 |
| get ready for it to get even worse |
posted on 5/17/2019 by the Salt City Sinner
Localism! It’s a form of lesser
magick that everyone loves, except when they don’t. Where should we
vest certain authorities – the authority to tax, to regulate, to run a
geographic area’s affairs?
Here in Utah, the balance of power that creates the most
heat and friction is undoubtedly the question of federal lands. Protected land
is a perennial source of fist-pounding, foot-stomping rage to (mostly white)
rural Utahns, some of whom would like the unrestricted right to go
yee-hawing around on their toys, others of whom have a
more material interest in resource extraction and the decimation of
national monuments.
You could argue, were you so disposed, that this constitutes
a breach of rural sovereignty by a bunch of supposedly-enlightened liberal soy
boys and city-dwellers. That’s a discussion I’d be willing to have; one in
which I would be very quick to point out that it’s perhaps not so much the
interest of rural Utahns that these local jurisdictions protect as the very
specific interests of rural WHITE Utahns. (Whine and squeal all you like when I
call you racist, San Juan County Republicans – we’ve
got the receipts.)
Well, I suppose that one good kick in the municipalities
deserves another. The coming massive inland port, I would argue, is both rural
Utah and the Utah legislature’s passive-aggressive, underhanded revenge. The
port is to be a shipping and trucking hub with a
special tax structure and foreign trade zones built in, the idea being that Salt Lake City
will become a trucking and shipping hub for the region and facilitate not only
the movement of goods through it, but an increase in exports from Utah
businesses.
The inland port has been in the works since
the 1970s. It will eat up a truly astonishing amount of Salt Lake’s
northwest quadrant, and rather than Salt Lake having authority over it, Utah
State (in its infinite wisdom) will be handling the tax and regulatory
decisions on our behalf. Before you remark on how considerate of them that is,
keep in mind that one of the biggest issues with the port will undoubtedly be coal
exports, which rural Utah (and the State Legislature) is very much
in favor of, but which Salt Lake City residents (myself included) oppose on
both local and global environmental grounds.
Indeed, revenge isn’t (I would argue) the primary motivation
for the inland port. As always, the pertinent question is ‘cui
bono?” and the answer in this case might be illuminated by the push
for a west coast deep water port where Utah can unload the tons of coal shipped
there from our inland port, where it’s bound (probably?
maybe?) for China, there to combust and render our planet swiftly
uninhabitable.
What is one of the most pressing issues in Salt Lake City? Air
quality. So let’s run a veritable Niagara Falls of 18-sheelers
through it – never breathe what you can’t
see, right?
The inland port is going to take up two
thirds of Salt Lake’s land mass? How many seats are on the Board for
the port – eleven? Well, I’d say that it’s fair for you urban latte-sippers to
get…. Oh, let’s say two
seats. 67% of your land in exchange for 18% of the vote – you’re
welcome, apostates!
Whether it’s rural Utah’s deliberate revenge against us
city-dwellers or simply a greedy, pig-eyed grab for a trough full of carbon
dollars, the end result of the inland port as it's developing now will be the
same; toxic air, the loss of local decision-making power, and the theft of tax
revenue by the State Legislature.
And for a group of so-called conservatives supposedly
very into the whole local autonomy thing, this is just bad behavior,
full stop.
Comments
Post a Comment