This is in response to Richard Shaw's column "Think the state would be better? Think again" (Sun Advocate, Mar. 6).
Utah should have the opportunity to manage the land within it's borders. Shaw says it would be bad. He says the state of Utah would fail. He says it would be worse. He says our "quality of life would be traded for dollars".
I say, Utah deserves the chance that was given to all eastern states; the authority to manage the land within it's borders. If his premise is correct, then explain how Eastern States function? How have those Eastern States been able to survive? He makes it sound as if he likes the fact that Utah has no control over 67 percent of the land within its borders.
Shaw makes it sound as if he agrees that Utah really is not a state. He speaks as if he is in favor of Utah remaining as is, a Federal Territory with a smattering of private and state in-holdings.
I must ask if he has ever read Bill Howell-Bill Redd's book on statehood? If not I am asking him to do that.
Shaw makes many assumptions in his article that are not in the bill. There is a website that answers frequently asked questions and it answers many of his observations. That website is http://www.arewenotastate.com/faq.html.
As far as I am concerned the closer to home the lawmaker, the better in my book. I have much more influence on the Utah State Legislature than I have on the United States Congress.
At statehood, the federal government promised all states that it would transfer title for all public lands within the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has called these promises "solemn compacts," "bilateral (two-way) agreements," and "solemn trusts" that must be performed "in a timely fashion."
The western states are still waiting for the federal government to keep its promise. Our children and teachers can't wait. Our wage earners can't wait. Our people can't wait, for a federal government that has not kept its promise.
I feel that Utah should be allowed to manage Utah.....are we not a state?