By Don Porter - Editor
Standard-Examiner
I was out of the office all last week on vacation, and so only checked back this morning to read any further postings in response to my essay on the S-E relocation. Here's some other information that is worthy of note, and might answer the persistent critics:
Scott [Trundle -- former Std-Ex publisher] also looked seriously at property in Davis County. By moving to BDO, Scott kept us in Ogden city. Our property taxes at our new site are considerably higher than they were downtown. (We built a new press building at BDO which exceeds 100,000 square feet; this added considerably to the value of the property.)
So the city ended up a big winner because of the 5013C tax-free exchange of property. This is just the opposite of what happens in an RDA, with the city losing incremental tax revenues.
Sincerely,
Don Porter
editorial page editor
Standard-Examiner
dporter@standard.net
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
31 comments:
So what's a "5013C tax-free
exchange", Mr. Porter?
Here's a link to the current Internal Revenue Code. I don't find IRC 5013C anywhere.
Are you sure it wasn't an IRC
IRC 1031 exchange?
The ultimate question that's been repeatedly asked, of course, is whether the Standard-Examiner traded properties of equal value, or whether the Standard-Examiner traded a lesser valued one for one of greater value, without putting additional money into the deal.
Can you enlighten us on that?
Thanks in advance.
Mr. Porter, your information is well recieved by many. Thank you for the explaination.
You're too easy, anonymous.
Mr. Porter hasn't yet told us that the acquired property was equal in value to the property that was relinquished at the time of the transaction.
I don't know whether he's evading the question entirely, or whether he doesn't understand the terms of the transaction itself.
It would be more useful if he reported the contract terms.
He hasn't done that yet.
Either way, he's left us with the unanswered question of whether the Standard Examiner took title to its new HQ with a sweetheart deal.
Does this mean that the much abused tax payers of Ogden will have another white elephant on our hands with the old Standard building when the current occupants move to their new tax payer supported digs at Matt's Mud hole?
Can any one out there substantiate the persistent rumours that the Standard benefitted big time with this transaction with the city? How about Dorothy Littrell, I think she is a forensic accountant if what I heard is true. Maybe she can shed some light on this? If the Standard deal was truly arms length and they didn't benefit any more than any other individual would have, then maybe we should cut them some slack. After all, they do seem to be dying or at least becoming irrelevant with their deteriorating news coverage and weak editorials.
I would like to trust what Don Porter says, but it is rather difficult to believe in someone who believes in taking poor people's homes from them to give to the richest family in the world.
You should be carefull in saying that you don't trust people who don't see it your way on the eminent domain issue. I've said it before here, you'd be surprised how many people see it the other way.
Do ANY of you guys really think that Don Porter, an Editor, was in on the contract negotiations between the Sandusky's and Ogden City? Remember, he's a REPORTER, not an owner, and he'll report the facts that have been given to him.
You want the truth, go to the horse's mouth. Until that is done, this is all speculation, on EVERYONE'S part.
To enthused citizen:
I assume you are also ec? In any event your comments of late show a certain amount of ignorance and pretense. They also smack of some one who is positioning for a political race?
Don Porter, rather he was in on the negotiation or not, is the one from the Standard that is speaking on their behalf. He seems to be the official voice of the paper. Until the Publisher or another of the "Suits of Sandusky" speak up, where else are we to get their story from?
Please engage your brain, if you have one, before you bore us with any more of your inanities.
Same goes for Utmorman. Your obviously young and inexperienced. I doubt very much if there is a significant number of Americans that truly support the corrupt idea of seizing peoples private property to turn over to some mega corporation to build one more gigantic wal mart. I admire your drive to be positive and look for the brighter aspects of what is going on with this moraly bankrupt city administration we are temporarily suffering with, but please think it through before you stake out these disgusting positions. You are the future, please make sure it is fair, just and moral.
