Feedback from August 20 and Beyond | Letters | Salt Lake City | Salt Lake City Weekly

Feedback from August 20 and Beyond 

Pin It
Favorite
click to enlarge news_soapbox1-1.png

The "Long, Dusty Trail" cover story, Aug. 13
Thank you for the great local insight!
@redhead_marketing_pr
via Instagram

Private Eye, "Utah's First Rodeo," Aug. 13
There's a truth bomb right there.
@molliguthrie
via Instagram

Look at the gerrymandered district map. It tells you all you need to know.
@salathaikitchen677
via Instagram

Private Eye, "Drop the Charges," Aug. 20
Punishment doesn't fit the crime! A life sentence, really? Rapists get less than that.
@ahunt7776
via Instagram

Anyone else wonder what kind of government excess goes into repairing windows costing $200,000? Sounds like irresponsible spending or a convenient lie to feed an unquestioning media and general population.
@_r_w_m
via Instagram

Actions have consequences, or should have consequences. It is absolutely obvious that the charges were levied to make an example, to try and instill fear in the public, to think twice about this recurring in the future. But dropping the charges entirely would have the opposite effect; it just excuses questionable behavior. Hence the point of protesting the police use of force. There should be fitting charges, because actions should have consequences.
@80oman
via Instagram

John Saltas has shown his racial bias here. All protesters should have their charges dropped. Do better and consider updating your statement, Mr. Saltas. If you're calling for charges to be dropped for only the white woman in the bunch, that's problematic. The protesters of color deserve the same.
@taaatersalad
via Instagram

Hari-kari on the High Plains
Your government's got a scheme for scraping pinyon and juniper (PJ) off the face of the earth. I call it "Hari-kari on the High Plains."

The Bureau of Land Management, in blind obedience to POTUS and the DOI, is on a bender to pulverize vast swaths of Utah's high-desert.

BLM calls PJ invasive. PJ deserves so much more than BLM's mission to clear-cut, chain out, chew up and spit out living organisms whose origins go back millions of years. Its rationale for crucifying PJ is that it creates enhanced habitat for sage grouse, mule deer and reduces forest fire potential.

Well, guess what? Chicken Little of the sagegrass gets the pointy end of the stick when those bull-hog masticators come calling.

Fact is, BLM kicks butt for cows. It also bends over backwards for its fossil-fuel overlords even though it just backed off plans to lease vast swaths of Utah's red-rock country near three national parks.

Read Christopher Ketchum's This Land—How Cowboys, Capitalism and Corruption are Ruining the American West. It's given me religion. Turned me into a devout preservation pessimist.

That book'll drive a few folks into a flat-out foaming frenzy.
Ken Kraus
Salt Lake City

Utah’s New Wine Delivery Bill Already Gone Bad
In a state where the free market is seen as a point of pride, alcohol continues to be treated as the boogie man, such that responsible adults are regarded by the state as unable to control themselves and their own drinking habits.

This year, the hot topic was whether Utahns should be allowed to ship wine directly to their homes. Sounds pretty trivial, right? Wrong.

Gov. Herbert signed House Bill 157 at the end of March, one of two Utah bills this year that proposed easier solutions for consumers to ship wine of their choice into Utah. As is often the case, the bill was warped from its original idea of home direct shipping into something not quite as … sensible?

Rep. McKell, the bill’s sponsor, said that he was contacted by Domo, a software company in the state, in hopes that they could secure the wine delivery legislation as a perk for out-of-state hires. Despite valiant efforts by Rep. McKell (who does not drink) to legalize wine home-delivery for his constituents, it seems the establishment won this round again. The final bill was reworded and altered so that it allows shipment only to state stores, with an additional kick to the consumer’s wallet.

Consumers are forced to pay a markup charge of 88% on top of the cost of each bottle. To put this into perspective, only six states control the sale of wine, and Utah’s markup on wine ranks among the highest. Assuming a consumer wants to import a $30 bottle of wine, they will end up paying $56.40 for that bottle, not including shipping and handling.

While this is standard in Utah for all liquor, it counteracts the original intent of the legislation. Perhaps lessening the markup on wine while retaining the spirits markup would be an effective way to appease opponents’ concerns.

HB 157’s alternatives to direct home shipping are what the bill calls “Wine of the Month Clubs.” In these programs, customers would have to have to join a monthly program in order to qualify to buy out of state wine. DABC would handle the shipping from the winery to a state store in Utah, where the consumer would need to pick up the product. Membership would require periodic shipments of wine to be valid, and so out-of-state shipments would have to be regularly placed.

This requirement seems odd, as it would encourage the consumer to buy more wine more frequently. For a state that institutes alcohol control laws for the ‘safety and promotion of good drinking habits,’ it seems like this sort of program would only encourage increased drinking for the consumer who might normally only ship wine once or twice a year.

With the added per-bottle markup, some in the wine industry are even questioning if the bill is worth it. Tyler Rudd of the Wine Institute said that with the needless complexity of the bill, combined with the exorbitant markup, the program’s failure was likely because there was little incentive to the average consumer. He mentioned a similar program tried in Pennsylvania that failed spectacularly: 47 people in the entire state enrolled, and the program cost the state money in start-up costs and administration that could not be recouped.

While this process may be a minor improvement over the previous out-of-state shipping laws that required a purchase of at least a case of bottles, it is still a long way from a common sense law that would give consumers what they want: the freedom to purchase and receive wine of their choice within the convenience of their own homes.

Perhaps in coming years the stigma within Utah—that alcohol is a substance that adults cannot be trusted with—will lessen. Should this happen, we may finally see the state easing its all too tight grip on the personal lives of Utahns. There is always room for hope, and HB 157 could have been a step in the right direction were it not shot down from its intended goal.
Tommy Creigh
Westminster College student and a Libertas Institute policy research intern

Pin It
Favorite

Tags:

More by City Weekly Readers

Latest in Letters

Readers also liked…

© 2020 Salt Lake City Weekly

Website powered by Foundation