Far more serious than the problem of Utah's government hobbyists, which La Verkin's leaders may or may not be, is the very real problem of "reasonable" voices who believe that wise public policy emanates solely from the great and spacious buildings of Salt Lake City. ("La Verkin's anti-U.N. ordinance is threat to liberty," Jay Evensen's July 15 editorial.)
Urban elitists might think differently if they spent their existence and livelihoods dwelling in a tiny private rural Gulag, like La Verkin, surrounded by millions of acres of federal lands. It is easy to feel a sense of freedom here amidst the prosperity of our great metropolis. Try it when, as far as the eye can see, your only neighbor is an increasingly bossy and unresponsive federal government. Given that scenario, the seemingly distant U.N. then becomes oddly relevant to La Verkin's sense of future well-being.
If the La Verkin debate shows us anything, it is the importance of scale and relevance. Why would little La Verkin take on the leviathan United Nations? And doesn't La Verkin have better things to consider? Certainly Evensen took La Verkin to task along these lines and then some.
In fact, the ferocity with which Mr. Evensen attacked the wisdom and character of La Verkin's mayor and City Council is itself a lesson in scale and relevancy. If La Verkin is indeed such a "remote" locale whose citizen-leaders simply reflect the "ignorance" of the "lunatic fringe" here in the state, then why give so much ink, with such ferocity, to it all?
Paul T. Mero
President, The Sutherland Institute
Salt Lake City