Mr. Wright provides a nice summary of the ordinance and its effects in his opening paragraphs:
OGDEN -- For Larry Crossley, the Millstream Motel on Washington Boulevard is a good fit.WCF readers can read the rest of yesterday's article here. I do hope WCF readers will take the time to do this.
Left disabled by a car accident 13 years ago, Crossley can't walk far, but it's a short cab ride to any number of retail establishments on 12th Street.
Living at the Millstream, which he has done for the last 18 months, also allows Crossley to limit his banking to two transactions a month. He receives a check for about $1,200 in Social Security disability insurance and writes one for about $700 that covers his rent, gas, electricity and cable.
"I make one payment, and I don't have to worry about it," Crossley said. "This (living here) is just a matter of convenience, really."
Crossley and scores of others who live in a handful of motels on Washington Boulevard soon may be inconvenienced, however, by an ordinance the City Council approved last month.
The ordinance prohibits hotels and motels from keeping any guest for more than three months in a one-year period, if the guest has no other permanent residence.
City officials say the ordinance is necessary because the motels are generating a high number of police calls; because they weren't designed for long-term stays, which creates health and safety issues; and to help stimulate the revitalization of downtown.
But residents of the motels fear the ordinance could render them homeless, and owners of the establishments say it could put them out of business.
As is proving to be the case with thought-provocative John Wright articles, Mr. Wright brings to the forefront issues and questions which require additional thought -- and discussion. Here are a few that immediately come to mind. I'm sure that there are others too:
Do the stated public "objects" of this ordinance, i.e., reducing the number of police responses, conforming residency terms to original design, and helping stimulate the revitalization of downtown fall within the scope of what we expect of out local government; or are they overly-broad?
And even assuming, for sake of argument, that these objects fall within the legitimate scope of government regulation, does the ordinance, as drafted, attempt to do more than it needs to do? Could this ordinance have been drafted more narrowly, to create a less adverse impact to the interests of property owners and long-term residents who depend on such facilities? Has the Ogden City council used a sledge-hammer to solve perceived problems that would be better solved with a fly-swatter?
If the residents of these motels have to be "booted" every ninety days, where are they expected to go? Other motels? The streets? Is this ordinance intended to drive these residents completely out of Ogden?
And what about the treatment of the motel owners themselves? Is is fair that these property owners should have learned about the impairment of their property and contract rights only after the ordinance was passed? Even though there may not have been a statutory requirement that they receive notice and opportunity to be heard, wouldn't fairness have dictated that they would be invited to argue their "points" before the Ogden City council, prior to having their rights summarily stripped from them?
As I've mentioned before in this space, it's my fear that Ogden City is presently governed by an overbearing, cold and heartless soviet-style city government that's completely lost touch with its own citizenry. Am I alone in this perception, or are there others who'd like to chime-in on this topic this morning?
Have at it, gentle readers...
Update 8/15/05 1:11 p.m. M.T: The Standard-Examiner has a particularly compassionate and humane editorial in this morning's edition, and Don Porter also printed a thoughtful reader letter on the subject. The Std-Ex editorial board and its readership seems to understand the difference between fly-swatters and sledge hammers. What's wrong with the government of Ogden City?
You can read today's editorial here, and Joy Ditter's reader letter here.
42 comments:
Rudizink, I jumped on the City's website and found out the doings of last week's City Council meeting, wherein they voted on, and passed, this new "90 Day and Out" ordinance (if memory serves me correct, the vote was 7-0; sorry Jesse and Amy, you don't get a pass on this one, but it could be that you had neither the time nor the complete facts to reflect and consider the negative ramifications on individuals and families, once this went on the books). It held that Greg Montgomery presented the city's position and concerns, those mainly being the old stand-by, "an inordinate amount of police and Public Service calls," to the Council. I'm of the mind that this catch-all concern is the same rational used to push the Good Landlord ordinance through.
