Incorrect! Not actual “studies”, rather ongoing opinion pieces you often claim are studies. Read the entire articles you cite, rather posting select snippets. Also, as usual you deflected and never answered my questions. Let’s try once again. 1) How about the pushback from numerous environmental groups and their “studies” contradicting the ongoing unfounded claims? 2) negative impact regarding the already horrific inversion? 3) Traffic. 4) Etc. There are more. If you used Google, you would also find that there are many “studies” that have been done around the country that all confirm that inland ports are horrific for the environment. I know you won't look them up, so here are a few more:

    “Inland Port may have upsides, but don’t downplay the downsides, Utahns are warned”

    “Top 10 environmental issues for EU inland ports”

    “Salt Lake City School District raises concerns about Inland Port”

    “Traffic Impact of an Inland Port - Hampton Roads Transportation Planning”

    Lastly. The port in California mentioned in the “study” cited is regarding marine ports rather than inland water or land. But hey, those are just facts you will ignore in favor of something else. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 12, 2019 8:25 a.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah " no, those are not opinion pieces, they are actual studies. Just look at their titles and the people that worked on them. Plus, look at the references that are included in the studies.

    But wait, there are more. If you used Google, you would also find that there are many studies that have been done around the country that all confirm that inland ports are good for the economy and the environment. I know you won't look them up, so here are a few more:

    "INLAND PORT FEASIBILITY STUDY" written by Tioga Group for California

    "A SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS FOR AN INLAND PORT TO SERVICE THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH" at University of Southern California

    "Integrating Inland Ports into the Intermodal Goods Movement System for Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach" written by multiple Professors for the state of California

    "INLAND PORTS: Relief from trucking challenges" for the state of South Carolina.

    There are more studies done by the state of Flordia, Texas, Georgia, and many other states and nations.

    But hey, those are just facts you will ignore in favor of something else.

    What info did I copy from you?

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 11, 2019 6:50 p.m.

    RedShirt-

    “where is the proof? I have given you 2 studies that show that inland ports are beneficial to the economy and the environment.”

    I’m certain you believe this outlandish claim Red. The “studies” you mention are nothing more than opinion and of course you choose select snippets, rather the entire article. Epic failure Red.

    “Do you have a study showing otherwise? I doubt it since you never have anything to actually back up your statements.”

    I prefer facts, rather empty rhetoric Red. There are numerous “studies” regarding the negative impact of the inland port. Furthermore. Plan on addressing my questions? I doubt it since you never supply direct answers.

    “I did see articles in PBS, NPR, the BBC, Reuters, and the Economist all confirming that inland ports are beneficial both to the environment and the economy.”

    Quite comical. Cutting and pasting source material that I provided you in a previous article. The sources you mention absolutely confirm no such thing regarding the port. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 11, 2019 5:15 p.m.

    To "Liberal Existing on Planet Zion" where is the proof? I have given you 2 studies that show that inland ports are beneficial to the economy and the environment. Do you have a study showing otherwise? I doubt it since you never have anything to actually back up your statements.

    However, I did see articles in PBS, NPR, the BBC, Reuters, and the Economist all confirming that inland ports are beneficial both to the environment and the economy.

  • Liberal Existing on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 3:43 p.m.

    Red-

    “See also "Inland Intermodal Cargo Facility Study for the Corporation of Delta" written by the Government of Canada that shows how inland ports reduce pollution, speed up deliveries, and are beneficial to the environment. Or do you deny science and government to tell the truth?”

    Select snippets rather the entire article once again. Somehow you believe this strengthens an already tremendously weak argument. How about the pushback from numerous environmental groups? The port won’t have a negative impact regarding the already horrific inversion Furthermore. If I may ask the identical question that Deeda Seed has. “Why in a time of climate change, when we know the consequences are so dire and the time is so short, would we be subsidizing something that would contribute massively to climate conditions?" Lastly. Who cares regarding Canada’s opinion? If they desire another port that’s their decision. You’re welcome.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 12:03 p.m.

    @Vanceone writes: "It's the same with all leftists."

