I always ask, what does it bring to the table? You are talking about losing the right to visit your public lands without paying for it.
Some expansions make sense. Hard to get to areas, with unique terrain. The Vasquez Cirque expansion at Winterpark comes to mind as a decent one. Expert terrain with high avy danger if left as a backcountry area. Hard to access anyway. On the other had Breck's proposed expansion is kind of the suck. All it adds is more of the same 'ol Blue, while taking away many a local's and visitors resource for enjoying relatively safe easy access backcountry. On US Forest service land that we all own.
So what does this bring to the table besides linking up the resorts? Is there terrain that is normally too dangerous to ride that could be controlled by ski patrol? Does it open any new terrain at all? I'm not sure.
I do know that the Cottonwood Canyons are being squeezed to death. The backcountry there is actually pretty limited. Overall, I don't see much of a gain, but perhaps it works. I think the earn your turns crowd has a right to be vocal in opposition of this.
Not too mention a lift, cable car, whatever going over that ridge tops is just going to ruin some of the spectacular views the Wasatch offers. Once it's done it's done.