How to Write a Letter
How To Write A Letter To Public Officials
When one writes to a public official to influence the decision-making process several points must be addressed in order to create an effective correspondence. In addition to being as brief as possible, make it easy for him/her to know your position and the reasons behind it. Make it easy to read (this means type it.) Here is a suggested outline to follow:
- State the reason for your letter including the policy or bill title and number if it has been assigned.
- Identify and describe yourself. Don't state that you're a member of a particular group or your response will be "lumped" with those of the group and not have the stature of an individual response.
- State the action you are seeking. Be concise here.
Communicate the reason for the action being sought by using:
- Historical FACTS
- DATA
or if you don't think there is sufficient data to support an opposing position, clearly describe the data that the opposition is using which is questionable or wrong. - Credible opinion (of experts, other authorities, etc.)
- Suggesting other viable alternatives
Usually the spectrum of alternatives is limited to do nothing, do whatever the applicant wants, and do something less than the applicant wants. There can always be "multiple others" of more limited scope that you can outline and propose as a complete alternative or as a part of one of the proposed alternatives. This is most effective when responding to the "Scoping/Commenting Document" which precedes the development of the DEIS. - Personal experiences (and how the proposed action would impact you and others you know.) This becomes the emotional appeal which has less influence, but give it a (short) try.
- Weaknesses of the opposing viewpoint and their "facts"
- Point out other points of view than those under consideration
- Logic
Describe what adverse impact the proposed action will have on what community; if the action will be irreversible if it is faulty, who has to bear the costs for whose benefit?
3. Letter closing (brief)
- Restate the action you are seeking
- Express appreciation for consideration of your views
- Indicate a willingness to help him/her in whatever.....
- State what if any response you would like to your correspondence
- Provide your name, address and phone number. Don't just use an illegible stylized signature of which you're proud.
The US Forest Service has stated that "comments which raised concerns with specific areas of the Draft EIS would be most useful to the process, rather than simply voicing opposition or support." Further, "Consistent with NEPA regulations,..... this volume (of comments by the USFS on comments received by them) focuses on substantive comments on the DEIS. Most comments received though did not fit into this context. ....... Substantive comments include those which challenge the information in the DEIS as being inaccurate or inadequate, or which offers (sic) specific information that may have a bearing on the decision. ....."
To learn more about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process click here.
Write a letter to the editor
Letters must include the signature, full name, address, phone number and email address (if available) of the author for verification purposes. Only the name and city will be published. Letters should be no longer than 200 words. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published. For printed submissions, please type and double space throughout. Letters are condensed and edited. Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published.
Salt Lake Tribune
E-mail to letters@sltrib.com (no attachments),
http://www.deseretnews.com/site/feedback/
http://www.parkrecord.com/writealetter
http://www.heraldextra.com/app/pages/submitaletter/
Letter to the Editor talking points and topic ideas from SOC Board
- When commercial interests run land-use planning it’s time for political action. Salt Lake valley residents hopes for the future of the Wasatch are being ignored.
- The Salt Lake planning commission and Forest Service tends to work with developers and ski resorts to degrade our canyons for the profit of the resorts and developers. Save Our Canyons plays the role of “watch dog” in order to keep an eye on the planning commission, Forest Service and resorts to bring their “back room” deals out into the open. This helps to ensure that what happens in our canyons is to the benefit of everyone, not just those in position for financial gain. Save Our Canyons helps to ensure that the planning commission etc adheres to their own guidelines and regulations.
- Watershed and Wilderness are coupled issues which must be addressed as one topic that plays an all encompassing role in our organization and the preservation of the Wasatch.
- Trail maintenance is one of Save Our Canyons best activities because it provides an avenue for the public to get exercise, be involved in the community, meet like minded people and nurture the quality of the Wasatch trail system all while having a positive effect on the future of our mountains.
- Continually reminding the public of our name, The Citizens Committee to Save Our Canyons. We are all just local citizens, without vested interest beyond conserving our canyons for the enjoyment of all, especially future generations.
|
What you can do the oppose Skilink Talking points:
-The Wasatch has enough ski infrastructure and needs to be protected from more development. -The 2003 Forest Plan ROD states "no expansion of current ski area permit boundaries into highly valued undeveloped areas." -The SkiLink would not be a transportation project and would not reduce traffic in Big Cottonwood Canyon. -SkiLink would negatively impact both summer and winter recreation along the Wasatch Crest between BCC and the Wasatch Back. -The 2010 Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow survey reported that 62% of the public would like SL County to strengthen regulations on land use in the canyons. -The 2010 Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow survey reported that 62.5% of the public thinks that the Wasatch canyons are currently overused. -The legislation proposed by Bishop and Hatch will set an unfavorable precedent to sell off actively used and appreciated public lands for the benefit of a private business entity. -The legislation proposed by Bishop and Hatch circumvent the public process and, in this instance, a public that has already expressed sentiments against the wanton expansion of ski areas in the Wasatch. It will become the impetus for a range war of construction of additional lifts which span the Wasatch crest and put at risk the integrity of our watershed and diminish the backcountry skier/hiker/biker /tourist experience.
10 action items to help stop SkiLink! |
