Letters: Candidate says article about sanctuary city status doesn’t reflect his views | ParkRecord.com

Letters: Candidate says article about sanctuary city status doesn’t reflect his views


For the record

Editor:
In a recent Park Record print article, “Candidate argues for sanctuary-city status,” I was correctly quoted as saying, at the candidate forum last week, that “Park City is, in effect, a sanctuary city … I hope.” And now, somehow that means I’m arguing for sanctuary-city status?

In 2017, the PC Police stated, “We are not a sanctuary city. We have not changed our policing style.” A lot of us at the time, knowing the federal funding implications of “coming out” as a sanctuary city, understood this to be both a definitive message to the Feds, and a veiled message to the community. Since the police had an existing policy of NOT seeking out undocumented residents to report, the continuance of that policy was acknowledged. We were fine with that.

“In effect” doesn’t mean “in fact.” I am merely referring to this implied status quo. “I hope” means just that … that the police have not changed their policing style, which has long been respectful to our immigrant population. I also referred to genuine fears of undocumented immigrants regarding the census … I didn’t make them up. In my naivety, however, I used a term that has become very contentious. Safe, Welcoming, Supportive, Compassionate … yes. Sanctuary … no.

As for the headline, I have never “argued for sanctuary-city status,” because I am satisfied with the current policy. I’m also quoted as saying that “we won’t allow…” and “Park City law enforcement won’t cooperate…” Why would I come out with these declarative statements that I have no desire or authority to enforce as an elected official? The answer is … I wouldn’t, and I didn’t.

It’s hard enough to be a candidate and expose oneself to criticism, but it’s another thing to defend my reputation over things I didn’t say or intend. So, this is what I said, what I didn’t say, and what I meant … for the record. I have no problem defending it.

Ed Parigian
Park City Council candidate


We can do this together

Editor:
First scientists told us that we had until 2050, then 2030. Now the consensus among climate scientists is that serious carbon reduction policy must happen by 2020 to avoid mass extinctions and irreversible climate damage to our Earth. We can do this. But we need a concerted effort on all fronts. There is a place in this discussion for the barn stormers: Greta Thunburg, Extinction Rebellion, other radical players who demand change now. Yet there is also an essential role for the bridge-builders. Citizens’ Climate Lobby is one of the most effective bridge-building organizations in the U.S. We are active here on the Wasatch Back and we invite you to jump in and help us in our work.

Please join us at our next event, a Mayors’ Town Hall Wednesday, July 31, at 6:30 p.m. at the Jim Santy Auditorium. We will hear from Mayor Beerman of Park City, Mayor Potter of Heber, Mayor Johnson of Midway, and Utah climate scientists about their efforts to build a more sustainable future. Local youth climate leaders will moderate the panel.

Join us. Come listen and ask questions at the Town Hall. The mayors, our Utah scientists, and our youth have been engaged and effective on climate issues and would like to discuss with you how we can do this together.

Eileen Gallagher
Snyderville Basin



Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.