LETTER: Proposition One a bad idea
To the editor:
In response to Lindsay Andersons’ article advocating the passage of a $10 million bond proposal, I would like each of you to consider a few key points when deciding how to vote regarding Proposition 1.
• After 150 years of “unrestrained growth” developed areas account for approximately 10 percent of all the acreage in Cache County. That is if you count every parcel of farm ground with a barn on it as developed. Ninety percent of Cache County is undeveloped – it doesn’t even have barns.
• For every acre of land that is preserved, the development will simply shift to another acre. In the end the citizens spend $16 million (the price with interest) and there is exactly the same amount of open space and the same amount of developed area. A person was quoted in the aforementioned article as saying we will lose more land. That is patently false. Sixteen million dollars later, we have the same number of homes and businesses, the same amount of open space.
• Preserving land near where people live will result in development sprawling further into the valley. The claims of clean air and water will prove false as commutes increase and thus increasing pollution.
• The increase in taxes may seem small to some (many homeowners will pay much higher taxes; businesses get hit very hard). However, apartments do not enjoy the residential tax breaks. These owners will see large tax increases that will be passed on to students in rent. The result is that renters bear a disproportional burden for this bond.
• In most cases, the people receiving the checks own millions of dollars worth of land. Yet these people are asking tax payers to personally subsidize them for potentially millions more. At the same time, this bond limits county government’s ability to raise funds for such things as roads and public safety: the things that truly benefit all citizens of the valley.
When I attended USU several decades ago, the student population was about 10,000. Today it is more than twice that. Students have had a major impact on the growth of the valley. Not only those attending but from those who stay and live here. I personally welcome all students both during their tenure at the university as well as those who desire to stay. Yet the people (including professors) quoted in last Wednesday’s article don’t seem to share my perspective.
The ‘Cache Valley way of life’ is not one of high tax burdens and unwelcoming government policies. Please affirm that with me and vote against Proposition 1.
David James