This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The writer of the letter "Spanning Utah Lake" (Forum, Tribune, Feb. 1) opposes a Utah Lake causeway. He alleges some vague, financial conflict of interest for legislators supporting a causeway. Since a "public" road is open to everyone and does not inherently conflict with conservation, such plans are clearly a legitimate use of lands held in public trust. Where's the conflict? Slanderous accusation is a poor substitute for argument.
Plenty of public support exists for anything, however novel, that may help relieve Utah County's traffic congestion. Our leaders are suggesting positive solutions - that's their job - instead of snidely attacking the character of folks they disagree with.
Furthermore, if it is fair to examine the economic self-interest of anyone holding a public opinion, then what of an existing homeowner who staunchly opposes further development? Since he stands to benefit from any increase in home value due to blocking further development, then is not his opinion self-serving and (oh, no!) a conflict of interest?
It does not serve anyone to print letters making snide insinuation without fact, the basis of moral or logical argument. Shame.
Stephen Kobsa
Lehi