It would appear that an Ogden city/Boyer Company mall-site management/development contract is all but a done deal, gentle readers, according to this morning's John Wright Standard-Examiner story.
The lame duck city council has suddenly added one remaining "big-ticket" item to its dwindling agenda. Ratification of the Ogden city/Boyer pact has been set for the December 27 council calendar; and after that date there will realistically be no turning back -- not within most of our lifetimes.
"Under the proposed "development agreement," the Boyer Co. would lease Phase I of the mall site, which covers most of the area between 23rd and 24th Streets, from the city for 40 years, with options to renew for another 30 years. The Boyer Co. would be responsible for developing the land and would split with the city the revenue from subleases with the tenants."
John's article enumerates other significant contract terms:
1) Boyer will be obligated to "develop" a multiscreen theater, 50,000 square feet of retail space, and 40,000 square feet of retail space on the Phase I site. (John's report is silent, unfortunately, about specifically who will be legally-obligated to pay for the future build-outs, or whether Ogden city will be absolved from participation in any future financing. The article does say, however, "[t]he Boyer Co. would be responsible for developing the land..." so perhaps future financing won't actually be the taxpayers' problem.)
2) Boyer will have an option to develop Phase II of the mall project, which is the area between 2250 South, Washington Boulevard, 23rd Street, and Kiesel Avenue.
Assuming that Boyer exercises all available options, this would apparently bind virtually ALL the available buildable land at the mall-site for the next seventy years. The citizens of Ogden City will be in bed with the Boyer Co. well into the lifetimes of our grand-children. Whether this is a good or bad thing I do not know. What I do know is that Boyer Co. knows how to drive a hard bargain.
I will say that it's encouraging, though, to see that Boyer Co. will apparently be "ram-rodding" this project. At least our city fathers seem bright enough to recognize that they lack the capacity to handle something as complicated as this themselves. And we'll all have to concede, I think, that the Boyer Co. has done a better than decent job with BDO.
John reports that there's already been some squabbling about the timing of the ratification. Whereas our newly-elected councilpeople complain that the contract ratification should be put off until they are seated, the lame-duck council, forever true to their nefarious past patterns, indicate that they intend to shove one last project down the citizens' throats, before their reign of terror is ended.
"I feel we own this project because we worked on it," lame-duck Comrade Jorgenson says.
I'll be doing some research on this today, and will try to gather a little more information about the precise terms of the Ogden City/Boyer contract. If I come up with anything interesting, I'll be sure to report back here with an update.
The Standard-Examiner's IP people apparently forgot to upload today's edition to the StandardNET website, so I can't furnish a link to today's hard-copy story. They say they're 'working" on it. I'll post a link if the story ever appears. (I mention this, because the Std-Ex hard-copy edition featured a multicolored map that seemed to indicate that the small parcel which the Church of the Good Shepard has been trying to acquire, is now excluded from the above-mentioned Phase I map. Could this spell good news for Rev. Linton and his congregation? We can only hope.)
In the meantime, what say our gentle readers about all this?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
23 comments:
This is very evil!
Is there anything the new council can do legally to unwind this web of deceit that Mr. Godfrey and his operatives have woven?
Is there anything in the law of equity that applies?
The only bright spot here is that this will for sure seal the fate of Godfrey, Sasten and Stephenson in the next election - if in fact any such sealing would be needed.
This mayor and council will not doubt go into Ogden's history books as the most arrogant, stupid and destructive of all time.
Found something....don't know....
17B-4-1204. Contesting the legality of resolution authorizing bonds -- Time limit -- Presumption.
(1) Any person may contest the legality of the resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds or any provisions for the security and payment of the bonds for a period of 30 days after:
(a) publication of the resolution authorizing the bonds; or
(b) publication of a notice of bonds containing substantially the items required under Subsection 11-14-316(2).
(2) After the 30-day period under Subsection (1), no lawsuit or other proceeding may be brought contesting the regularity, formality, or legality of the bonds for any reason.
(3) In a lawsuit or other proceeding involving the question of whether a bond issued under this part is valid or enforceable or involving the security for a bond, if a bond recites that the agency issued the bond in connection with a redevelopment, economic development, or education housing development:
(a) the bond shall be conclusively presumed to have been issued for that purpose; and
(b) the project area plan and project area shall be conclusively presumed to have been properly formed, adopted, planned, located, and carried out in accordance with this chapter.
Title 17B Chapter 4 is the Redevelopment Agencies Act in the Utah Code.
We are on day 29, I think.
I don't know about assuming in a court of law that the project is "properly formed, adopted, planned, located, and carried out in accordance with this chapter," either.
