As more evidence of the current administration and city council's steely determination, John Wright reports that Ogden City has now hired a professional lobbyist to browbeat members of the Utah legislature into reinstating the condemnation power back to our Ogden RDA. Despite the wide grass-roots popularity of Senator Bramble's S.B. 184, (which stripped the eminent-domain power from the RDA toolbox last spring,) -- and various national polls that demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to the government use of the condemnation power for economic development (in the neighborhood of 95%,) our Ogden City government still continues to "persevere" and blindly "move forward."It's a short article, so I'll just incorporate it in full:
OGDEN -- City officials have hired a lobbyist, at a cost of $45,000, to represent their interests at the Utah Legislature.I'll give these folks at the City Politburo and Chamber of People's Deputies due credit for one thing -- their actions certainly aren't poll-driven. I'm sure indeed that there is a "broad consensus" within the Utah League Cities and Towns echo-chamber, at least.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said the lobbyist, Robert Jolley, of Salt Lake City, will deal with a variety of issues on the city's behalf, including potential changes to state law concerning redevelopment areas and the use of eminent domain.
In the past, the city typically has sent an employee to the Capitol to act as an internal lobbyist, a practice Godfrey described as very disruptive.
Earlier this year, the Legislature passed a bill that eliminated eminent domain as a tool for redeveloping blighted areas.
The bill is blamed for stalling two Ogden projects -- the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at 21st Street and Wall Avenue and the riverfront development project between 18th Street and 20th Street and Washington Boulevard and Kiesel Avenue.
"There's broad consensus across the state that some of the actions that were taken were damaging," Godfrey said. "My assumption is that will be a main topic this year, and he'll (Jolley will) be key to staying on top of that for us."
City Council Chairman Rick Safsten said the council is supportive of the administration's efforts to ensure that legislators understand Ogden's perspective on RDAs and eminent domain.
"We need this legislation to be able to move forward," Safsten said.
Jolley declined to comment.
"The people be damned," says People's Deputy Safsten. "We're gonna edumacate the legislature this session, and edumacate them good!"
And what say our gentle readers about this? Will Comrade Safsten succeed in educating Senator Bramble and the rest of the state legislature this next go-round?
17 comments:
"In the past, the city typically has sent an employee to the Capitol to act as an internal lobbyist, a practice Godfrey described as very disruptive."
I wonder what mayor Godfrey meant by that.
Garmin,
I would guess he meant that having an employee, usually one of fairly high import, gone for 6 weeks every year disrupts the normal work flow.
Approaching people in the manner in which these people were approached, as in----We want your property, take what we give you and get out of it and you do not have a choice in this matter---would get anyone's back up.
If they don't want to go, they currently have every right to stay, and that without being harassed and being called "obstacles to progress."
I would propose the following as a possible solution. It might not work, because the issue is an emotional one, and now has enmity on both sides. But here it is.
Hire a realtor. Pay the realtor a flat fee for his or her time spent, and put a time limit on the duration of this effort. Have the realtor approach all the home owners of the properties wanted, making it clear that they have no obligation to sell whatsoever, but that, as they know, there is a prospective buyer for their properties, and the realtor has been hired in their interests. Some people already want to sell and probably know where they want to go. This is fine. For those who do not....
Have the realtor ascertain what is most attractive to them about their properties. Realtors can't do anything about memories, but they can do wonders with yards, acreage, storage, etc. They might even be able to find something better. Realtor finds out what the homeowners might like within the price range and then hunts for it.
Realtor returns to homeowners with pictures and offers to take them around to show them these properties. Stall the process here, keeping the previous deadline in mind, but making everyone aware of it, until every homeowner is satisfied with what the realtor has come up with. Make it clear that the deal is no good unless the entire parcel can be sold, but that no one is obligated to sell because -- they're not.
Should they all receive satisfaction, purchase those properties for them, transfer the deed to them, and pay to move them in. Every owner involved, including those who already have agreed to sell, should be given the option of having the city do the entire deal or of handling things themselves. The City pays All costs associated with this, including commissions, because if there is a realtor that can do this, he or she will have earned every penny, and from what we hear of these projected revenue streams, it will be worth it. Yes, it will be expensive,and time consuming, but probably no more so than the other things the City is doing.
