Question the data Envision Utah has used, if you like. Question the validity of the four scenarios it chose to present to the public after two years of work. But don't question the motives of the group, a partnership that has been struggling to help Utahns cope with growth.
Groups with hidden agendas do not operate in the open. They don't send hundreds of thousands of ballots to people, asking for their candid opinions. They don't hold 75 public workshops in an effort to learn what the public wants. Yet this is exactly what Envision Utah, a coalition of business leaders, policymakers and regular Utahns, has done.In recent days, some state lawmakers have joined a small group of critics casting aspersions on the group. A House GOP caucus recently lashed out at Robert Grow, chairman of Envision Utah and president of Geneva Steel. Phrases like, "This a setup," and "It's entrapment" filled the air. The general attitude of these critics is that something underhanded is behind the Envision process.
Of course, nobody likes to be told what to do. Few people would blithely sit by and let a handful of experts come in and determine the future. But if that is what critics believe this process is about, they are wrong.
Nothing Envision Utah decides will automatically become law. Utahns still have democratic governments on the local and state levels. Each city and county still must come to grips with growth in its own way and according to its own needs.
But look at the projections. Utah's population is growing at twice the national average. The Wasatch Front -- containing Utah's largest metropolitan areas -- is expected to house 2.7 million people in 2020, and 5 million in 2050.
Growth is coming. It isn't practical to think it can be voted or wished away. Envision Utah is attempting to get people to think about the future and to decide how best to shape the state's communities.
Could the assumptions be challenged? Yes. Do the four scenarios outlined by Envision Utah represent the only workable solutions for the future? Not necessarily.
Some, like the Heritage Institute's Steven Hayward, who spoke in Utah last week, make interesting arguments that downplay the significance of suburban sprawl. Dense housing leads to greater congestion and longer commute times, he said.
His ideas should be considered as seriously as any other thoughtful opinion. The idea here is to begin facing reality and to plan for the future. But those who would turn Envision Utah into another lame conspiracy theory should be ashamed.