I think it's YOU who would be surprised to learn where the American public stands on the issue of eminent domain, UTmorMAN.
Here are some recent polls that ought to be an eye opener to those of you who think it's OK to take private property from citizens and turn it over to rich corporations.
Feast your eyes on this.
If you're one the minority who thinks you're part of some great groundswell political movement, maybe it's time to take your moral compass into the shop for a tuneup.
It's pretty clear to me that Don Porter has been "annointed" as the Std-Ex spokesman by the "suits in Sanduskey," to clear up some of the misconceptions that bounce around in the various "anti-Std-Ex" "echo chambers" around town.
Anybody who argues that Mr. Porter is speaking on his own, without privity to the necessary information, is living in a dream world, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Porter has volunteered to be the citizens' "contact point," for the Std-Ex re some of the misinformation that's constantly circulated around this gossipy town.
Tell me, EC. Do you think Mr. Porter is posting these articles as some kind of iconoclastic "lark?"
Believe you me...Don Porter speaks with the full voice and authority of the Standard-Examiner publisher.
Maybe it's time for all you conspiracy theorists to "listen up."
Don Porter has cleared up most of the gossipy details.
The only pending question is whether Scott Trundle (the former publisher,) traded "like kind" property under IRC 1031, at fair market value, for its "new digs."
I suspect we'll be hearing from Mr. Porter about that in due time.
Ya know, Merle, I'd respond in kind but one gains NOTHING by besting a FOOL!
Ignorance is bliss, dude.
And Rudi....you and some of these guys need to READ. Porter, as I've written, reports "necessary information" that he's been GIVEN by those in charge, details of which were part of a transaction that he was not a principal in, regarding the building swap (of course it's no "lark," Rudi-never intimated it was). Don't know why that possibility has so fired some of you "experts" up.
You guys act like you were there, at the table, and know all about the transaction. I'll wager my house you know nothing about it, except, of course, what the Publisher and City officials want you to know. This is just one more conspiratorial theory that you blinder wearing intellectuals chose to berate others over on the blog.
You people really think the Publisher is sweating these so-called "rumour mills" like this blogsite? Me thinks there are much bigger fish for him to fry and you're getting all worked up over history, history which you can do nothing about except try to create provocativity over.
You'd find it advisable to operate from a FRAME OF REFERENCE before you all get so damn dismissive.
Speak from facts or argue logic. Try a little latitude, people. You shouldn't let your skirts blow so far up over your heads over those possibilities I have pointed out, possibilities that have obviously escaped you.
And some think I'm positioning for a political run? Gee-zust. That's showing your ignorance.
Don Porter is our reporter, EC.
He didn't have to be "at the table" to accurately report what happened there, provided he's getting good information.
There's nothing I've seen so far to impeach the credibility of his reporting.
Unless and until somebody produces some contrary evidence, I'd suggest we quit being so "bitchy" about what he's told us.
I'd assume the Std-Ex property acquisition documents are a matter of public record.
If you disagree about Mr. Porter's version of the story, I invite you to provide something tangible to refute him.
Barring that, why not just take a Midol and call us back in the morning?
Your position is to be provocative, isn't it? Re-read your second graph, especially the word "provided." My position all along....I rest my case.
YOU take 2 aspirins and call ME tomorrow. The Midol I've sent to that Merle dude....
This ec seems to be a study in stupidity. He/She can't string a paragraph together that makes much sense. His/Her scriblings are full of pretense and pseudo intellegent drivel.
Are you making this character up Rudi to draw in the idiots?
Well Frank, I drew you in, didn't I, you idiot. You guys are way too easy. And I thought only Viktor, Lionel and Monica rose to such bait.
"Bush" League personified.
ec - one more lame attempt at being clever. Persistant but boring.
Yet you keep coming back....just like the CapitalOne commercial on TV.
Pavlovian....now that's boring.
Find another crusade. Plenty out there to indulge yourself with.
Fini.
