| OCR Text |
Show ILcBTtterPS Dear Editor: In response to Ms. Merlene Beheshti's letter of May 11, 1988, I would like to offer this commentary. To begin with, it would seem important to first gather all the facts about an issue before making a public commentary. It is quite obvious that Ms. Beheshti is not familiar with facts surrounding sur-rounding the proposed "Wasatch Variation" pipeline through the Wasatch Front area, and is therefore not qualified to speak about it. By understanding all the factual data surrounding this controversial issue, I believe she would also arrive at the same conclusion that citizens' groups and local city governments have, in that this pipeline route would have substantial and long-term detrimental impacts upon watershed areas, slope stability sta-bility (already tenuous in this area), increased off-road vehicles in canyon areas, a significant negative impact upon property values, irreparable damage to the aesthetic beauty of our canyon ca-nyon lands, and poses a threat to the entire area by crossing the fault line near North Salt Lake. Proponents of the "Wasatch Variation" pipeline route have seriously misled the public by stating the many so-called benefits be-nefits of such a pipeline through our area, including tax dollars, the use of local construction labor workers, etc. In truth, there have been no guarantees by the Kern River Pipeline Co. or the Wyoming California Pipeline Co. regarding any positive long-term long-term benefits for the state of Utah. There are also no guarantees that a 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline would not burst and cause damage that is beyond human comprehension. Ms. Beheshti does address the serious challenge that Utah faces in terms of its strong need for stimulating Utah's lagging economy. But, as citizens and taxpayers, we must weigh carefully care-fully our alternatives and not be too hasty to "jump on the bandwagon" at the seemingly desirable options presented to us. Ms. Beheshti's response to solving Utah's problems with allowing allow-ing the pipeline to be brought in, is sadly misdirected and certainly cer-tainly misinformed. Sarah Trembley Evans Bountiful .ul u Dear Editor: We have read that the Judicial task force is considering lowering lower-ing slightly their child support figures in the mid to high income brackets in their new proposal. That is good. We are angry with Judge Billings in that she has used the words "cost" of raising children and "spending" on children interchangeably in her explanation of how the present figures were arrived at. There is a world of difference between the necessary cost of raising children, and what some people spend on their children. The study on which Judge Billings based her figures represent not the necessary cost of raising children, as she claimed, but what people decide to spend on their children. We find this interchanging of cost and spending terminology very deceptive. We firmly feel that a court of law does not have the legal right to assign a child support figure any higher than the necessary costs of child rearing (food, housing, clothes, education, medical, medic-al, dental). That is all that is required of any parent, married or single. The extras should be left up to divorced parents to deal out as they see fit, as it is for married couples. Contrary to the old prejudices in existence about noncustodial fathers (and continuing con-tinuing in the new proposal) most fathers will see to it that their children enjoy the extra benefits that money can buy for children, chil-dren, without being forced to do it by court order. However, those children who are allowed a free and continuing con-tinuing relationship with their noncustodial parent will have a better chance of enjoying those benefits because their relationship relation-ship will be such that he will want to see them enjoy all he can afford, and feel the responsibility to do it. Those children who are stolen from him by his ex-spouse by her refusal to let him have his visitation rights, or who destroy their children's love for their father through spite, or fear, may not be as lucky. But that is a conscious choice the custodial parent makes, and she should then shoulder the responsibility to provide the extra benefits for her children. Child support and visitation privileges if intertwined would solve much of the present problem of nonpayment of support. Noncustodial fathers who are denied visitation privileges are being denied their constitutional and moral rights of being able to give love and nurture to their children. Sure, a father should provide for his children, but to what extent a court has the right to assign that provision (or deny it as in the second family children clause of the new proposal) needs to be looked at very closely. Old prejudices need to be thrown away. Jack and Laurel Huff Orem 1 |
