Monday, April 10, 2006

It's Not About Oil, and It's Not About the Gondola

By Dian Woodhouse
Standard-Examiner Guest Commentary
Originally published "web only" Saturday, April 8, 2006

Every once in awhile, both in the lives of individuals and in the lives of the social structures we as individuals have created, it is necessary to take a step back and look at the basic premises under which we are operating. This is part of the process we call maturity.

We in America have been called a "young country," but youth, as we all know, does not last forever, and we are currently facing quite a few things that should be examined, and probably revised.

We hear from many people both in government and in the private sector, for instance, that it is vital that we as a nation "protect our interests overseas." This point of view, widely held though it may be, is a flawed one if protecting our interests means waging war against another nation solely because certain American corporate interests there are being threatened, or because, as many have insinuated about our current war, of the price of oil.

It is flawed because the United States government was not created to enrich either itself or certain favored corporate entities. The government was created to govern. And the concept of government does not include taking part in business, or, worse yet, becoming a business.

Yet we hear that, too. That government nowadays must be run like a business, because it has its hand in so many projects partially backed by private enterprise. Government involvement in private projects is certainly evident in America today, but is this involvement right, or ethical, or the correct role of American government? I would say no.

Here in Ogden, for instance, we have been for the past few years reading articles in the local media and seeing TV news stories about how Ogden is going ahead full bore to become a ski town. The relocation of ski companies to the area has been widely publicized, and the plans for a resort in Malan's Basin and an accompanying gondola have been reported upon and publicly endorsed by the mayor. This publicity campaign is exactly what a private entrepreneur who owned an entire town and wished to change the face of it would do -- use the media to generate interest and enthusiasm for the new image being created.

It is a well-proven path to success in business. But it is not the proper role and procedure of our government.

Especially since, in Ogden's case, the legislative arm of the local government, the Ogden City Council, has yet to see any plans for either the resort or the gondola, and has therefore obviously not voted to approve them. Despite this, not only is the city as a whole portrayed as being in favor of these two things, but public relations firms are hired to portray it as being so by the administrative arm of the local government, even to the point of the inclusion of the mayor in a promotional DVD that was handed out at a ski trade show.

When discussions about this type of governmental activity reach this point, usually the discussion will be diverted. This in itself is an interesting phenomenon. Those who begin asking that if, for instance, it should ever be found that the war in Iraq was indeed motivated mainly by oil prices, was it proper for our government to intervene in that country, will end by perhaps having to defend themselves against accusations of being pro-torture.

Here locally, those who ask if it is proper for the administrative arm of government to be advocating projects that have not even been approved by the legislative arm will find themselves being questioned as to whether they are for or against the gondola. Or the resort. Or ski companies.

That is really not the issue at all. It's not all about oil, and it's not all about the gondola. What this is all about it taking a critical look at the way government, both national and local, has redefined itself. It is, in some cases, running itself like a business. In other cases, it is funding and "protecting" certain businesses. And I don't know if we, as American citizens, really want our government to be doing that.

We are a nation that runs on a capitalistic economy, and we all know that the state of the economy is a factor in our national well-being. When our government begins to be involved in capitalistic enterprises, our allowance of this practice is actually harming our entire system.

Here's why: In order for a capitalistic enterprise to be successful, certain factors have to be in place. For instance, any business whose cash expenditures exceed its cash inflows simply will not be around for long. Government, however, does not have to deal with that particular factor. Government, as opposed to business, is always guaranteed a cash inflow through tax dollars. Business is not. Right there is created a fundamental inequality as regards competitionwhat business owner would be able to compete with a rival who had unlimited funds and also did not even have to take into account the factors of inflow and outflow, or supply and demand? And in addition, what business owner would wish to contribute to the unlimited funds of such a rival? Yet, this is exactly the situation we have when we as citizens endorse government running itself like a business.

So it's not about oil, and it's not about the gondola. It's about a fundamental change in the role of American government at all levels that does not bode well for the survival of the American capitalistic economy. And even though we may be a "young country," we're old enough now to have learned a few things. Obviously, since we have evidently forgotten a few things, one being the way we were set up in the first place. Old enough for a refresher course, perhaps, on who we are, what we stand for, and what we require from our various local and national governments in order not only to continue, but to prosper.

Woodhouse lives in Ogden, and contributes to the Standard-Examiner and Weber County Forum from time to time.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Dian.

You have presented a most thoughtful commentary on the role that our government was created to perform. And you have presented very accurately the sorry state that our government has become.

I believe that the one concept that has been allowed to develop in each state, county and city that has caused the spectacle of government being in the business of competing with private ownership is the insiduous growth of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs).

Your reaction will automatically be that the proposed Peterson ski development and/or gondola project has nothing to do with RDAs. It isn't now but it will be before the projects are finished.

If we are going to discuss the role of government in competition with private business then the role of RDAs must considered if for no other reason than to understand what their effect has been and continues to be on a continuing basis.