    Once you paint with a brush this broad, you lose a lot of credibility. The best I can say is that either you don't know many "leftists" or you aren't very observant. As you pointed out, you can disagree with someone without demonizing them.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 10, 2019 12:32 p.m.

    To "Liberal Existing on Planet Zion" see also "Inland Intermodal Cargo Facility Study for the Corporation of Delta" written by the Government of Canada that shows how inland ports reduce pollution, speed up deliveries, and are beneficial to the environment. Or do you deny science and government to tell the truth?

  • The Dark Knight Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 6:51 a.m.

    The premise of this editorial is absurd to the point of delusion. Utah officials don't work with the people, especially those who disagree with them. To place the blame for this on the protestors is just plain wrong.

  • Liberal Existing on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2019 12:01 a.m.

    ithinkimsmarterthanyou-

    “This once beautiful state has been over run with californians, trying to destroy utah just like they destroyed california.”

    Why the constant empty rhetoric? Possibly step foot outside Utah at some point and actually visit California rather regurgitating meaningless talking points. If California has been “destroyed” as you claim explain how numerous individuals, yours truly included are able to sell (multiple) properties throughout California to then pay cash for high end properties in Utah? The profit margins are incredible. Why is the cost of living dramatically higher in California? Why are property values increasing throughout the state? You claim to be “smarter” than everyone. Prove it! Facts matter. You’re welcome.

    Redshirts-
    “The fact is the inland port will be beneficial. See "Inland Ports: Planning Successful Developments" from the University of Texas.”

    Who cares about the opinion from the University of Texas. Highly doubt you would as well if they spoke out against the port. Have one in Austin since they support it so strongly. Lastly. It’s absurd the port would be a “benefit to the community”. How so specifically? You’re welcome.

  • CaliCougar American Fork, UT
    June 7, 2019 6:48 p.m.

    imsmarterthanyou - Salt Lake City, UT

    "This once beautiful state has been over run with californians, trying to destroy utah just like they destroyed california."

    Interesting comment....Could you please elaborate on how people moving to Utah from California are trying to destroy Utah? Please be specific.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 7, 2019 4:45 p.m.

    Has any leftist ever considered the fact that perhaps they aren't right? That perhaps they should let the majority rule on an issue that disagrees with them?

    "We aren't having our voices heard!" Are you sure? Perhaps people hear you just fine and disagree with you. Perhaps, just perhaps, people have decided that they would rather have a job and feed their families rather than lose said job to have more marshland growing mosquitos.

    This is the essential conceit here: these protestors genuinely cannot conceive of the idea that people could disagree with them. It's the same with all leftists: "We lost the election because our message didn't get out!" No, people know what communism and leftist ideology is, and they don't want any part of it. Trump won because people hated Hillary, not because Russian bots tricked people. Republicans win in Utah because the Democrat's policies are junk and people do not want them. Rioting and trying to invade the meetings just confirms for most people that we do not want you loons anywhere near power. Leftists need to learn how to lose gracefully. Tantrums just confirm how idiotic giving in to the left would be.

  • IcemanCometh SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 7, 2019 3:14 p.m.

    The first issue that really needs to be resolved is whether the legislature violated the Utah Constitution in creating the port authority. Until the recently filed lawsuit over that question is resolved, all of these meeting are chaff.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 7, 2019 3:00 p.m.

    Would the IP produce environmental degradation?
    Of course it would! Massive increases in heavy vehicles wouldn't degrade the environment we live in?
    Excuse me, but 1000s more semis on our roads can't help but make things hard on those of us who live here.

  • Joshua Stewart Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 2:29 p.m.

    Editorial Board - Maybe you need to get out your old John Denver 8 tracks and sing along:

    ... Now his life is full of wonder but his heart still knows some fear
    Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
    Why they try to tear the mountains down to BRING IN A COUPLE MORE
    MORE PEOPLE, MORE SCARS UPON THE LAND!

    Abort the Port!

  • Utahnareapeculiarpeople Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 12:59 p.m.