Somehow, this smacks of a similarity to Nazi Germany, when the National Socialists went after those of the Jewish persuasion. For some unknown reason, other than what the City claims to be this disproportionate amount of Public Service responses, the lower and middle socio-economic classes have been identified, by certain members of the Administration, as the cause of most of the City's problems. Crime, the city's malaise, the physical deterioration, the appearance of our neighborhoods and downtown, and the lack of downtown progress and city growth are the responsibility of this socio-economic group. Can Krystallnacht (Night of Broken Glass, 10 Nov., 38) be far behind? A hypothetical? In all reality, most likely, but when one considers the Good Landlord Program (this was not designed as a program of financial and leasing technique, rather it was designed for the identification and illimination of those the City perceives to be problematic and pushes the envelope of the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act), the Group Home Space Limit Ordinance, the Lawn and Yard Police, and now this "90 Day Stay Limit" ordinance, one could almost argue that premise.
It seems like certain council members will only be comfortable when the city's demographics reflect that of a sterile, all white, upper-middle class socio-economic status, with no "ferrets" allowed. That's right, "ferrets," those "wild" and I presume "dangerous" animals, that if found within the city limits, need to be captured and destroyed (take a look at today's Front Page of the Standard).
This elite bunch, Godfrey, Safsten, Jorgenson, Stephenson, Filiaga, and Burdett are either kick-starting multi-million dollar projects or figuring out a way to force some people out of their homes. They've enacted ordinances that either prevent renting to a specific group or limit the tennancy of a specific group. The infrastructure, meanwhile, gets nary a word, no consideration. It, along with the shortage of firefighters on the trucks and a somewhat disgruntled police department (many need second jobs to make ends meet), travels the path of attrition: these problems will eventually disappear if nothing is mentioned about them.
Filing deadline for City Council candidates is this coming Monday. I'm wondering if I'm the only one who has the sense that the City's priorities are out of whack and that some well-reasoned, "put the people first" candidates will emerge from the woodwork.
I agree, John Wright's writing ability is something that all journalists should aspire to have. If only other reporters at the Std-Ex had his ability.
Another good one there is that Lynze Wardle girl. The rest of the Std-Ex staff is pretty ho-hum, but these two are clear, informative and entertaining, giving me something a little more than the typical crap.
Cheers to them both.
rudi, I agree with your opinion that this is a sledge-hammer solution to a fly-swatter problem. (Very nice phrase, by the way.)
The first thing that comes to mind is that there are many people who are not involved in domestic violence or the drug trade who have hotels as their primary residence. If memory serves me correctly, the Honorable Judge Willis Ritter lived for years at the top of the Hotel Utah. (Were he still living, it would be interesting to hear his comments regarding this.)
In addition, if by some chance a major film chose Ogden as its location, cast, crew, and upper management would need to be housed for a period of time possibly extending beyond three months.
Viewed in this light, this new ordinance is cutting off revenue for hotel and motel owners as well as for the local economy, which of course benefits by the guests hosted by the hotel industry, even and perhaps especially the long term ones.
The fallacy in this ordinance is the underlying assumption that all people who stay in motels and hotels for more than three months are bad people. This is assuredly not the case, especially since we have some very nice hotels here who host good clienteles. If someone wished to stay at one of Ogden's more expensive hotels for six months or so, I think he or she should be able to do that.
However, Wright's well-written article does state that Ogden has a problem with undesirable types engaging in criminal acts in our local hotels and motels. It would be interesting to know who brought this problem to the attention of the City Council. Was it the police force? Was it the motel owners? From Wright's article, it seems that some of the motel owners do not like the new ordinance. Who or what entity spearheaded this, and why?
It would seem to me that the solution to this particular problem should come from existing local entities---the police department and the health department, to name two. If this is not happening because our police force and health department are too understaffed, then that is the root of the problem, not extended stay hotel guests, and the solution then would be to beef up departmental ranks, while also informing the motel and hotel owners that they too have a responsibility here, and should not be providing housing for ongoing criminal enterprises.