Otherwise, why does every town and county and the State Of Utah have Redevelopment Agency employees employed by each agency to locate and subsidize certain businesses with cash and perks when other businesses can go begging.

We are told it is all about creating jobs but it is really all about politicians' creating their kingdoms of power with taxpayer funds, the source and use of which taxpayers have not been allowed to cast their constitutional right to approve or to vote down.

The best thing that could happen to this country is for the Redevelopment Agency laws to be abandoned so that local government can perform the job it was created to do - govern - and let entrepreneurs find their own financing and land.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Dorothy, I have always entertained the notion that the gondola scheme was motivated by a wish by developers to obtain public funds.

If you look at what we have been hearing for the past year(s) it has gone like this:

A gondola to Snow Basin, financed by private funds.

A gondola used as mass transit (eligibility for public funds--furthermore, it might have a stop planned at The Junction, which is an RDA area, getting it some of those funds, too.)

A gondola leading to the west facing resort. (private funds.)

A gondola from downtown linking to the resort one. (public funds.)

Suddenly, a housing development by the resort. (perhaps public funds in the form of developer incentives.)

The administration has been talking with both UDOT and UTA about the possibility of funding, which shows that public funding is not out of the question.

What I think sad is the attitude on the part of the local government and some of the local residents that government holds the responsibility for the economic prosperity of the people. This is totally backwards---what should be happening is that private enterprise and ownership should be encouraged, thereby leading to sales and property taxes which in turn are used for services and public amenities.

We all know that Ogden City is one of the largest, if not the largest, landlord in Ogden. But I don't know if we all realize that Ogden City does not have to pay property taxes on any of the property that it owns.

Open that up to the private sector, especially in commercial real estate, and there's your tax base.

It's government meddling in what should be the private sector that has us where we are, in my opinion. But just because it has meddled to the point that it has limited private sector opportunity by buying up all the real estate and then just letting it sit there is no reason to give it total responsibility/authority over economic growth.

The individuals who are shouting that the government should do something about economic development obviously do not realize that the private sector has always been the backbone of American prosperity. Instead of believing that it is the job of the government to do everything for them, they should be looking at what they can do for themselves, because if they individually prosper, the city around them will.

Good heavens, this is part of what freedom in America is---having control over one's individual prosperity. And insofar as Ogden as a whole is concerned, when it boomed before, it wasn't because of the RDA.

Anonymous said...

Dian,

I agree with you. The city should get out of the Golf business and the transportation business. The city's management and ownership of the Golf Course really beats up private golf courses in our area. They cannot compete with the prices offered at Mount Ogden. And why? for the very reasons you stated. The city does not have to pay for the land or pay taxes.

It is time to sell the land to Chris Peterson and turn the $320,000 losing public effort of the city into a profitable private enterprise. The Mayor has proposed that the funds from the sale of the Golf Course go toward a special road (gondola) from downtown to Weber State and Chris Peterson's business. Amazingly, one of the private businesses that will surely benefit from the instalation of the gondola is willing to manage and operate the gondola (Chris Peterson)....fair, given that this business will be highly serviced by this transporation source.

Make no mistake about it however, the Mayor's goal, as all public officials goal's should be, is for the city to optimize its benefit from the various businesses that operate within it. The mayor knows that downtown Ogden is better served if it is "seamlessly" connected to Mr. Peterson's vibrant enterprise than if it is not. How wonderful for downtown Ogden that hundreds of thousands of people access Mr. Peterson's resort through the core of Ogden. How wonderful for downtown Ogden, that hundreds of thousands of people get off planes in S.L.C., get on a train to Ogden, and immediately access a Gondola in our downtown area that takes them up skiing/hiking/climbing/picnicing/site seeing/golfing/etc.

I agree. It is time to get the city out of the golf business and let loose the power of the private sector. It would only make sense for the city to ensure that when the private sector succeeds, the city is positioned to benefit.

The Gondola is nothing more than a road to a group of businesses that are vital to Ogden's rebirth. We build road's to businesses all of the time. In Park City, we built a $20 million dollar off ramp to make sure that access to Park City was easy so that Utah as a whole could benefit from the subseqent business activity.

My question to you is this... If government should stay out of the private sector, should there be government regulations placed on Chris Peterson when he releives the city of its misplaced/losing golf enterprise? The answer should be yes!

Your premise is that the goverment should not be engaged in business entrprises. Therefore, you should be in favor of Ogden city selling its golf business to a private businessman and letting him pursue a profit.

I think that a balance is important. True, the City should get out of the golf business. True, the City should unburden itself from a tax drain when its tax base is so poor. But, the city should ensure that Chris Peterson's effort does not hurt the private interests of other citizens while at the same time recognizing that Chris Peterson's investment is a singificant contribution to the tax base of the city.

Balance!

Anonymous said...