What is it with some of you people? I enjoy reading the comments in this blogsite. However, this recent round of sparing between you blog Nazis is becoming increasingly boring. I thought that this blog was created to stimulate discourse over local issues. Instead it has become a battleground for personal snipes and insults. These are taking up too much space and time.
Rudizink bristles when chastized by Socrates; the jousts between this EC character and Merle, Bush and his Bashers; everyone piling on utmorman because he's apparently young.
Don't you people have better things to write about? Enough of this.s This self annointed position of keyboard sheriff withers the soul. You should all be assigned to wear Dunce Caps until you grow up.
Sounds like "somebody" needs to get laid real bad, eh, Consider Dignity?
;)
actually consider dignity is right on. funny you'd bring that up althepal, r u speaking for yourself?
To Consider dignity and the rest of you wanna be blog police:
Maybe you take all this a little to seriously? I agree this sniping is a bit foolish, but what the heck, it only takes a few seconds to read it and some is actually amusing. Even dim witts have a right to express an opinion even if it is trite and stupid to some readers. Your posts may seem boring to them - who is right?
For the most part I think Rudi is doing a great job on this blog. He keeps it topical and fresh and he never shrinks from giving his own opinion which is almost always bright, well thought out and controversial.
Dontcha all love a street brawl? Hey, this is the land of Oz after all.
Merle & Frank: Dumb & Dumber
Observant: dimwit, numb skull, inbred, boring...
WOW, and to think the full moon was last week!
Rudi, Rudi, Rudi - you sure drew them out of the woodwork with the last few posts!!!
Say Rudizink, what have you created? Again, just back from the trenches, and the blogsite if filled with characters consummed in madness, regailing against one another, challenging people to duels and evoking vindictives till hell won't have it. What gives, gentle bloggers. A gunfight at the Ogden Corral (sp?).
A word of caution to the trol and his troop: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. I think I know this ALTHEPAL person, and if my hunch is correct, unless you're a heavyweight champion boxer from the Marshall White Center, the last thing you want to do is try this dude on in an attempt "to knock some sense into him."
Ozboy puts a good spin on things here: enjoy the humour. But sometimes, enough is enough.
And enough of the identity theft, too. One shortfall of the blog, anyone can be anyone. Let's tackles issue, not each other.
Thwarting imposters is the chief advantage of registering, as you and several other readers have done, Enthused Citizen. Your handle is permanently locked in, your comments are all posted under your highlighted ID, and imposters can thus be immediately identified and flushed out.
althepal, the icon for a smile is colon/parenthesis, not semi colon/parenthesis (see below)
yours ;)
real one :)
looking at it, yours might have been meant as a wink :)
(o)(o)
(0)(0) any idea?
So Rudizink, if some clown uses my moniker, you can identify the sap so I can beat him severly about the head and shoulders area? It would be nice to know that 1-our rights of privacy are in place in this blog (I mean, who knows what info you might be coerced to sell: email, website, home phone, etc.; and 2-those who use the old identity theft scheme can be dealt with in a way appropriate to equal their mis-deeds.
Also, the ability to remove certain posters, like this president fool, is reassuring.
It was meant as a wink; and you should have logically taken it for what it would be understood to be throughout the blogosphere, rather than tweaking and scurrying around like a cranked-up cyber-madman, looking for more obscure explanations.
;) is a "wink."
Write it down so you don't forget it.
SHEESH!
;) being a wink is a good guess on my part, eh? You still haven't answered what these are:
(0)(0) and (o)(o)
Waiting....get with it!
By the by, have you pulled the plug on THE PRESIDENT? Seems that's all the rage right now.
"Sometimes enough is enough" is intended to mean that even though there is some humour or entertainment value in some of these outlandish posts by the president, et al, and as such we can maybe extract that from those posts according to Ozboy, sometimes enough of those inane ramblings are enough.
Clear as mud?
New comments are not allowed.