clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:


Your conclusion to the May 10 editorial, "Look Beyond the Olympics in Shaping Snowbasin Swap"- that the land swap debate should be "based on what is best for Utah in the long term" rather than the Olympics - is welcome, but you do your readers a disservice in perpetuating the myth created by our congressional delegation that this issue has been subjected to a "seemingly never-ending hearing process," as you say in the editorial.

The Forest Service only held two hearings on the conceptual idea of an administrative land exchange six years ago, and there has been nothing since. There was no public hearing in Utah on Rep. Hansen's bill, and the only hearings in Washington, D.C., were ones given without notice to Utahns and to which only supporters of the legislation were invited.The degree to which our delegation refuses to engage in debate on the many questions raised by the proposed land swap must indicate how fearful they are of such issues being heard by the public. In any event, passage of the legislation will not be "an end to public input;" our delegation never started it.

Thomas Berggren

Salt Lake City