    "We share their concerns about air quality in Utah, just as we previously have taken issue with some of the authority’s early foibles concerning transparency, including compliance with the state’s open meetings law and the conflicts of certain board members who subsequently resigned."

    "Protesters would do well to acknowledge these gains and work toward a positive relationship that allows them to act as credible watchdogs, making sure the port doesn’t reverse these gains as it begins to take root."

    In other words, the thinking has been done, so just go away!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 7, 2019 12:51 p.m.

    These protesters have jobs, right? I mean I Assume that but... if they have jobs, what moral right to they have to stop the economic development we need for future generations to have jobs too (like we have)?

    Just because somebody else will profit from it doesn't mean we throw the jobs away. There's never going to be a job created that doesn't also benefit the person or corporation or government creating the job.

    The protesters just need to grow up a little. If they had planned ahead and scheduled their busy schedules so they could show up for the public comment forums scheduled and publicized.... they wouldn't have to show up at a business meeting (a working-meeting, not a public comment-meeting) and barge in and pretend it's their right to take over the meeting or stop the meeting.

    This was the wrong time and place to demand to be heard. The time and place to be heard would have been at one of the many public comment forums (which they didn't attend or they would have been able to say anything they wanted to say).

    I guess they think they're special. Not like the rest of us (who have to go to one of the public forums to be heard)

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 12:21 p.m.

    The great irony is that environmental extremists are precisely why the prison and inland port exist.

    The land west of the airport is private and has a constitutional right to develop
    Only the fringes are environmentally sensitive - the rest is poor grazing land and an old dump. It mostly above the 4217 elevation where flood water flows into the salt flats and is much higher than west SLC neighborhoods like Rose Park (where the river flows naturally)

    SLC had three choices regarding the land: 1) facilitate good development. 2) allow bad development or 3) buy it.

    Environmental zealots opposed the first choice (a community of 30,000 people connected to downtown with light rail designed by a developer with an environmentally stellar track record - the project is now being built in Herriman without transit)

    No one has credibly tried the third choice - buying it

    SLC tried an unconstitutional 4th choice of withholding services, effectively removing themselves from the conversation

    which brings us to choice number 2
    environmental extremist got what they created

  • H. Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 12:14 p.m.

    Sigh.
    "Google 'Utah inland port map'...
    "Google 'SLC Boundaries'...
    "It's not in SLC. It's out by the airport."

    Funny, I just did just that and surprise, surprise, half of the Inland Port boundaries are within SLC boundaries.
    And here's why this has been such a boondoggle--Salt Lake City had just spent ten years coming up with a master plan for developing the "northwest quadrant" when the legislature in its infinite wisdom decided to ignore local control, throw that master plan out, and build the prison there. And then the next year they pushed through this inland port with no public input and nearly literally in the middle of the night. The secretive nature of the process and the original decision to take 100% of the tax increment generated (so no tax money comes back to the cities--SLC and Magna--for infrastructure costs, including police and fire) are why people are upset.
    There's loads of examples of why this is a bad idea for SLC--other localities have tried this sort of thing and--imagine that--the only folks making money are the ones who build the port. I have nothing but respect for anyone who is trying to hold those responsible to account.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 7, 2019 11:57 a.m.

    To "PJL " other than delaying and raising the costs for Legacy Parkway, what good did all of the lawsuits do?

    The fact is the inland port will be beneficial. See "Inland Ports: Planning Successful Developments" from the University of Texas.

    They found that it cut the number of big trucks on the roads. They also found that it more efficiently transported goods throughout its service area.

    Why would you protest something that will help to accomplish everything you want, plus be a benefit to the community?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 7, 2019 11:52 a.m.

    RE: "This "port authority" was formed behind closed doors to begin with, so it's no wonder people are protesting"...
    ---
    Not True

    The bill approving the formation of the Port Authority was not done behind closed doors. That's a bogus rumor.

    Google "Utah Inland Port"...
    ---
    The website and schedule of public comment forums is right there for the public. They were open to the public (not done behind closed doors. That's illegal).

