In the News

Why is The Inland Port Illegal?

It’s both unconstitutional and illegal for the construction of the inland port to be approved by our state leaders when the land in which they are operating should be under the jurisdiction and control of Salt Lake City leaders and Salt Lake City residents.

|


The most basic and fundamental right we have is the protection of our environment and our health.

We, the citizens cannot allow corporations to work with the government to foul our air; dirty our water; cause irreparable harm and environmental damage to an area, and in the process make area residents unhealthy or sick. This right falls under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Further, it is illegal for state leaders to make decisions in a local jurisdiction that can cause harm to that population.

In other words: It’s both unconstitutional and illegal for the construction of the inland port to be approved by our state leaders when the land in which they are operating should be under the jurisdiction and control of Salt Lake City leaders and Salt Lake City residents.

Despite these basic facts, when this case was brought to court a judge voted in favor of the State over the City. This lawsuit was initially filed by former outgoing Mayor Jackie Biskupski. This decision needs to be appealed and the matter should go before our State Supreme Court. Why does this matter?

[Total_Soft_Gallery_Video id=”2″]

The inland port will require a massive amount of mosquito abatement to be viable. The Great Salt Lake wetlands have the largest population of mosquitos west of the Mississippi.

We may think, nobody likes mosquitos, So why not wipe them out?  Wiping out mosquitos would have a devastating effect on birds.

The Great Salt Lake is the host of millions of migratory birds every year, these birds rely on mosquito larvae to feed. Swallows and bats rely on these larvae year-round. Eagles also inhabit the area and they rely on the swallows. The entire ecosystem of the Great Salt Lake needs mosquitos.

Nobody is going to stand up for the mosquitos, but the abatement chemicals can cause a great deal of damage to the human body, according to Dr. Bryan Moench of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment.

This issue needs to be addressed by our Mayor and the City Council, for the benefit of Salt Lake City residents who want to protect the environment and their health.

The entire idea of the inland port was hatched over a decade ago when it seemed state leaders were doing everything in their power to grow Utah’s economy. Nobody in our state is really concerned about more economic growth especially if it comes at the further expense of our health and environment.  We don’t need more semi-trucks, planes, and traffic. We don’t need any more economic boosting that will further deteriorate our air quality and our health. Nobody wants this besides a very few corporations and their political cronies who see that they can become rich by controlling this land and the area around it.

BACK TO:  THE STORIES THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW

WATCH THE VIDEO:

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST:

MORE BY RICHARD MARKOSIAN

MORE ON THE INLAND PORT

BACK TO OTHER STORIES

 

, , , ,


Join our newsletter.
Stay informed.


  • Dyslexia and ADHD in Kids: Why Some Students Struggle to Read in School

    That’s what led to my conversation with Donell Pons, a Utah-based dyslexia expert who has spent more than two decades working with students who struggle to read. What struck me right away is how often we get the problem wrong from the start.


  • Echocardiogram for Active People: What You Should Know About Your Heart Health

    Most active people track performance, pace, and recovery—but rarely look at the one organ driving it all. Understanding how your heart is actually functioning can reveal early warning signs long before symptoms appear.


  • Why Most People Stay Stuck in Business and What It Takes to Move Forward

    Every so often, you meet an immigrant who came here with almost nothing and managed to build something exceptional.

    Prakash Shah is the kind of man who has spent enough time around risk that he no longer treats it like an interruption.

    Today, he works in business brokerage and advisory, helping owners sell companies, helping buyers decide whether they should step in, and, when the fit is right, helping connect those buyers with private equity. He works in a world of valuations, leverage, due diligence, and hard questions that most people would rather postpone. He also operates in Utah real estate and has built a career around seeing value before it is obvious to everyone else. That is who he is now. What makes him interesting is how early that instinct started to form, and how little his life resembles the way most Americans are raised to think about comfort, career, and security.

    He grew up in Nepal in a boarding school system that would feel severe to many Americans. He was an only child, yet he saw his parents only twice a year for twelve straight years, until high school graduation. He lived inside routine. He shared space with boys from different social classes and different family circumstances. The school was structured enough that money did not buy you any special standing once you were inside. Everyone followed the same rules. Everyone was subject to the same discipline. In his case, it was an army school. Everything was measured. Everything was scheduled. In that kind of environment, you do not build your life around preference. You build it around adaptation.

    That contrast matters.

    A lot of American children are raised to search for what fits them. What are you passionate about? What do you enjoy? What feels right? Those are not bad questions, but they can create a habit of waiting for life to align itself before action begins. Prakash learned something else much earlier. He learned that life often does not align itself first. You enter the room as it is, you deal with the people in it, and you figure out how to function without making your comfort the center of every decision. He said that one of the biggest lessons from those years was tolerance, the ability to live with people from all walks of life and genuinely learn to get along with them. That is not a soft value. In business, it turns into resilience. In negotiation, it turns into patience. In career terms, it turns into range.

