The Plot Thickens Down at The Junction

Just as I had concluded this morning that today was another s-l-o-o-o-w news day, and that our gentle readers would have to remain content with the open thread that I set up yesterday, without even a taste of nutritious political "red meat," I remembered an email which I received a few days ago from one of our attentive and helpful gentle readers.

The message was brief, so I'll incorporate it in full:

For your information you will find attached a Notice of Claim served to Ogden City and Ogden City RDA today.

This is not about wanting or not wanting a high-rec center...this is about complying with the Utah Statutes re RDA. Ogden City must comply with Utah law just like the rest of us.

Dorothy Littrell

Along with this matter of fact missive came this attachment. It seems gentle reader Dorothy has once again thrown down the gauntlet.

I've been immersed in several projects, so I haven't had the time to research the law on this claim yet. Perhaps I'll find the time this weekend. For now, however, our readers should be aware that a "notice of claim" is a formal legal prerequisite to the filing of a lawsuit against a government entity.

In the meantime, I'm tossing this new news development out for our gentle readers' perusal. I wanted our WCForum readership to be among the first to know about it. Besides... I always take great delight in scooping the Standard-Examiner on important stories. There's really NEVER a dull day in Ogden City politics, as I always say.

I've faithfully reproduced the text and layout of Ms. Littrell's claim, within the limitations of html coding. I have, however, added links to the statutes that are cited in this document, for the convenience of any of our gentle readers who might be inclined to do their own research.

I'll add parenthetically that I had been curious myself as to whether our "boy wonders" at city hall had properly dotted the i's and crossed the t's to comply with the legal requirements for re-capturing the tax increment funds which were to be pledged for the rec center project. As our long-time readers will recall, I ran a reader poll during the last two months of 2005, but finally removed it from the sidebar, without "closing it out," because of lingering uncertainty about whether all necessary legal conditions had actually been fulfilled. I guess we'll be finding out soon, if Ms. Littrell's legal claim ultimately winds up in court.

And what say our gentle readers about this latest development in the always-gripping, ever-fascinating Ogden downtown mall saga?

Update 2/24/06 9:37 a.m. MT: Intrepid Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke fills in more detail with this morning's Std-Ex article. In yet another breathtaking demonstration of tenacious investigation and bold reporting, he apparently called Norm "Norm" Ashton on the phone and obtained this reassuring tidbit:

"City Attorney Norm Ashton said Littrell’s complaints are without merit and vowed to fight any lawsuit that she may file against the municipality. 'If she proceeds, the city will vigorously defend its position,' he said."

I'm sure many of our concerned townsfolk will breathe a sigh of relief over Mr. Ashton's confidence in this matter. Mr. Ashton, our gentle readers will recall, was similarly confident on the eve of litigation in both the Woobury and BDO/Army lawsuits.

Comments, anyone?