So society has a problem. Let's call it C. To solve that problem, we agree to a solution. Call that H. It works for a little while and everyone's happy. But, for various reasons, problem C comes back in a few years along with two new problems, S and P. So now society has not only failed to solve problem C, it's created two other problems for itself that didn't even exist before, problem S and problem P.
What would a sensible society do at this point? Solution H again? Probably not. We already know that H doesn't solve problem C for long, and we know it creates problems S and P as well. Wouldn't a sensible society seek another solution at this point? One would hope so, but judging from recent Deseret News editorials, that's not the way we should approach things.We already know that problem C (congestion) cannot be solved for long by solution H (highways). We already know that solution H (highways) creates a new problem, S (sprawl) as well as problem P (pollution). And yet, the Deseret News consistently advocates the same tired, high-tax expense solution, more highways, like the proposed Legacy Highway. Why? What is it about this solution H (highways) that's so attractive?
A baby is born every 45 seconds in Utah. Those babies could grow up into a society that has sensibly addressed problem C (congestion), or they could grow up into a society that keeps on with a proven failure, solution H, the highway solution. If the Deseret News has its way, the future for those new babies is the proven failure, the highway solution. Is that any way to approach the next century?
Patrick de Freitas
Salt Lake City