I agree that there are people who are being unjustly penalized and inconvenienced by this ordinance. In fact, the situation of the disabled motel resident in Wright's article reminded me of elementary school when a teacher tactic was to announce: "All right---since Johnny was talking, the whole class has to stay after school." Even though this man is not, from what Wright says, engaging in anything criminal, he gets thrown out just like the motel tenants who are. Just like those of us were weren't talking in class had to stay after school along with those who were.
I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.
Political observor - Amen brother, amen. You seem to have identified the major characteristics of our current council - a serious lack of moral fiber.
I do hope that some one with integrity will step forward and throw their hat in the council race by Monday afternoon.
We are desperate for political change in Ogden.
Dian - Where is Judge Ritter when we need him!
I liked your post - as usuall, however I must point out that Judge Ritter didn't reside in the Hotel Utah.
Hotel Utah was and is owned by the LDS church, is on the "Mormon" end of town and did house David O. MacKay and several other of the church's presidents over the years on the top floor.
Judge Ritter was not a friend of the church by any stretch of the imagination. He resided in the large hotel that was just south of, and across the street from, the Federal Court house - at the "Gentile" south end of Main Street at fourth south. I can't remember the name of it right now, but it is long gone and replaced by Earl Holding's big empty lot.
Thank you for clearing that up, Bonnie Lee! I can't remember the other Hotel either. Maybe it will come to us--meanwhile, I will try to find out....
Newhouse! The Hotel Newhouse.
Found it on a very good Utah website--Utah History to go. Oddly enough, I found mention of the Newhouse in an article about our Ben Lomond Hotel. We should be very proud to still have this hotel, from what this website says:
"OGDEN´S "GRAND HOTEL"—THE BIGELOW—PRESERVES A HISTORIC ERA
Preservation Office
Utah Division of State History
History Blazer, September 1995
Constructed in 1927 the Bigelow/Ben Lomond Hotel both architecturally and historically significant. It is an excellent and rare example of the Italian Renaissance Revival style in Utah—popular in America in the 1920s but seldom employed in the Beehive State. The building—located on the southeast corner of Ogden's most prominent downtown intersection, Washington Boulevard and 25th Street—is also the most notable example of the hotel type in Ogden. No other hotel in the history of the city has exceeded the Bigelow/Ben Lomond in number of rooms, height, or elegance. It ranks as one of three "grand hotels" built in Utah. The others are the Newhouse (demolished) and the former Hotel Utah, now the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, both in Salt Lake City. Historically, the Bigelow/Ben Lomond represents Ogden's era of growth, optimism, and economic development in the 1920s."
Here's the link: http://historytogo.utah.gov/bigelow.html
So it had to be the Newhouse that Judge Ritter called home, I am thinking.
Dian -- not that it detracts from your typically thoughtful posting, but -- it was the Hotel Newhouse that housed the inimitable, irascible, irreplaceable Ritter.
Dian, our postings are crossing in cyberspace, but since you've mentioned the hallowed Historic Ben Lomond Hotel, would Rudizink consider initiating a discussion about it? We've thrashed and rehashed Union Square up one side and down the other, so might it not be appropriate to understand what's going on at the Ben Lomond, at present the only other alternative to have a downtown condo? Or at least it WAS the only other ... word has it that those condos are no longer for sale to the hoity toity, only to high-rolling "investors."
"...the inimitable, irascible, irreplaceable Ritter."
I like that, Moroni! I think he would too, from what I remember reading of him. It's amusing to think of what his reaction to this ordinance would be.
And it would indeed be interesting to find out about what is going on with our Ben Lomond Hotel, too.