Haven't really looked at this as thoroughly as I would have liked and therefore have no opinion on whether or not it is even a feasible option, but thought I'd mention its existence since it is day 29 or so.
Were this in question, both sides would wish to hold off until it was resolved, I would think. (But who knows, the way things go.)
Anyway, take a look at it.
(Hope the link works--sometimes these particular ones don't.)
17B-4-1204
There is an old saying that inflames most women, rightfully so, and in this application should inflame and enrage all the citizens of Ogden.
"When rape in invevitable, lay back and enjoy it"!
Let me offer for consideration, at least, another interpretation of Councilman Jorgenson's "we own this" statement [which by the way is the way I read it on first reading]: The existing Council is taking full responsiblity [or blame, if you prefer] for these decisions, leaving no responsibility [or blame if things go south] for the subsequent council because that council will be very circumscribed in its options by what the previous council has done. If that's what he meant, and I think it is, it seems neither a reprehensible nor dishonorable thing to have said. [Please note: my post in no way addresses the merits or lack theirof of the vote on Boyer. It merely offers an alternative way to understand Jorgenson's statement.]
Keen "take," Curmudgeon.
Yes, I think Comrade Jorgenson's comment could well be taken in the manner you interpret it.
Thanks for bringing that reasonable "interpretation" to the fore.
Yes, Dian. I found that code section a while ago, and I linked it once myself, as I recall.
And I'd gotten a rumor from somewhere that "somebody's lawywer" was pursuing it, although apparently no legal action was taken.
I'll take a look at the statute again, just to see if all bridges are burned.
I think we're all going to have to "live" with the "bond" resolutions though, as we move into the new year.
The PEOPLE pwn it....
'The PEOPLE pwn it....
What is this? some kinda bizarre al-Qaeda terrist code?
We're Watching You and This Blog Very Carefully from now on!
Yeah, I'd like to know how Jorgenson thinks the "old Council" owns the mall site! That's one of the dumbest things he's ever said! When somebody sues the City for their stupidity, is Jorgenson, Burdett and Filiaga going to be named in the suit or will it be the sitting Council? I sure as hell hope they name the bone-heads who fouled things up! It will serve them right!
What planet have you been on, Gonzales? You need to come back to earth and Ogden and catch up on what's going on. Al-Quaida! Indeed, the only terrorist that we have in Ogden are Godfrey, Safsten, Jorgenson, Burdett, Filiaga and Stephenson - The Dirty-Tricks Gang of Six!
Trout Creek Frank
A few thoughts
Maybe Ogden should be renamed Boyerville? This is relevant because people should know were they are living. I have been upset and discouraged at the mayor and the council but now think they have only been played. Boyer & Co. are he sly players, they do not want Larry Miller they want His name. They planed to build the theater all along using taxpayer funded RDA money then lease it to Miller. They have convinced Miller what ever his lease payment is he will (and Boyer) bring much more in. this must be the chance taking (read not much) that Larry spoke of.
After hearing of Boyer’s inclusion of 40,30 and 70 year plans for the new and revised tax payer tab one has to wonder if the Ogden mall was not a planed failure. Sort of like Enron thinking before Enron thinking was cool. The building that was the Ogden mall was in all aspects more sound and desirable than the building say east of it and none of them have been condemned and tore down with tax revenue. Are Ogden taxpayers being set up so in 40 years so it will be to Ogden taxpayers best interest to settle with Boyer. How convenient? Local deposit instead of sending the check out of state.
One final thought. In Pee Wee and his home’s last-ditch effort to shackle Ogden to the whims of Boyderdom have they really thought of everything? They will have control of Boyerland but who will have control of the parking and access to and from Boyerland? Would it be worth Boyer’s money to reelect Pee Wee if Pee Wee no longer has control over the council? I think “NOT”. Has Larry been debriefed? J
What say yea?
Here's a good one. The rumor's going around that Matt Godfrey won't run again in 2007, because he has a fat new job lined up......
With Boyer Co.
Some of my fellow snitches looked askance at me when I said, "I hadn't heard that rumor before."
"Where ya been," they asked. "It's all over town," they said.
Please do not think I have sold out now, but I think Jorgensens comment was, according to Wright's article:
"I feel like we own this decision because we've worked on it,"
I think Curmudgeon is right on this. It doesn't look like Jorgensen was claiming ownership of the mall site, but the responsibliity for the decision. In any event it is awfully easy for the arrogant little bastard to take posession of a decision he will never have to pay the price for having made.
And anonymous, what state is that "Trout Creek" you refer to in? Montana?
As for Pee Wee working for Boyer? You gotta be kidding. They might give him a position as pay back for lining their pockets with zillions, but an honest job - no way. They are a pretty professional, ruthless and capable organization. I doubt if there is any room in such a company for a complete incompetent like Godfrey.
