Letter: South Canyon response
I resent it when someone twists my words to suit their own avaricious purposes. Steve Beckley’s response to my recent opinion piece does exactly that. Mine is not just an “idealist description” of the wildlife in South Canyon. It is a factual representation supported by 45 years of exploring the area, thousands of pages of documents, numerous photos and multiple people’s eye witness accounts. Can he say the same?
I never said the area immediately around the hot springs was “pristine.” Nor did I say that the Canyon itself was pristine. I did say that if Mr. Beckley wanted to do something beneficial to the Canyon, he could promote an organization to stop the illegal dumping, shooting and camping.
He is willing to hire a “full-time, on-site employee” to protect his future financial interests in the area, but apparently not to protect the wildlife, history, pioneer cemetery and low-impact activities that are already there.
He states that the city has “more important duties” than protecting this 3,000 acre asset. So, are we to assume that out of the goodness of his heart he is willing to step up and take over a function that is inherent to the very definition of governing? The citizens have entrusted these assets to the management of the city. Consider what is happening here. His proposal is to take property owned by the citizens of Glenwood and enjoyed for free; lease this to a private business; then charge the citizens for the use of their own property.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Beckley’s development proposal is entirely about his own profit and has absolutely nothing to do with contributing to the benefit of the environment or the community. I repeat, there are many things he could do to help South Canyon without developing yet another business for himself.
And, to those who have been asking, “Will the hot springs continue to be free?” — get realistic. What do you think “development” is all about?