Anyone....I remember when the Hotel Newhouse was brought down by those co-ordinated explosive experts. I also think I remember a horror story related to that place: wasn't that the hotel that that freak of a mother threww her 11-12 kids off the 12th floor, killing them all except the last one, a girl? Then she leapt to her death.
I think that hotel was where what is now the Shilo is, Counselor. Might be the same building, too.
In thinking more about this ordinance,
Sorry about that--the above post by anonymous is mine.
To continue with it, I have been thinking more about this hotel issue and thought of the rec center and some of these proposed projects. If they happen, I would think that experts might come in to oversee safety, for instance. This wind tunnel---who knows, maybe one is easy to construct, but I would think someone would want to inspect from time to time, or maybe that company would want an on site presence, or maybe for something like that, they would bring their own people. Some corporations build their products themselves and send their own crews to an area to do it, paying the housing for those people.
One would of course wish that labor for this project come from the local work force, but these things might be specialized skills. If this is the case with any special offering of the proposed rec center, and the construction takes more than three months, (I heard somewhere it was slated for fourteen,) then all those people brought in on that project will either have to hop from hotel to hotel, or stay in Salt Lake, or receive a special exemption.
Unless selective enforcement comes into play, and that's not too good either.
Are we not touching again on a socialist theme in our dear city government? Here we go again with the, "you are blighted" mentality... "now get off my land".
For such a "Red" state... I have noticed a specific and singular disregard for people to do what they wish. Maybe we are a RED STATE (the Reddest of the Red States). Maybe we will be asked to give all to the Red City Government. If I sound like McCarthy here... well... it gets a little tense. This is America isn't it?
This is dangerous. While the idea sounds good... "Let's get the 'bad' element out of the city"... the premise is very unsound. Who determines the 'bad'? I know quite a few people in this state of a certain religious persuasion who automatically dislike those of non- or other-religious persuasion. If I did not attend a certain church, for instance, could I then be ruled a 'bad' element?
I know the picture that comes to mind of permanent residents of motels on main thorough-fares. The offers of crack or crystal-meth at the window. (I have stayed in one or two during my time with the military.) But... isn't this an attempt to legislate morality? We see this again and again, and it does not work. It never works - look at Prohibition.
No city in the country is without a drug problem. No city in the country is without a transient population. The way to minimize these problems is to increase the level of economic well-being in the city. The only way to do that is to work on the fundamentals. This should appeal to both sides of the aisle on this issue.
Raise the standard of living, and homes and rentals become more expensive. All of a sudden, those motel owners are sitting on property worth many times what it was worth before. All of a sudden, your 'troublesome' rental properties become filled with home-owners. Improvements to properties around the city become the norm. You can afford more police... etc. etc.
Short-term solutions do not work on this. I think a drug dealer working out of these motels can move much more easily than your permanent resident - mentioned in the article. All you do is force the contributing members of society living in motels into surrounding cities or towns where they buy stuff, and you lose tax revenue. The truly 'bad' elements that you have been trying to oust simply take up another temporary residence, wait for 90 days, and take up another.
The city should be spending its time and energy on long-term solutions instead of trying to dislodge the problems through temporary fixes.
Many meth labs are found in storage sheds. Maybe Matthew Godfrey and his cronies can set an ordinance that allows property storage for only 3 months, then it's either "move your stuff to the next storage facility down the pike or we'll confiscate the goodies and have them burned," sort of like what's happening to our friend, the ferret.
Same applies to mobile meth labs, found in car trunks. For your car, a three month ownership period before having to sell it, or again, CONFISCATION and put the vehicle into that huge car press, where it's flattened like a pancake to be shipped overseas to Japan, where it's melted down and re-cast into a Datsun.
