Okay. Some of our gentle readers are needling me, and complaining that it's "too quiet here."I'm having trouble understanding why it's so friggin' "quiet," actually. It's YOUR blog, o my gentle Weber County Forum Readers. There's no reason you folks can't "stir the pot" whilst I'm temporarily away.
Remember that "website design" project I talked about last week? It was something I promised some people I'd complete about four months ago. I've put about 50 hours into it in the last four days (including a few nights of NO sleep,) and it's almost done now. I made an executive decision and decided I'd finish it up now, and leave our gentle readers on their own for a coupla days... so's it wouldn't take me another four months to finish it, and disappoint some other people who'd also relied upon me. Web site projects are the ultimate oxymoron. Website design is where "math geeks" try to get in touch with their normally-undeveloped "artistic" side.
Consider this an Open Thread, please, if you'd like. My "other project" is durned-near finished, and then I'll get back to the serious business of exposing Ogden City government hypocrisy here ad nauseum.
In the meantime, I did attend tonight's "public comment session" at my old alma mater, Mount Ogden Junior High School tonight. So mebbe we can make THAT a topic for discussion tonight.
My perception is that poor Dave Harmer is conducting these public discussions, with zero core belief on his part that the Rec Center project is a "good deal" for anyone. Poor old Dave Harmer has become a mere half-hearted shill for the Godfrey "vision." It's a heckuva bad way to end a decent corporate career, for poor old Dave H, I think.
He "walked through" tonight's presentation. When called on the question of whether the Ogden City Council has an adequate "feasibility study" to rely upon, now that the Rec Center has ceased being a "privately financed deal, and has now become a "publicly-backed" project -- the poor guy had no answer at all. His standard retort: "That was before my time." "OK, Dave, thought I. He referred to some half-arsed "study" that was done long ago, where the only input came from the Fatcats principals. Of course he hasn't actually read it himself.
The poor guy was making eyes through the auditorium wall at the Mount Ogden Junior High parking lot all evening, where his silver Porsche Boxster was parked -- the one we taxpayers paid for. Don't think for a minute we didn't.
Did I fail to say I don't blame him?
All Dave wanted to do tonight was cut the meeting short and drive home -- at top speed - with the Blaupunkt 8-speaker stereo turned on full-blast -- possibly to attend to his "trophy" wife. C'mon... guys who drive Boxsters ALWAYS have trophy wives, right?
He knew he was talkin' sh*t tonight.
A quality guy like Dave Harmer won't last long with this neoCON city administration.
He could have retired comfortably WITHOUT the Boxster, I think, and will probably soon wish he'd done just that.
Did any other of our gentle readers attend this meeting, BTW?
Howbout the one Tuesday night?
Did anyone catch the clip of Mitch Moyes Tuesday night on channel 13... running around the council foyer waving his arms and muttering under his breath, in typical political pose?
Comments, anyone?
Take it away, o gentle readers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 comments:
I attended this meeting too, and finally the way they are thinking began to make sense. I still don't agree with it, but I now see the motivation behind it.
I have been highly impressed with Dave Harmer's presentations. Of course, he is a good choice for a presenter for this issue, because when people ask questions about controversial past administrative acts, he is able to respond honestly that these things occurred before his time, thereby diffusing comments that might turn accusatory. In this way, the discussions stay on track, and he seems to be genuinely concerned about answering questions to the best of his ability.
The fact remains, however, that the necessity for debt restructuring is due to two unfortunate decisions made by the city which led to two court actions concerning Woodbury and BDO which cost the city $5 million and $12.5 million respectively, and for which it had to borrow money to pay. On top of these monies owed, the rec center, if approved, is going to amass another $18.5 million in debt.
After the meeting, in conversation with another Ogden City official, it was revealed that developers who had been approached consistantly asked what the "draw" was to downtown Ogden. This sort of took me aback, because it was my assumption that their development, as well as 25th Street, the Union Station, the Egyptian, etc., would be the "draw." However, we were told that many times this is not the case, and that developers do not feel that their development alone would be sufficient.
Thus the concept of the rec center. The thinking goes that with this rec center, this question of potential developers can be answered with "We have a Flowrider Pool," etc. This will then soothe them into realizing that there is indeed life down there and they won't be putting money into things that will remain empty.
I don't agree with this concept that the rec center is absolutely crucial in a linchpin sort of way to the development as a whole. In fact, I highly disagree with it, because my opinion is that the city has been somewhat difficult for developers to work with, and this is why downtown is not developing. However, the other side of the thinking behind it is that "they won't come in" unless it is there.
In order to finalize both the restructuring and the mall financing, it will cost us a bit over $800,000 in fees. Then there will of course be the interest payments, supposedly modified by tax increment revenue.