Should it not happen, and should some of them tell the realtor absolutely not, inform them that the offer will stay open for the next 30 days, thank them for their time, leave a card, and go away. Do not call them or harass them. If 30 days comes and goes and the realtor hears nothing, the city can do nothing more, and will probably be out a bit less than $45,000.
The point is that it is the city approaching these people with a proposition. The city, like it or not, is the supplicant here. It is not holding all the cards, and it currently does not hold all the leverage, and therefore it might pay to behave decently even to the point of bending over backwards.. Moving house is sometimes traumatic and always an inconvenience. When what one is asking involves these things, that should be taken into account. Every effort should be made to complete these transactions with respect and honesty, and in the very best interests of those inconvenienced. Settle for nothing less than a Win/Win. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, and there are many other things that deserve attention.
As many of us keep saying, it is the methods used to start these projects that are sometimes objectionable. Hiring a lobbyist in the hope of receiving official approval for what is actually use of force against American citizens with whom the administration's only contention is that those people own something that the administration wants is more the method of the barbarian than of a city in a civilized nation. If we are so far gone that it's the guy with the biggest club that wins, (the Utah State Legislature being that club,) or that the prevailing opinion is that the only way we as a city can "progress" is by use of force, we'd better make every effort to try and turn that around.
This is what happens when white supremists disquised as Mormon priests get in power.
Get used to it, that's the way it is in the big Og.
Bernie
I'm sure there was alot of back slapping and group huggs when Godfrey came up with this thing. So, between the new SLC Lobbyist (ever notice how no-one from Ogden gets on the payroll, not Patterson or Reid or the guys who built out Union Square initially, who represented the Sales Force, or these new characters....the money ALWAYS goes out of town) and Jorgenson's plan "to educate the legislature," the Gang of 6 moves onward. These people I can't believe. The decency factor has gone right out the window. The care for the citizens, the taxpayers, the people who pay their salaries, abandoned.
November can't come quick enough. Rally the people and vote these people out. Let them have a taste of how getting something taken away from them feels.
Not a bad idea, Dian. If the City would come forward as a caring entity, maybe they'd find some success. But for some reason, they always come at the people with a heavy hand. It's a crying shame.
The money could have been better spent on hit squads to remove those who are a barrier to the Rec Center and Riverfront projects. This would have a much higher success rate than a lobbyist only making $45k a year.
Since the city seems to be leaning towards a police state mentality, perhaps the blight can be physically removed through "deadly force". Only one or two such "examples" would rid this city of all ills.
Lest anyone think from my post above that I am in favor of this project, (and it might appear that way to some,) my take on projects of all kinds is to put them on hold immediately until somebody looks at the big financial picture and determines where Ogden is financially. What is it's credit rating, how much does it owe, how much does it make, etc., which they will have to do for bonds anyway. Maybe they do this constantly, I don't know, but multi-million dollar project after multi-million dollar project makes me nervous about our financial future here. As most of you know already.
The thing that should get Ogden citizens' blood up to the boiling point is that Mayor Godfrey seems to have hired this professional "lobbyist" to show the citizens of Ogden, who narrowly elected him last time, who's really boss.
He's bound and determined to get the last laugh, and he doesn't give a flying fluck what any of us think.
If WSU Psych 101 students want a classic example of "Napoleon Syndrome," we don't need to look beyond the ninth floor of Ogden city hall, for a modern textbook example.
And what's up with this Safsten guy? Is the rumour true? Is Safsten positioning himself for a Mayoral run in 2007, when Godfrey bows out, and gets ready to run for the governorship?
Check out Bernlaw.blogspot for the real story.
Somebody has to be needling Mayor Godfrey to press on, in spite of the majority opposition. Surely he must know how wildly unpopular he is in Ogden.
What compels someone like Mayor Godfrey to merely "ratchet it up," when he knows most citizens are against him?