Just think, we'll be rid of those nasty storage sheds, automobiles over 3 months old, rental units that the Landlord program hasn't taken care of (they've had drug problems there, you know), and those numerous wild and dangerous ferrets (we'll worry about an unchained, loose, frothing at the mouth Doberman later). Add all of that up and factor in the lower income families, minorites, everyone who lives West of Harrison and happens to forget to cut their lawn occassionally, PLUS those desperados who are trying to rehabilitate themselves in the close together "group homes," and bingo, a modern day version of THE ARYAN NATION! Just what the doctor ordered. And oh yeah, throw in a one way bus ticket to St. George for that homeless guy who will "work for food."
My gawd, it gets better each time I open the newspaper. I'm so thrilled with the way things are headed that I'm calling for a referendum making the current council terms one of "in-perpetuity." Call off the election. Who needs it. These people have it figured just fine!
NEWS FLASH....
And now he's hired a "lobbyist," to educate the Legislature and bring back eminent domain so that they can move ahead on the 2 big stalled projects, WalMart and the Riverwalk.
They just don't give a dman about the individual. And where do they keep coming up with the money, $45,000 in this instance, to do these things. Wonder how many water pipes that could have replaced?
Dian,
If there were a movie come to town as you suggest, most of those people would have other permanent residances and as such would not be affected by this ordinance.
Arcritic, you may be right about that.
If having a permanent residence is the key here, must the hotel and motel owners then ascertain that this is the case? Will word just get around that if you go to Ogden to set up your meth lab in a motel, you'd better have something to put down as a permanent residence?
If in order to evict these people they must first ascertain whether the person does or does not have a permanent residence, who is going to check that and how? Will they call a phone number and the tenant's relative will answer and say yes, this is his/her permanent residence? Will that be enough?
This seems to be getting rather complex.
Yes, most of these issues are definately complex. Anytime you attempt to make a law with exceptions (loopholes), the exceptions can be exploited (see illegal immigration). And of course it is left to someone other than those making the law to actually enforce it (see unfunded madates).
I do agree with the city though that there is a health and safety issue that there are certain requirements that are usually imposed on residences that are to be used for permenant residences that are not imposed for temporary ones. But I also agree that those who are living in these places more than 90 days are probably not the ones that are causing the majority of the problems. Personally, in my city if this were to come before my city council, I would require more information and documentation that the problems really are with people that are making these places their permenant residences.
The Shiloh was the name of the hotel where the nightmare took place.
Check out Bernlaw.blogspot for the real story.
So rudi why are you letting this lame one use your blog site to promote another sorry attempt at white washing the little weeny and his grandios schemes and dreams? He is trying to piggy back into your large audience to further his own feeble, but I am sure well meaning, attempt at glorifying the devil incarnate.
I checked the lame assed site out and it is pure apologetic hog wash put out by and for the little weener's posse of psycophants and relatives. ie utahmormanboy, you know the one that is morman than mormon but thinks of himself as the other way around...
A note re Ozboy's last comment:
I'm actually inviting Bernie to post here, and to advance his points and arguments in a reasoned and rational manner.
I have no problem with a posted link to Bernie's site. I consider what he posted there to have been his opening argument, now that he's joined our little local discussion.
I've been literally and repeatedly begging people like Matt Godfrey, Scott Brown, Richard McConkie and other city officials to do that. So far they've decided to ignore this place; and I can't honestly understand why. My web stats indicate that hundreds of people read this blog every day, and that returning visitors number in the thousands. Page loads here are now in the friggin' tens of thousands, and Ive been operating here for only about three months.
If these pro-administration people choose to ignore this place, WCF will naturally develop its own one-sided personality, and they'll pay the political price down the road.
I never intended this place to become a one-sided echo-chamber, however. But that's what it will become, because of the inattention and hubris of some people who've ignored Weber County Forum so far.
I set this venue up in the first place as a forum where these pro-adminsitration people could convince the skeptics that they were willing to engage, and persuade the cyber-people of Ogden City that they weren't operating in an ivory tower.
If Bernie wants to be their spokesman, that's fine with me.
Somebody needs to argue the administration's side of the argument. If Bernie's been designated as their spokesman I say let's have at it.