Regardless of how long this deal is for, or what the terms are, you can be assured that the citizens of Ogden will be taking all the risk, and Boyer et al will be taking all the profits if there are any.
It will be a classic text book case of the rich stealing from the poor. In that sense, Pee Wee is sorta like Robin Hood in reverse.
Well if Jorgensen wants to claim responsibility for his decisions, let him sign the contract with Boyer and be personally liable. It this project fails let him lose his house and everything that he owns to be sold at auctions to dig out the tax payers of Ogden
Elected public officials, like Council members, are elected to make decisions. Citizens don't have to like those decisions, but the members were elected to make them. Provided they make them honestly [without for example selling their votes like Republican congressmen seem to be prone to of late], they are not, and should not be, personally liable for the financial consequenes of their decisions, other than being subject to the same taxes and fees imposed on all residents of the city. If they were to be held financially responsible for the consequences of their decisions, almost nobody would agree to run for office. And no one, I notice, is suggesting that if a Councilman makes a good decision, one that works over time to the city's financial benefit, he should be rewarded with a cut of the action. Anonymous apparently wants Council members to be saddled with all the downside risk, but none of the up-side potential.
The people's recourse when Councilmen make poor decisions is to remove them at the next election. Period. Which seems to have happened in two cases this year.
And they are elected for full terms. They are Council persons until the next one to hold their seat is sworn in. That may annoy the council members-elect and their supporters. We may want to see if the time between elections and the seating of new council members can be shortened by law, if we think that wise. [There used to be four months between the election of a President and his Innauguration. Now it's a lot less.] But until such time as the law changes, Council Members remain such, with all attendent powers, until their term is up. I'm hard put to see how it could be any other way.
What was it Jorgenson said...."Government doesn't stop just because there was an election,"? I think that was it. I agree, but I would hope that, all things considered, responsible decisions be made as per the good of the people, not simply because decisions can be made. There would be nothing wrong with the tabling of a few issues, the Boyer contract could be an example, in that there are some very glaring deficiencies therein. But, as Jorgenson said, the old Council "owns" Phase I and by gawd the old council will vote Phase I to its conclusion.
Blue, could you give us any details on the deficiencies in the Boyer contract?
"responsible decisions be made as per the good of the people"
This is a fabulous idea! Now that we have a new council with integrity coming in I believe we will see such a novel idea re-appear in good old Ogden.
Lets all support the people's new "gang of five" at every chance we get. They are truly a blessing for all of Ogden this Cristmas and for the years to come.
God Bless Bill, Dorrene, Doug, Amy and the new council chairman Jesse Garcia.
HoHoHo
And God Bless "Tiny Tim!"
And God don't bless "Pee Wee"
We might not agree in Godfrey's methods and some of the things he's done, but his being incompetent ain't something we can give him credit for. Like it or not, the guy's pulled alot of things off. He can be a tough foe and should not be underestimated. So far, his ledger has a "W" in many columns, and he hasn't registered those through being incompetent.
Details of the Boyer contract are generic at this point, but my sources at City Hall advise me that the way the contract reads, most all of the decision process would be in the hands of Boyer and one or two people in the Adminstration, basically leaving the Council out of the loop. The City is a microcosim of the Fed, with 3 distinct branches, all of which should be involved in a decision process. It is up to the current Council to rectify this situation on December 27th, but I doubt there will be a change. However, a document might be in the works that would be an "attachment," if you will, to this contract, and that would bring the Council back into the loop, as it should be. Hopefully, this will turn out to be more than rumour and we'll obviously know more come December 28th.
The other option would be for the current Council to table this issue until the new Coucnil takes office. Then, the new Council could review the contract and suggest changes. How this will play out is anyone's guess.
A 70 year contract comes mightly close to violating Article I, Section 23 of the Utah Constitution-No law shall be passed granting irrevocably any franchise, privilege or immunity.
That said, is anything that the lame ducks are planning subject to referendum?
A note for Johnny D:
You'll find the following language in the Weber County Forum "Comments Posting Policy," which appears prominently at the top of the right sidebar:
"I generally won't censor comments because of disagreement with content. I won't delete a post because it differs from my own philosophy. This is because I want to maintain some detached objectivity, and I believe that freedom of speech is the currency of truth in the marketplace of ideas. Differing opinions are not only welcome here, but they are really what Weber County Forum was designed to be all about.
I will remove posts in the following instances:
*The post concerns an administrative decision related to posting.
*The post contains flaming, name calling, derogatory... language, or gratuitous personal attacks, particularly if directed against other readers.."
You can read the full text here.
I hope this helps.
New comments are not allowed.