    Per Utah Code 11-58-302
    The governor appoints two board members, one being an employee or officer of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

    The following appoint one board member each:

    Senate President,

    Speaker of the House of Representatives,

    Salt Lake County Mayor,

    Chair of the Permanent Community Impact Fund Board

    City Manager of West Valley City (with consent of City Council)

    Other board members include:

    Chair of the Salt Lake Airport Advisory Board

    Council Member from Salt Lake City Council District 1

    Executive Director of the Department of Transportation

    Director of the Salt Lake County office of Regional Economic Development

    That's 11

    Not done behind closed doors. Done according to the law.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 7, 2019 11:35 a.m.

    @PJL
    RE: "Protesters will only get lip service until a law suit is filed"...
    ---
    Yah. Where is Rocky Anderson when you need him?

    ===

    RE: "The more they are watched, questioned and sued the better"...
    ---
    Wait a minute... are you Rocky Anderson? He says that same thing.

    ===

    What you liberals should be doing is suing to force all kids born in Utah have to move out of State when they turn 18. Because that's where most of our growth comes from.

    Suing to make sure there are no new jobs for these kids born in Utah has the same effect as forcing kids to move out of State when they turn 18. If there's no new jobs for them here... what else can they do? Go on welfare?

    Where are you going to get jobs for immigrants (Legal and illegal) coming to SLC?

    SLC is a "Sanctuary City". Where will we get jobs for them? Our homeless shelters are full.

    ===

    BTW do you think doing away with this project and these jobs will fix our air pollution?

    Maybe we should force the people who use the port (which will be everybody who buys anything) to give every Utahn an electric car? Our daily driving causes more air pollution in SLC than the inland port will. Fix that

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 7, 2019 11:02 a.m.

    RE: "Inland port protesters should work with, not against"...
    --
    I agree. The tantrum was too little, too late. Coming to public comment meetings (not just throwing a tantrum at the business meeting) would have done more to make sure the people involved heard what they said.

    ===

    Joshua Stewart commented in the first article about the protest
    "Salt Lake City residents never had a chance to vote on whether they wanted an enormous Inland Port in their city boundaries"...
    ---
    Google "Utah inland port map"...
    Google "SLC Boundaries"...

    It's not in SLC. It's out by the airport.

    ===

    Google "Utah Inland Port"...

    There have been Many Public Input Forums.

    There was a Public Input Forum March 28 at 2001 State Street. Were these protesters there? Nope.

    ===

    Just because the majority doesn't agree with your fringe views... doesn't mean your voice wasn't heard.

    There's a difference.

    ===

    RE: "We are not a 3rd world country"...
    ---
    Nobody said we were, did they Impartial?

    ===

    What are the protesters proposing to create jobs for the next generation? Do they want jobs?

    This is the largest economic development project in state history.

  • H. Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 10:30 a.m.

    When it comes to large-scale developments like the inland port, usual political postures go out the window. What this boils down to is what Bernard DeVoto used to call the real division between groups in the West: "Boosters" vs. "Stickers." Boosters are for unchecked growth and whatever they can get from either public or private coffers. When the boom goes bust, they move on to the next project or town or state--whatever waste they leave in their wake doesn't affect them in the slightest.
    Stickers, though, are in it for the long haul. They've put down roots, and there are stickers who have multi-generational roots and stickers who just moved here but fell in love with the area and their neighbors and want things to be the best they can be. If you care about the quality of life you and your children and grandchildren will share, you're a sticker.
    That doesn't mean that you can't encourage growth--it just means that you should be wary of the snake oil salesmen that represent the worst of the boosters. It's possible to grow the right way, but as someone smarter than me once said, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 7, 2019 9:54 a.m.

    @reasonable-doubt - Provo, UT
    June 7, 2019 9:35 a.m.
    Interesting to see how mostly liberals seem to oppose the inland port. One would have thought that an influx of well-paying union jobs would be exactly the kind of thing that a Democrat would support."

