OCR Text |
Show CA t y Letters ftfitik To The CLifflEdi,or Editor: The short budget session of the Legislature does not afford time for the development of a good property tax but certainly the unfair and costly "Excess Revenue Act" should be repealed. One rather simple modification might be made in the real property tax to ease the burden. Property tax payers should be given the option of paying their entire tax by November 30 and receiving an appropriate discount based on current interest rates. The alternate choice should be quarterly payments due on November 30, February 28, May 31 and August 31. Local governments govern-ments can adjust their mill levies to recover the discount amounts and reduced interest earnings on excess amounts not currently needed. This provision would be fair to all and it would give needed relief to those who must borrow to meet the heavy annual an-nual payment, be they young or old. Farl A. Hanson Editor: A few years ago I was called as a -prospective juror for an upcoming trial. I was aware that one could avoid jury duty by admitting that one's mind was already made up as the guilt or innocence of the person or persons on trial. One prospective juror did just that. What I didn't know was that one must after being questioned by the presiding judge admit that no matter how much evidence is given or how good the evidence might be, the juror could not or would not be persuaded to change his or her mind. I don't believe that many people would be willing to admit to such bigotry even if it did mean getting out of a difficult assignment. It is my opinion that Daphne Dallev would like to put our newly elected councilmen in just such a position. I am in hopes that our new councilmen coun-cilmen will realize that they were not elected because, "after informing themselves on the issues were purported pur-ported to be in favor of municipal power". We could have voted for a sure thing. I don't want someone governing me who admits to never changing their minds no matter how logical the evidence or testimony's to the contrary. Councilmen, do not be led astray by falst propaganda. Study all the facts at hand. Weigh all the issues. Please feel free to change your minds and or opinions. Sincerely, Anna Mae Perry to i . Editor: I should like to correct some of the misinformation with which J.D. Williams appears to be concerned in his letter which appeared in the Iron County Record last week. First of all he is incorrect in stating that the Southwest Utah Cooperative Power Federation sponsored the meeting he attended the night of January 11. The meeting was sponsored spon-sored by a private individual. Next, the environmentalists, to my knowledge, have not opposed geothermal development. Geother-mal Geother-mal is a non-polluting source of power which New Zealand residents have enjoyed for many years. Evidently the Department of the Interior does not oppose it too strongly either, as work goes ahead and the power should soon be on line. Evidently Williams does not know that Utah Power and Light owns a considerable share (25 percent) of the ICPA Plant, and this is greatly to UP&L's advantage. As an organization of municipalities, the ICPA can borrow money at the much cheaper rates that prevail for municipal bonds. Thus, UP&L does not have to pay the high interest rates now prevailing for most private companies for this particular source of power. I would like to point out that there are other books than the ones he has read which point?out that infinitely large power companies reach a point of diminishing returns - the bigger they become the more expensive they are to operate. Private utilities are not private enterprise. A private utility, such as UP&L does not have competition in the area it serves. It is too expensive to build power lines alongside each other. Therefore, utilities are "regulated" by the Public Service Commission. This means they are guaranteed a rate of return on the money invested, over and above ALL their EXPENSES. Besides labor and equipment, these expenses include TAXES. Utilities don't pay taxes. You and I and all the electricity users pay UP&L or CPN's taxes. Private utilities have no incentive to cut costs and be efficient. They can go to the PSC and say their expenses are such and such; we need higher rates to cover these expenses plus our profit. Locally owned and controlled municipal utilities have incentives to cut costs - their bosses are right there - the voters. Who, by the way, is paying for UP&L's blitz on Cedar City and the area served by CPN - the UP&L customers, that's who. Reliable sources are saying UP&L has plans for increasing its rates annually by 20 percent. A municipal power system may have to increase rates occasionally, but they should be proportionately much less. Let's not be subject to the whims of UP&L's directors and stockholders. Lets control our own destiny and keep the profits to benefit our own residents. Editor: I am writing as a concerned student, resident, and advocate against the MX missile site proposed for southern Utah. As a native of Utah and a resident of southern Utah for many years, I have grown to love and respect the open wilderness and untouched beauty which abounds here. The loves and lifestyles of the small-town people would be adversely affected if a profect such as the MX-ICBM MX-ICBM was implemented. Social, economic and environmental en-vironmental hazards would be only a few aspects included in such an elaborate and destructive plan. Not only costing the taxpayer a total of $70 billion (which critics estimate as the final price tag) there will be annual operating costs of $440 million. During peak years-1984 and 1985-annual 1985-annual expenditures will be over $10 billion. It would also require construction con-struction of 10 thousand miles of roadway and 2 thousand miles of railroad tracks, thus connecting 4600 missile shelters. Each shelter