Reader comments: Eco-groups might prefer new Dixie bill
3 comments | Read story
Geezer | 7:23 a.m. April 10, 2008
Where are the added wilderness areas? Let's look at the map. Each area should be judged on its merits. The Vision Dixie project surely demonstrates that more protected land is needed.
Anonymous | 9:25 a.m. April 10, 2008
I don't see how this was a compromise. It just seems that more wilderness is being added. 9,000 acres of public land are being sold off, but that's nothing compared to all the public land that's been added. Is the compromise that we only took your arm, not your arm and leg?
sundog | 8:47 a.m. April 11, 2008
Let's not forget, this started out as a sweetheart deal to SW Utah developers - and still is. Of course, the intrinsic value of the land must be weighed - for wilderness and other protections and for development. Now is the perfect time to allow govt. agencies to attempt to operate in the black. If the proposed 9,000 acres of public land (yours and mine, lest we forget) are worth parting with forever, let's make sure we are fairly compensated. At fair market value in Washington County, that should net well into 8 figures.
Comments continue below
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