    Not really. Plus, it's not mostly liberals. It's any decent Utahn that doesn't want their kids and grand kids to die of pollution poisoning or inherent an even more toxic valley. Most people understand that "well paying jobs" should not take precedence over a decent life. We are not a 3rd world country, where, that thinking is prevalent. We need less pollution and less congestion for Utah largest city to thrive. Any parent that values life over profits understands this.

  • reasonable-doubt Provo, UT
    June 7, 2019 9:35 a.m.

    Interesting to see how mostly liberals seem to oppose the inland port. One would have thought that an influx of well-paying union jobs would be exactly the kind of thing that a Democrat would support.

  • PJL LAYTON, UT
    June 7, 2019 9:28 a.m.

    Looks like it's time to take the next step past protests and get an environmental group like SWUA or Sierra Club and some pro-bono legal experts to take a look. Protesters will only get lip service until a law suit is filed and the developers and real estate people (who own the Utah legislature) are forced to pay attention. Same thing happened with Legacy Parkway. It was decided the inland port is going to happen a long time ago on golf course someplace, now its just a matter of how it is going to play out. The more they are watched, questioned and sued the better.

  • Flipphone , 00
    June 7, 2019 8:20 a.m.

    The inland port will produce thousands of new Jobs and tax revenue and there is nothing wrong with that.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 7, 2019 8:15 a.m.

    The protestors and anybody else who cares about our communities health need to keep up the civil unrest. Our government is run by the corporate elite and their first concern is always money. We the people need to drag them along on what is truly important to a quality life.

  • liberal larry Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 8:14 a.m.

    Cooperation is the preferred option in most situations, but Utah has the most cavalier attitude towards the environment of any of the Western states.

    Utah has pollution sources like Rio Tinto, refineries, I-15, and gravel pits operating full tilt in the most congested area of the state, with hardly a protest from our elected officials.

    Thats why many of us pay a "Utah Tithe" to environmental, and civil rights, groups who will challenge our own state in court.

    Sad, but true!

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    June 7, 2019 7:54 a.m.

    I am 100% against the inland port. But my objection has nothing to do with air quality. My complaint is unchecked growth. This once beautiful state has been over run with californians, trying to destroy utah just like they destroyed california. An inland port will cause even more people to move here and the traffic will become far worse than it is now along with many other negative consequences. The only people who want it are those who stand to get rich off it. They care nothing for Utah or the people who live here.
    And for all the people who don't like the air here, by all means, feel free to move somewhere that works better for you.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 7, 2019 7:04 a.m.

    "Protesters would do well to acknowledge these gains and work toward a positive relationship that allows them to act as credible watchdogs, making sure the port doesn’t reverse these gains as it begins to take root."

    No. This is like being an enemy sympathizer. This was an unwanted takeover by the State. The same people that forced an unwanted, unnecessary prison move boondoggle upon citizens. The very same people that ignore peoples will on healthcare and pollution. This is not the time to play nice. Plus, the only reason pollution, in your opinion is getting better is that we had an unusual weather patters, continually blowing out nasty air. Also, changing the pollution measurements doesn't change anything-it "reclassifies" it. Like "reclassifying" radioactive waste. Doesn't make it any less radioactive and harmful. No. Don't play nice with your oppressors.

  • bill4570 ,
    June 7, 2019 6:42 a.m.

    It is all a matter of trust. The pollution issue is just the tip of the iceberg for the protesters. This "port authority" was formed behind closed doors to begin with, so it's no wonder people are protesting. People are just tired of being yanked around and taken advantage of by such actions and being left out of the decision making process. Now here comes another so called "authority" to rule over them, so no wonder there are such vocal protests at these meetings. And to really add fuel to the fire, there was an oil lobbyist at the meeting. Not a great choice to keep things going at a civil level. He is an "outsider" and his presence alone indicates to the public that they will have little say in the matter now that big bucks are in the picture. The residence of Salt Lake have a right to be concerned.

    This land is going to be developed sooner or later, no question about that. Just add some fairness and openness to the process to make sure that no one group or person profits totally from it. Keep it clean and keep it green. Be open to the public and their opinions. The masses are not stupid, treat them with respect. Perhaps then people will stop yelling at these meetings.