Let me get this straight now - The big guy on nine hires this Patterson operator from Salt Lake at $117,000 per year just six months after he walked out on our dear Emerald city for a better job is SLC because he "wanted to go home" and "he had done all he could here in Oz"..
This is the same guy that cheated on his old lady with his secretary, then came up and gave sworn testemony to our local politburo that it wasn't true so he could get the last big payin job he had here in Oz. Then he goes ahead and divorces his cheated on wife and marries the foxy younger secreterary that he was boinging to begin with and then lying about it.
Anyway the Lord mayor is payin that guy serious big bucks and then he hires some lobbyist from SLC, for $45,000 per, to get him back on track with takin folks homes away from them. These are the same folks that are paying the city taxes that are then used to steal their homes from them. Sort of like the gangsters that make their murder victims pay for the hit man fees and the bullets.
So we got $162 grand a year in salaries alone - NOT counting perks and cars and retirment programs and great health policies and secretaries and trips, Oh yea lots of trips, and more sparkles and spankles than us peonies could ever imagine and our cops have to have second jobs to make ends meet.
Now is that what the story is? Or is it somehow all for the common good in a way that us common folks aint not supposed to know about?
The majority supports him, the citizens support him fully.
"He nailed it didn't he "I am sick to death of the plethora of souls who want only to whine and complain"
Mebbe yer friend "bernie" would like to come over here and talk about it with us Ogden folks, UTmorman, aka "anonymous."
I read his sales brochure on his spankin' new blog, and what I want to here is facts.
"Just the facts, ma'am," as they say in the criminal courts.
I never saw more "blue sky" in my life, 'cept when I wuz runnin' my trap line in Montana.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Matt Godfrey is a short, Napolean complxed guy who is being ordered around by his father-in-law. Godfrey is the puppet on a string. He hires all of in daddy-in-laws old cronies from days gone by, pays them huge wages and perks, Ozboy hit it on the head as did Toad, and all that money goes to out of towners to take in-towners homes away.
We must unite, run this arogant little chump out of office, and sent this fool anonymous with him. Ogden supports Godfrey? Not a freakin' chance. He's bound and determined to build a monument to himself, under daddy-in-law's direction, and the rest of us be damned.
The City Council has absolutely NO GUTS, or heart, as one can see by thier votes (Amy & Jesse get a pass here). What they don't know is that the tiger who'se back they're riding around on is going to turn on them and devour them, if he can.
It's all this little guy complex running wild, directed by D-I-L, and he just flat don't give a damn.
Who is the citizens supporting fully - the little mayor or Ozboy?
I for one think Ozboy has the "big guy on nine" pegged!
Bonnie Lee....
Amen
I found something really interesting on the Ogden City web site. It is a study commissioned by the city in 2004 about the revitalization of Ogden City, performed by czb, llc. Two things I found of note:
czb says to the City of Ogden, regarding a so-called "blighted area:"
"There is no excuse for continued failure to exercise legal authority to reclaim properties not properly managed, sufficient to produce public benefit, using the powers of eminent domain. The city should move aggressively to condemn problem properties, resale them to responsible property managers, move for aggressive evictions and tight asset management, or demolish them outright upon acquisition and establish a land banking strategy."
That's the plan. The study is a PDF document---those words can be found on pg 44 of 58. It then goes on to mention a specific area this should be done to.
But this next is really something, in view of the present discussion. It can be found on pg 54 of 58:
"The underlying urban design emphasis of the forthcoming Riverfront neighborhood is very sound. We aren't sure the market can support 670 new units downtown and capture the estimated 673 new owners needed in East Central to reach the city's stated tenure rate goal of 50 percent ownership, though....."
It discusses the pros and cons of this, and then says:
"...Still, we recommend caution. Slow absorption of the townhomes on lower 25th is perhaps a sign that such development is out front of the current market."
The fact of the matter is that the city's own commissioned study in 2004 states that the Riverfront development might be too much for current market conditions.
And they have hired a lobbyist to help them go ahead with it.
Post a Comment