Welcome, Bernie.
I challenge you to joist on Weber County Forum.
Show us you have a set, if it's you who's been annointed to carry the flag, and to convince us that everything your brother-in-law has done is right, true and righteous.
Ok, who is his brother in law? I also welcome Bernie, because frankly, it is true that this place seems to have gotten one-sided.
Rudi, I have been begging Amy Wicks to answer my questions for quite some time now, but I don't seem to be getting any response there. So welcome to the club.
I'm sure Amy will answer when she can, Utmo....I too checked the bern.blog and by the time I was finished reading, I was flat weeping. It all sounded like Utopia, sweet, perfect. But who the hell's gonna pay the tab?
For Godfrey and his bunch to not post is no surprise at all. They are arogant, shameless bastards, all having some kind of complex, and they don't listen to the citizens at their council meeting so why think they should join in here.
Godfrey is an arogant, little dick who'se being run by his father-in-law and Jorgenson and Safsten ain't any better. Inidividual rights, the ownership of property, none of that stuff matters to these guys and we voted them in.
Well GUESS-FRIGGIN-WHAT? We can vote OUT!
Rudi, I have been begging UtMoBoy to answer my questions for quite some time now, but I don't seem to be getting any response there. So welcome to the club.
I wrote a song a while ago that Bernie's blog seems ta have as his theme. Mormon boy seems to be buyin' inta it too. They got the main idea allright, but they ain't half near as poetic as me.
Here's the song I wrote. I hope it makes you boys happy as it did everbody else who heard it:
"There's a big, brown cloud in the city,
And the countryside's a sin.
An' the price of life is too high to give up,
Gotta come down again.
When the world wide war is over and done,
And the dream of peace comes true.
We'll all be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
Eatin' that rainbow stew.
When they find out how to burn water,
And the gasoline car is gone.
When an airplane flies without any fuel,
And the satellite heats our home.
One of these days when the air clears up,
And the sun comes shinin' through.
We'll all be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
An' eatin' that rainbow stew.
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
Underneath that sky of blue.
All be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
An' eatin' that rainbow stew.
(Instrumental break.)
You don't have to get high to get happy,
Just think about what's in store.
When people start doin' what they oughta be doin',
Then they won't be booin' no more.
When a President goes through the White House door,
An' does what he says he'll do.
We'll all be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
Eatin' that rainbow stew.
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
Underneath that sky of blue.
We'll all be drinkin' that free bubble-ubb,
Eatin' some rainbow stew.
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
Underneath that sky of blue.
All be drinkin' that free bubble-ubb,
Eatin' rainbow stew.
-Merle Haggard
Bonnie,
I have answered the questions to the best of what I know for sure. If that is not good enough, than I am sorry.
To Utmo....
You answered Bonnie's questions? Gee, you're such a good little boy. We should all use you as our an example.
This story has me ticked. I happen to be homeless bum. I've been moving from town to town while living in hotels. I lived in a different Utah community. Recently a pair of clean cut young men on bicycles asked me firmly, yet kindly to leave said neighborhood; So, I figured I would be homeless for awhile.
Personally, I think that more people should be living in hotels. They have less of an impact on the environment. The maid service is great and hotels are generally quite safe. I stay in middle class hotels. With cleaners coming in out, I can't imagine people using them for meth labs.
I do historic research. Up until recently, large numbers of people lived in hotels. Many of the greatest writers lived in hotels for good periods of time.
I disagree stongly with ARCritic statement that there are safety issues that demand oppressive government dictates. There are many health and safety issues related to extreme poverty. The problems are not related to hotels. Anyway, the best fix for such problems is the free market. Outlawing the poor does not outlaw poverty. It just hides it.
Hotels are the answer to many of our big problems with suburban sprawl and high bankruptcy rates.
The primary reason for high bankruptcy rates is that people buy before they have a down payment. This insanity of buying a house before you are ready means that a large portion of our population gets shoved into the margins.
