Imagine you have wanted to start a business for years, but no banks would loan you money because they didn’t think the idea was feasible. No one else ever thought or tried to begin the same business either. Then a distant uncle died, leaving you money in a trust. The trust must be used to earn more money for the entire family. You buy property and begin starting your business. Some family members are concerned. Your plans don’t seem to be flushed out and could fail. Others wonder why no one else has bought a lot in this area for the last 70 years or so. Some are worried that there will be related expenses that the trust won’t cover and rather than making money, they may be responsible for paying money. Others think they’d earn more by investing the money. But you discount their concerns and move ahead. Having your own business is too tempting. After the business is off to a shaky start, you realize there are things the trust cannot pay for. Your family members have to chip in. You stretch the truth a bit to persuade them that with just a little help, the business will thrive. It doesn’t. So now the family is out of money, the trust is gone and you are left with an empty building that no one wants.

This scenario is basically the story of the Utah Inland Port Authority. Six years ago, the Legislature (the uncle) handed them a sum of money, They were to use it to attract more businesses and increase jobs for Utah residents, though Utah was (and still is) at a record-low employment rate. They began with Salt Lake City Inland Port, which is still not up and fully operating. Because of the many objections, they spread to other areas. A promise of free money was too much for area leaders and developers. Developers and city officials who could not get money any other way applied. Ten more municipalities (and counting) have jumped on having a port in their area for the presumed economic benefits but most likely will be competing with one another because of their close proximity. Still, many wealthy and questionable developers have eagerly held out their hands for the low-cost loans.

The port promises building infrastructure with no upfront cost to the public, and the developers promise businesses with well-paid jobs. (The average port worker salary hovers around minimum wage with few benefits and many of these jobs will soon be automated.) The loans do not include the cost of increased traffic, an increase in housing needs or the regular costs of maintaining a developed area (like police, firefighters, road maintenance.) And then there are the undefined costs to health because of more traffic, pollution, pesticide use, noise and road use. (These estimates vary from almost $2 billion to $3 billion or $4 billion for health costs.) No one is putting a price on the need for open space, tranquil areas or clear night skies. Some areas also increase damage to wetlands and the Great Salt Lake (or Utah Lake or other water bodies) and the species that depend on them. But there is no oversight required, no business plan and no accountability. If the port authority fails, taxpayers, like the family members, will pick up the cost.

The gain for municipalities? Don’t believe what the port officials tell you — or what is written in the descriptions. The plan they present isn’t always the same as what is written in the contract. Sometimes, descriptions are desires rather than reality. In truth, the plans have been created with little public input and little benefit for Utahns. Municipalities receive 25% of the tax differential while the port authority pockets 75% for at least 25 years. Counties believe they will maintain full control — it is written in the contracts, but who makes sure the UIPA complies? So far, no one, as we see in SLC.

Many legislators as well as developers stand to gain financially while all of us foot the bill and are left with the damage. Shouldn’t we have a say? If you think so, write your representatives and ask for a full audit of the Utah Inland Post Authority. Ask that they stop these dangerous and harmful developments until there is a sustainable business plan and assurance they will benefit all Utahns.

Patricia Becnel is a retired educator who spends her time learning about and advocating for a cleaner and healthier environment. She is worried about the incomplete, questionable plans for the many Utah ports and the effect they will have on our air quality, environment, outdoor industries and economy. She also is concerned about the massive give aways to many of the same developers and those who have not proven themselves credible.