    When he came to the United States over 25 years ago, he did not arrive with the kind of runway that allows for a prolonged identity search. He came with two suitcases and enough money for one semester. He went to Hunter College in New York City, then to NYIT near Central Park, studying media and then media and technology management. He also studied psychology. Those details matter because they show something about his mind. He was interested in people before he built a career around deals. Even then, what attracted him was not technical prestige. It was understanding motives, behavior, and how people reveal themselves.

    But New York is merciless toward vague ambition. It demands payment in rent, transit, food, and time.

    Prakash worked constantly. He took multiple jobs. He paid tuition, paid rent, and skipped most of what Americans imagine as college life. There were no romantic years of drifting from café to concert to self-discovery. He talked about not having the luxury of dates, travel, or finding himself. He was working. Even laundry was not a small detail. In New York, he pointed out, you do not just throw clothes in a machine at home. You haul them to the laundromat, count quarters, and measure what is necessary. He also described distraction in a way that most native-born Americans probably do not think about. For immigrants, distraction is not always pleasure. Sometimes distraction is the constant pressure of competing needs. Tuition or rent. Food or savings. A better coat or another month of making do. He was not romanticizing the struggle. He was describing the arithmetic of it.

    That arithmetic did not make him cautious. If anything, it did the opposite.

    While in college, he had the option of safer analytical work. Instead, he took a sales job with Time Warner Cable that sent him into the South Bronx from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. to knock on doors. He is not a physically imposing man. He knew exactly what kind of neighborhoods he was walking into. He described apartment buildings where people kept pit bulls, where tension was normal, where one mistake in tone or timing could end a conversation immediately. For most people, that kind of job would have been something to survive and forget. For him, it became a school in human behavior. “It’s not about talking… it’s about listening,” he said.

    One story from that period says almost everything about how he operates. He knocked on a door one night around 8:45 and found himself facing a huge man with a gun on the table, pit bulls nearby, and a half-eaten pizza in front of him. It had all the ingredients of a very bad scene.

    Continue reading and support independent Utah journalism with a purchase of Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).


  • Utah Homelessness Crisis: Tyler Clancy Challenges ‘Housing First’ Failures

    “It’s not normal to see someone sleeping on the sidewalk in a sleeping bag with a needle sticking out of their arm.”

    That sentence should not be controversial. In a sane society, it would barely need saying. But in Utah — where politicians, nonprofits, consultants, and bureaucrats have spent more than a decade congratulating themselves for “addressing homelessness” while the streets of Salt Lake have become more dangerous, more drug-soaked, and more morally disorienting — it lands like an indictment. And it came not from a crank, a talk-radio host, or a downtown business owner at the end of his rope, but from Tyler Clancy, Utah’s newly appointed homeless coordinator.

    That matters because if Clancy is serious — and after sitting down with him, he appears to be — then he represents something Utah’s homelessness system has not had in a very long time: someone willing to say the obvious out loud. The old script is dead. Everybody knows it, but almost nobody in power has wanted to admit it. 

    For years, Utah’s homelessness policy has been built on a polite fiction — that if we build enough units, distribute enough funding, and avoid being too “judgmental,” the crisis will gradually resolve itself. That story was easier to maintain when Utah was receiving national praise for “solving chronic homelessness.” It is much harder to sustain now, when the conditions on the ground tell a very different story.

    Magnolia Apartments opened to help alleviate homelessness, but the results were not all positive.

    Part of that failure became painfully clear over the last four years. By most accounts, former homelessness coordinator Wayne Niederhauser was a decent man and a very nice guy. But one person close to him described his tenure as that of “a tiger without stripes”— someone with the title, but not the appetite to challenge the sprawling network of nonprofits and service providers receiving millions in taxpayer dollars. That lack of accountability has had real consequences. Multiple former and current residents have told Utah Stories that of the roughly 60 original tenants who moved into Magnolia when it opened, about 20 have since died — most, they say, from accidental drug overdoses. 

    If those accounts are even close to accurate, they should have triggered a public reckoning. Instead, the system kept moving, protected by good intentions, insulated from scrutiny, and largely unbothered by outcomes that would be considered a scandal in almost any other context.

    That is the machine Clancy is stepping into, and unless he is willing to confront it directly — not just coordinate around it — his role risks becoming one more layer of management over the same failures. The reality he inherits is not complicated in the way policymakers like to suggest. It is visible, immediate, and increasingly impossible to explain away. 

    Open drug use, fentanyl addiction, untreated mental illness, rising disorder, and a growing sense among both the public and the homeless themselves all indicate that the system is not working. Complexity exists, but it has also become a convenient shield for cowardice. It is the language people use when they want to avoid saying what is plainly in front of them: Utah has spent years managing visible human collapse while calling it compassion.

    The Lie Utah Told Itself

    For years, Utah’s approach to homelessness rested on a narrative few in power were willing to question. It sounded compassionate. It polled well. And it avoided uncomfortable truths.

    Continue reading with a Utah Stories subscription. Start your 3-month free trial.

    Continue reading and support independent Utah journalism with a purchase of Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).