A person who owns a house but does not have the funds to maintain the house is a worst disaster than a person living in a hotel.
The primary reason for an anti hotel legislation is to push up property values. You can get a temporary increase in property values if you push out the homeless and close alternative living options.
Artificially inflated housing markets are like artificially inflated stock markets. The artificial inflation feels great when the prices are going up. However, the artificial inflation accelerates the process of decline.
The health and safety concerns are a pure chimera. The real reason for this piece of anti-poor legislation is to drive up property values. For that matter the article points out that the rule is designed to be selectively enforced against undersireable.
"Officials said they are unsure how strictly the new ordinance will be enforced."
In other words, Ogden has zero interest in maintaining the rule law. Like so many laws, this law will be enforced based on who you are. I assume that it would only be enforced against undesirables like blacks, hispanics, gentiiles, and the homeless. It is intended as a law to keep the poor and maverick hotel owners in line. End of story.
Rudisnik said: I've been literally and repeatedly begging people like Matt Godfrey, Scott Brown, Richard McConkie and other city officials to do that. So far they've decided to ignore this place; and I can't honestly understand why.
Ozboy said: I checked the lame assed site out and it is pure apologetic hog wash put out by and for the little weener's posse of psycophants and relatives. ie utahmormanboy, you know the one that is morman than mormon but thinks of himself as the other way around...
Tellin it like it is said: For Godfrey and his bunch to not post is no surprise at all. They are arogant, shameless bastards, all having some kind of complex, and they don't listen to the citizens at their council meeting so why think they should join in here.
Godfrey is an arogant, little dick who'se being run by his father-in-law and Jorgenson and Safsten ain't any better. Inidividual rights, the ownership of property, none of that stuff matters to these guys and we voted them in.
End of quotes.
Now Rudizink, you really don't know why Mayor Godfrey would not come here and discuss things with us?
I tend to avoid places where people talk about me with such vile, hateful, ignorant language.
I don't know if anyone from that group will ever come here and make any comments but based on what I have seen people say about them, it is crystal clear that they aren't and I don't blame them a bit.
Bloggers can be tough, eh Arcritic....some of those quotes wouldn't be acceptable "dinner conversation," but it's possible that the frustration level is high. No real excuse for the hard language, but comapre those words to Godfrey's deeds, trying to take a person's home away and give it to WalMart and I think the words win out. The guy is shameless and never quits in his attempts to nail down a project, regardless of cost, regardless of where it leaves a property owner.
Hard choices for hard times. I for one will cut out the "nasty," and I wish Godfrey would do the same.
Yo Arcritic.
Hey they got you don't they? You are posting. So why don't you give us some logical answers to the questions being raised by the disaffected? That's part of the reason so many people are so ticked off at your administration - they/you just don't give a damn about what the people think.
They hide behind the same niceities that you are preaching. You and the Mayor want every one to be polite and nice and act like good little sheep in the flock. That makes it a lot easier for them and you to ignore us and forge onward with the dillusional schemes.
When people are ignored and abused by those in power they get restless and angry. As Rudi pointed out his intention is not for this to be a one sides rant against the city. It is going that way because the administration is not listening and communicating with the people. As long as they do that, I will do what I am doing which is telling it like I see it. I sure hope the others you mentioned do the same.
The only time the cockroaches scatter is when some one turns on the lights. That is what some of the contributors to this site are doing, they are turning on the lights.
So how about it, instead of telling us what a bunch of uncouth loud mouths we are why don't you come up with some rational information about why any of this BS is good for the citizens of Ogden? I am not referring incidently to more feel good salve out of the Mayors brochures or wonk pool, and I would love to see something more detailed than it's "for the common good".
Very interesting point, Arcritic! It is understandable that public officials would not wish to participate in a web forum where they were subjected to personal insults, some under the veil of anonymity.