Took a good look at the proposed site map also. One thing I did not realize before is that the proposed Earnshaw building almost adjoins the proposed rec center, and is drawn in such a way that they almost seem to share a wall to the west. The Washington Boulevard frontage is retail except for a plaza on the 22nd Street corner by PRI and the proposed cinemas on the 24th Street corner with the rec center next to them to the west. Parking seems to be confined to the west of the site, with the exception of the PRI building having an underground terrace.
Viewing the site as a whole, the ongoing refusal to sell the three retail spaces to the east of the Episcopal Church seems to flaw the entire site plan. The rest of that area is taken up by a parking structure and those three spaces might as well be green space. It would certainly be more aesthetically pleasing for the east church property to front a road with the Earnshaw building across the street than it would be to have that property facing the rear of three retail establishments. It seems, however, that these spaces have been promised to Boyer, which has promised to develop the retail areas. Perhaps Boyer could be approached on this issue so as to ascertain whether those three spaces are absolutely crucial to its developmental concept.
Also, I received yesterday in the mail from the City Council a list of the written questions submitted at the previous informational meeting that time had not allowed for answers. The answers to them are written out. This is highly commendable, and shows that efforts are indeed being made to address public input.
Anyway, that seems to be where we stand, and the vote on this rec center funding is this coming Tuesday night. I think they should table it, myself.
Can someone please from here on out paraphrase what DIAN is saying. I'm sorry but I don't have that long of an attention span. TOOOO LOOOONG.
Larsen could count her words. Remember when that idiot counted his words during the campaign? My gawd, he still has UNLAWFUL SIGNS up too....Prisbrey, you paying attention?
Memo to Dian:
Please keep up the good work. We are lucky continually to benefit from your diligent research, seasoned with its rational commentary. It's too bad that some on this Forum haven't the maturity or intelligence to digest more than a soundbite, or to offer more than polemics.
Dian,
You’re right, the city is looking for an attraction to draw people downtown, and I am fine with that. I just don’t think this is what will work, because it will really only draw Weber County residents for a couple years—at best.
Instead, why don’t we put out a few feelers to Dave Checketts and see if we can’t put in a bid for Real Salt Lake, his MLS soccer franchise to relocate to Ogden. He’s looking to build a stadium for the team, and the Salt Lake Valley hasn’t given him much to work with, so what if he moves North. The stadium could be finished about the same time UTA puts in the commuter rail and presto, we have a reason for people in SLC and Davis County to come to Ogden, not to mention Cache Valley and Box Elder residents. The stadium could also be used for concerts, high school state tournaments, cultural events, etc. throughout the year. Plus, Checketts has his own money and resources he is willing to put into the deal, minimizing the city’s investment and risks.
FC, you better have been joking on that one. If not, you really do need a course on keeping up with current events. Real already announced about a month ago that they are going to build their new stadium in Sandy across the street from Jordan Commons. Please, oh please tell my you were going for the irony card on that one.
You ruined my day. I heard about the proposed Sandy deal, which by the way, went a long way to securing the election for the Sandy Mayor, but I swear I heard some sports radio guys talking last weekend about a setback to the deal. I didn’t catch the full conversation, and must be mistaken. If anyone has heard anything, please save me from utter embarassment.
I also forgot about the legislature put an end to using RDAs for sports stadiums earlier this year, so either way, it wouldn’t work here. Too bad. It’s a huge win for “The Other Downtown.” The rich just get richer.
Thanks, MM. There is an article in this morning's Trib stating that Boyer does not need the three parcels that the Episcopal Church wishes to buy, and leans to the side of historic preservation in its projects:
OGDEN - Supporters of the historic Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd's bid to buy more land in downtown Ogden are turning up the heat at City Hall, but city administrators still balk at selling the property.
The church even has enlisted The Boyer Co., which is expected to sign an agreement soon to partner with the city to develop much of the project, including the area east of the 130-year-old chapel where the church wants to build a second chapel.
“Our position is: 'No, we don't have to have this [property],' ” Boyer President Steve Ostler said this week. “In communities, we need to respect those kinds of institutions that have been there a long time. They are part of the character of our cities.”
But Dave Harmer, Ogden's community and economic development director, said the city does not want to lose the revenue it could earn if shops and offices are built on the parcel.
“Maybe Boyer can give up the revenue stream easier than the city can,” Harmer said Thursday.
More here:
Ogden, church wrestle over downtown parcel
Unbelieveable! The City just never gives up in the search for "revenue stream". We're only talking a very small portion of land.
It is UNBELIEVABLE! Look at the way Godfrey throws money away on severence deals and because of his pride, the City ends up throwing money away on needless lawsuits and interest on loan upon loan to pay for those stupid lawsuits! You'd think that money was the least of Ogden's worries! After all, there's an endless supply from the taxpayers! So why are they so hung up on those three parcels of land! How can they be so incredibly inconsistent?! The administration and Godfrey continue to amaze me with their callousness! Excuse me, Mr. Harmer, while I puke! You guys are so disgusting!
New comments are not allowed.