Editor:

I think it’s funny how, no matter how benign and practical an issue is, when put in a political context (i.e., voting for it), there will always be naysayers. The Chronicle’s unsigned editorial (“Think twice about Proposition 3,” Nov. 7), is just further proof of our counter-productive, xenophobic car culture.

It seems that your biggest motivation for opposing it is financial. When talking of the TRAX to the airport, you add, “These are expensive additions that will have a marginal effect on the lives of most Utahns.” What was the tax increase, like, $108 a year? Considering the amount of pollution, money and traffic that most people would save if Proposition 3 passes, that seems very little (if they do tack on a highway, it’s just a small price to pay). Besides, I bet you could all earn your $108 pretty easily, because isn’t that how much a story sold to The Salt Lake Tribune goes for nowadays?

How is promising to expand welfare programs any more?bribery than promising tax cuts? Either way, they are?intending to financially appeal to voters. By your?argument, promising to balance the budget or build?roads or any number of other programs could be?considered bribery because they are intended to appeal?to voters’ finances.

If they only give the money to people in?districts (or organizations) that heavily supported?them in the election, then it’s corruption, but?not bribery.?So, just because a candidate’s financial promises don’t?appeal to you doesn’t mean that he or she is buying votes.?It just means that you shouldn’t vote for that candidate. ?

Hyrum Anderson

Alumnus