It's important to know WHO those respondents were.Was it a
random survey? Where was it taken and by whom?I've never seen
any of that information cited. It is very important if we are to be able to
assess the survey's validity.
The headline to this letter from Jan Harold Brunvand implies that a
"solution" is needed. I can't see that this is anything more than
an expensive ski toy for few to enjoy. Who says it's really viable and who
gets stuck with it if it's not? Extravagance? I think so.
Who benefits - developers. The public good has yet to be documented.Who
suffers - the environment of Big Cottonwood Canyon. There is only one chance to
save the canyons from commercialism. Once it's done, there is no going
back. It's not like an elected official who can be voted out next time
around. Which reminds me....
Politicians, (especially Utah politicians) are famous/infamous for hiring
"polling" firms to validate their goofy thinking.Somehow, people
think if a "polling" outfit is involved the numbers they report have
credence."Polling" or survey companies can be paid to return
whatever results I desire. I'm VERY opposed to opening up the canyons
to ANY MORE developments.People ALREADY have plenty of places to ski.I hope the "ski link" idea just goes away. Its a bad idea.I hope the DN keeps us up to date on whatever hearings/meetings are involved
so we, as citizens, can express our displeasure.
Thanks for the letter. As awareness of what Canyons / Talisker has
done to their watershed increases, more will oppose letting Talisker into a
watershed 400,000 people in Salt Lake rely on for drinking water. The plain
fact is that Talisker / Canyons drove what was a blue ribbon trout stream to
what the EPA now classifies as an impaired waterway. The Big
Cottonwood watershed is in far better shape without Talisker and the intensive
development that follows their lifts. If you want to get informed,
please go to Facebook and type "stop skilink" and there are multiple
sources to become more informed.
As per my original Letter To The Editor, the 58% figure can be found on page 32
of the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow Study, a document often cited by opponents of
the project as being an objective polling of the public's desire. According
to statements made by Skiutah, plans are underway to connect Big and Little
Cottonwood as well.
The 58% number sounds nice, but one wonders what the people surveyed would have
said if they were asked if the Tram was built by selling public land to a
foreign real estate company? My guess is no where near that figure. Any way
anyone cuts it the way this whole deal has gone down stinks. Congressional
bills that directs the sale of prime recreational public land to foreign real
estate developers can't sound like a good idea to the public as a whole.
The way this tram is being planned it will only benefit a few, not the way we
should connect our canyons. The author is right to question that figure as the
people being surveyed were asked about trams "as a whole" not this
specific tram. I would like to see a local news take a poll on Skistink with
the whole truth out there, one can reasonably guess it would be way lower than
the whopping (sarcasm) 58% that Mr. Dubois is quoting from the study.
This letter is a joke. What does he mean the number is up in the air? The
Wasatach Canyons Tommorrow report was done with a TON of public input. Infact
they surveyed over 16,031 people. They also had over 80 people on the executive,
steering and technical committes. Here is the link to it. Aerial
trams would connectBig Cottonwood Canyon,Little Cottonwood
Canyon,and Park City. (58% of surveyrespondents support) Privatevehicles would still be allowed upall canyons without restriction. Frankly, I think this is about time we connected the resorts. SkiLink is
a great first step or in other words a pilot project to see if can be done
responsibly. Which is can be...
Gondola or in a smelly Car? I love the fresh air. Let's build SkiLink. It
is SO close to each other. I'm ready to ski both resorts in a day.
It's time to build!