Would there be something about holding public office that would prevent one from slinging insults right back under the veil of anonymity one's self? I think there might be.
And in fact, the lower type of insult might play right into the opinion held by some that elected officials view the general public as being, by and large, beneath their notice.
However, if by an Act of Rudi, all insults were prohibited, would they join in then? Or not? I think that is the question. There might be some other reason they are not here having nothing to do with insults, too. Time constraints, maybe.
Just to let you know Ozboy, while I do sit on a city council, it is not in Ogden. Most of what I know about the issues specific to Ogden I have gleened from the Standard, blogs like this one and other media and friends and aquantances.
I don't want to give the impression that I agree with what Mayor Godfrey and the city of Ogden have done or the ways they have gone about doing those things, but I do understand some of the reasoning behind what they want to do. I doubt that I would be able to provide much more insight as to their motivations other than I believe that they are looking at the whole of Odgen and doing what they feel is in the best interests of the most people in the city.
As as for Dian's question about would they come if the level of hostility were lowered? I would not hold my breath. But currently, I would equate them coming here to Bush giving an audience to that lady that has been on the news camped outside his ranch. Nothing that they could say is going to make much of a difference to some here.
As for me, I will attempt to keep my anonymity here and in some other blogs I frequent.
I do have to say that if they (Ogden official) are not at least browsing occationally, they are missing an important source of public input.
Arcritic,
I would have to say that no one wants to wade into a bashing pool. I don't think blogs like this would exist if there weren't some very important issues that need to be addressed. From what I have gleaned from this blog, I believe that the people here care deeply about the city and its current direction.
While I too understand what is driving some of the wild schemes that emminate from the administration, I also understand that there are usually twenty different alternatives to accomplish the same goal. I don't think the options are being explored thoroughly.
I also think that this administration has a habit and history of ignoring citizen input and going ahead with whatever plan they have on the table. I know four different experts in their fields who were summarily dismissed during the Mall site discussions. One of these was a very high level economist who was not only dismissed but was told that the mayor 'believed' otherwise. When you have expert advice available on a project, wouldn't you value expert advice?
Our concerns stem more from the tactics used and methods rather than from the actual development. This is how I interpret the input on this board. I don't think the mayor would be interested, personally. He has never shown his interest in hearing constructive alternatives to his plans. Nor has he ever shown the slightest interest in citizen input. I don't know why that should change now.
Mr. Arcritic
I enjoyed your reply. Based on it I would have to say that you would never fit on our Ogden City council. You seem like a straight shooter.
I would hope that some one in the Ogden government could see it as you do and put forth intelligent and non insulting reasons why what they are doing really helps the common citizen in any direct or tangible way. (insulting as in insulting our intelligence)
I hope you keep commenting here, I enjoy your thinking and style.
Maybe Hizzoner should run for Mayor of Provo in 1997. I know he'd be happier there.
He won't speak to the citizens of Ogden because they don't speak like they're in Sunday School? Harsh language makes the poor guy blush? Oh my! That's WAY too weird. No wonder he's trying to evict all the locals.
The major problem for our little pantywaist mayor is that he can't take this city for what it is. It's no wonder he hides out there on the ninth floor where he doesn't have to mingle with the real people of Ogden City.
Harsh Ogden style language offends his dainty sensibilities, I guess. Who would have imagined that people in a blue collar town like Ogden could speak so honnestly and rudely?
Ask yourself this, Ogden People, how did we wind up with such a pantywaist dork in the mayor's chair anyways?
Citizen apathy maybe?
Amy, you do not need to excuse yourself to any of us. This young poster, Utmorman, is a go getter who'se just learning the ropes and sometimes feels that it's all about him....but, he's learning.
I'd be more than happy to cut your lawn and paint your house, just send me your address.
Understood,
I said that if you were busy, it was understood.
Well then, Ut-m'boy, SNAP OUT OF IT!
Post a Comment