must be strong enough to withstand all but a direct neucler blast. This will cover an area of over 24 thousand square miles. Military spending is one of the least efficient methods of generating employment and is highly inflationary in-flationary and a major cause of rising personal income taxes. A $40 billion MX expenditure would cost every American wage earner an average of $400 in extra taxes. With such a small percentage of the jobs being created for local residents (6 thousand out of 78 thousand, and only 2 thousand permanent positions) I fear, as many others do, that this area would become an economic boom town with the influx of nearly 100 thousand immigrants. The Air Force estimates that three fourths of the work force will have to be housed at the construction site - which, if located in one place, would be the third largest city in Nevada. Water is another issue, a substance in very short supply in the affected states. All surface water in Nevada is presently allocated, and permits to tap underground basins are restricted or prohibited altogether. Construction and operation of the MX will require a total of approximately 350 thousand acre feet of water-112 billion gallons. By comparison. Las Vegas uses 20 billion gallons a year. If the Air Force is not allowed to pump from underground aquifers, some present water users (such as cattlemen) would be displaced. If aquifers are tapped, soil cracking and subsidence would result; ground water supplies in other areas might also be affected. I do feel that Russia is definite military threat. Their latest invasion and take-over of the Afghanistan government is an outright assumption of . military superiority. Therefore, why construct a stationary missile base? Why not increase the number of mobile stations such as strategic submarines and bombers? The nuclear weapons in a submarine are almost undetectable. With the MX, we will have to host regular "missile countings" with the Soviets as guests. Also, within the ten years of construction con-struction needed to complete the MX projec t, it seems very probable we'll have a confrontation or come to a sort of agreement with the Soviets. Won't the MX be an obsolete weapon compared with the advanced technology expected in 1990? My basic point is that we should all become involved and learn of the effects which projects such as these cause. The Air Force wouldn't reside in the designated area and seem to lack concern for the residents doing so now. Hazel Turner M. Stanton Evans: "If the petroleum industry in this country is going to survive, the business is going to have to make some changes. One such change should be a resolve to stop playing public relations games and to get up on its hind legs and fight." . Editor: Utah Power and Light propaganda has been very effective in creating a fear of our proposed municipal power system. Some who favored such a system at election time are now changin their colors, expressing fears that we might have more expensive, inadequate power. But the data available clearly favors municipal power and tells us that it would not only function competitively with UP & L but do so at a considerable savings to us. Bringing in UP & L for the taxes it would pay for school and other government support is much like bringing in a supermarket for the old trading stamps we used to get. People thought those stamps were free, but they were actually charged in the 'purchase price of goods. We don't need UP &L "trading stamps." Municipal systems make in-lieu-of-tax payments to school and local government funds. We would lose no support for our schools and gain support for other local projects. No amount of reason or proof will allay the fears of some people and I think it a shame that so many of us are willing to trade our opportunity for a municipal system for a "mess of pottage," the so-called "sure" route with UP &1. Incidentally, "going off half-cocked" half-cocked" is a term one applies to downgrade another's decision when that decision conflicts with one's own bias. Sincerely, Dean N. Pearson Editor: Today you are feeling the full propaganda force of a big corporation who wants to capture and convince you to go for their investor owned utility. They say, "we can charge you less than CPNational because of CPN's higher cost of service." The public service commission figures on the cost of operating and maintaining CP National's system is $329.00 per customer per year, Utah Power and Light is $325.00, just FOUR DOLLARS LESS.. .not much is it. But what about' municipal power figures: Bountiful $140.00, Murray $211.00, Provo$174.00. CPN and UPL are both cost plus opeations. They are guaranteed a 15 percent net profit by Utah law and . enforced by the public service commission. Municipal systems are controlled by the people. What profit that is made by the municipal system must be used for the benefit of the people who pay the power bills. There are 38 municipal systems in Utah, and everyone of them sells power for less than Utah Power and Light, and most of them buy some of their power from Utah Power and Light. Dick Davis Editor: Where is our pioneer spirit? Why are some of us content with Utah Poweryand Light's proposal when every .municipal power system in the statfl'is .selling power for less than Uta'fc Power and Light? It's true that staring a new adventure has problems, but 38 municipal systems have shown us the way. All we need to do is follow. Great rewards never come to the weak and those who lack courage. The benefits 'are found in the operation of aj3owersystcm, electric power is less than 50 percent of the total operation. Operate a municipal system more efficiently with the advantages of no stock holder dividends, low interest, no taxes, fees or hearing expenses and you can have your power for much less than Utah Power and Light offers you. The future b belongs to those who are not afraid to try, Fred Green |