For the convenience of our readers, I've added the calendar of upcoming Rec Center Public Comment Sessions to the WCF sidebar, under the heading "Hot Topics and Threads."
I can't over-state the importance of attending the next three regularly scheduled public events -- and submitting written comments -- prior to the final Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting on November 22.
Written comments may also be submitted via e-mail to the following addresses:
citycouncil@ci.ogden.ut.us
RDABoard@ci.ogden.ut.us
If your email program supports a "read receipt" function, I'd suggest using it, to ensure your message isn't "lost" or "misplaced."
Be sure to provide contact information, including your name, street address, phone number and e-mail address.
If we're going to prevail on the present city council to exercise prudence and common sense with respect to the rec center project, we'll need to let the council know how we feel about it, in no uncertain terms. We're already hearing "noise" from some of the Gang of Six, and their lackeys, that last week's election results will be ignored. So it may be sdvisable to give them another dose of reality.
I'm not suggesting an e-mail spam campaign, mind you; but I do believe our decision-makers deserve to hear the views of all citizens who have reservations about this project.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
4 comments:
Obviously, Godfrey and Safsten don't think the peoples vote means much.
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3213099
I did like this comment from Godfrey, "Besides, he notes, the winners put on better campaigns than did the losers."
So that was the reason why even though the incumbents won the primaries they lost the general election. My thought was out with the old in with the new.
Today's Salt Lake Tribune:
OGDEN - Three members of Ogden's City Council are lame ducks.
That will not stop Mayor Matthew Godfrey from pressing the group to approve a controversial high-adventure recreation center before the next council takes office beginning in 2006.
"There is no other option," Godfrey said Friday, three days after voters elected four candidates who oppose the center.
...
Godfrey maintains he is not worried.
"These are reasonable people who have spent years on this. I don't see how they could all of a sudden come to the conclusion it's best to kill the mall project."
...
Godfrey, for his part, scoffs at the notion that Tuesday's election was a referendum on him.
"That's all media drama," he said. "People vote for the person they think is going to do the best job."
Besides, he notes, the winners put on better campaigns than did the losers.
Even more here, in detailed article by Kristen Moulton:
Election Imperils Mall Plans
FWIW, the "Read Receipt" option you mention does not guarantee that the recipient's email client will oblige the request. In fact, most corporations have policies against using such feature, because of concerns over privacy (it exposes the actual reader of the email, which may not be the intended or addressed recipient).
The point is, the "Read Receipt" feature is a request for notification when the delivered email is read. The request does not have to be, and is generally not honored.
So, if you've sent an email to anyone, just because you don't get a read notification back, doesn't mean that the email has or has not been read or delivered correctly. An assumption that the email has been "lost" or "misplaced" without the receipt cannot be made.
Good point, Adam.
Thanks for the clarification.
Your point is entirely well-take.
As a practical matter though, I don't think Bill Cook will be inclined to "play games" on this.
I'm still recommending the "read receipt" feature for emails on this topic.
If anyone has problems with this, please let us ALL know about it.
I'll send a "test email," and get back to you all on this.
Thanks for the "heads up"
New comments are not allowed.