Submission Number: UBR-DEIS-00286 -- Oral Comment at Public Meeting
Received: 11/16/2020 12:00:00 PM
Commenter: Todd Richins
Initiative: Uinta Basin Railway EIS
Attachments: No Attachments
So these are the comments of Todd Richins, T-O-D-D R-I-C-H-I-N-S.· "There is an overwhelming amount of opposition to this proposed railway, but alas, we are here continuing to deliver the same message:· No to the proposed railway. · · · · · · "This is a project that will make an everlasting negative impact on a beautiful ecosystem and adversely affects many individual and family legacies,"
Okay. I got it. Can you hear me okay?
Todd Richins, the computer was not cooperating. · · · · · · First of all, thanks for the presentation of this Environmental Impact Statement.· What I have viewed so far, which is not the document in its entirety, seems to be well done.· I'm really grateful for a third party to be hosting this meeting.· Based on -- actually, let me -- I'm really grateful we have a third party hosting this meeting. · · · · · · To date, property owners have been -- have been left out of key discussions and planning, and we've had our rights of free speech infringed upon by the exclusive nature of the meetings that have been held. · · · · · · I was really sad to hear our Duchesne County official ask you to limit the -- or remind -- remind speakers about not using inappropriate or threatening language.· The language that was used could have been inflammatory, but certainly was not inappropriate nor threatening.· I believe that his statement was yet another attempt to limit the opportunity for those in opposition to have their voices heard. · · · · · · And I believe that this being hosted by a third party, there's a lack of control on the information that can be shared.· And I think that we saw a stretch of -- we saw a stretch of -- we saw government overreach in that point, when he couldn't limit or exclude the comments from coming in.· We wanted -- he wanted to label them inappropriate or threatening and I'm saddened by that. · · · · · · We have strong opinions on both sides of this argument.· I believe Mr. Fordham said, "We are not in opposition to Duchesne County infrastructure creating a viable economic base, and we" -- as he said, "We support that through our taxes," which provide us property owners in the Argyle Canyon Wilderness Preservation zero resources from the county.
· · · · · · And I think we all do that very willing and happy to provide -- to pay our taxes to have our property and that in that beautiful area. · · · · · · Because of the history, the secrecy and exclusive nature of the meetings that have been held and the strong opposition, I'm not sure it is possible to move forward in a constructive manner.· I think that --
Okay.· I think the fourth option needs to be explored.· And if that's explored or not explored, I think that this has to start over from the very beginning of the process, where there is open public meetings that demonstrate just what an open public meeting is, and that's official records that are kept and opinions from both sides shared and welcomed in an open manner. · · · · · · If the county is not willing to do that, I think the opposition will continue to grow stronger, and that's just not -- not where we need to go.· As good neighbors, we need to --
-- each other.· Thank you.
Thank you.· I think that was it.· I just think that we need to be neighborly.· We need to continue to explore other options that haven't been explored.· And we need to start this process from the very beginning in the manner in which the process is supposed to be held, and that is, public -- welcome
public -- open to the public and public opinions on both sides represented.· Thank you.