Dian:

With respect to the gondola/gondola scheme being primarily a scheme designed to funnel public funds into supporting private real estate development, let me add that at this point we do not have any resonable idea how much public money will be necessary to build the city end of the Gondola/gondola scheme. At a meeting of Weber Pathways recently, Mr. Peterson presented one version of his grand design. He was asked how much it would cost to build and operate the city portion of the gondola/gondola link from the railroad station to WSU where it will connect to his private gondola servicing his planned up-mountain development at Malan's Basin. His reply: "I have no idea." He was asked if he could just estimate, ballpark figure, what it would cost the city to build and operate the city end of the gondola system. His reply: "I wouldn't want to hazard a guess."

We are being asked to buy, blind, a pig in a poke, and to embrace a scheme the scope and details of which change at nearly every telling, depending on who Peterson or the Mayor or Ed Allen is pitching at any given moment. The "plan" and the goal posts keep moving. As your essay ably illustrated.

How much more basic can a question about a huge city committment to a vast project get than "what will it cost to build and to operate"?

So many questions. So few answers.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant discourse, Dian. And, Dorothy and Curm....very thotful remarks.
Anonymous, we are all amazed that you could reduce Dian's essay on the proper role of govrnment to "Yes, we need to sell Mt. Ogden to Chris Peterson."
Four intelligent comments out of five is pretty good.

Anonymous said...

Can't say I didn't see that coming, anon. But there is a difference. In the case of the golf course, the city owns it and maintains it for the use of the public. It is a public amenity that enriches the lives of quite a few people.

In the matter of other city owned property to which I was referring, see The Junction. Are we all benefitting from it? Is our quality of life improved by it? Is it, in its current state, worth something to us? Are there people who would be bereft and displaced because they always go to it and would no longer be able to if it were let go?

You speak glowingly of this private concern that will benefit us all because it will prosper. What you are neglecting to mention here is that, in order for that private enterprise to prosper, it needs our assets. It needs our land, and will most probably need our tax dollars. And after it gets them, it will end up privately owned. The government in this case ends up not only involved in private enterprise, but funding it.

Here is an analogy. You buy a piece of property close to mine and you have great plans for it. A year passes. You haven't done much with your new property, but now you come to me and want to buy a piece of mine. The piece you want to buy happens to have my pool and barbecue pit on it, where my friends, family, and I have spent many happy hours. You also want a road to your property and you want me to build it and maintain it. You want to use my electricity and water, hook into my sewer line, and put your garbage cans out in my spot. Finally, you want to install a transportation system to your property of which you will pay half and I will pay half because one of your transportation stations will be on yet another part of my property.

You tell me this is a good deal for me, and that I will benefit greatly from it in the future. Furthermore, there is yet another piece of property, over the hill, that you believe your transportation system may someday link to, and then we will both really benefit. Just wait and see.

When I say this looks like trading down to me, you become slightly cranky. You tell me that you will do nothing at all with that piece of property you own close to mine unless I agree to build that road, fund half of that transportation system, allow your station on my land and your hook-ups to my systems, and sell you my pool and barbecue pit Now.

I tell you no, nicely, however, with all the best and most sincere wishes in the world that you do well on your own property doing whatever you do there with your own money, obeying and complying with existing laws and ordinances and being a good neighbor. In this way, we will get along fine.

Anonymous said...

Since early in our history, the government has had to tie itself to businesses, through regulation, labor laws, civil rights laws, taxation, transportation, etc. If private enterprise were left completely unchecked by the government, WalMart would take over the world. However, there is a big difference between working with business and favoring specific businesses. If Ogden is going to sell the golf course, it needs to be openly offered to competing businesses, not handed over under the table to one specific person. Likewise, the government should not build a questionable transportation system designed around one specific person's business interests.

Speaking of WalMart, last week the New York Times reported on new incentives WalMart is offering in order to gain more access to blighted urban areas. WalMart is offering to give monetary grants to nearby small businesses, provide training to those businesses on how to survive around WalMart, and also provide free in-store advertising to those small businesses.

I'm probably going to get attacked for this, but maybe Ogden should reconsider the benefits of allowing WalMart into downtown. It provides a guaranteed tax base, and on top of that WalMart is now offering to provide RDA-like services at its own expense. The hard fact is, Ogden residents do and will continue to shop at WalMart. The question is whether or not we keep enriching Riverdale and Harrisville at our expense.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly with Turdust. I've never had an a problem with WalMart coming into Ogden. I shop at WalMart...so perhaps does most of Ogden, as one would conclude trying to find a parking space. I listened to a business owner story that went like this: Some disgruntled owners found that they couldn't compete with WM's inventory and prices. Some lost revenue. However, one toy store owner, who also couldn't compete with the same kind of merchandise and WM's prices became creative. He offered an inventory of UPSCALE toys, not found at WalMart...and catered to a clientele that enjoyed shopping in a unique store and willingly paid the UPSCALE prices. Lots of potential customers can and will purchase higher priced, quality items that aren't found at WalMart, KMart or Target!
This toy store owner solved his dilemma with a creative approach.
Now WalMart is offering to help other small businesses with creative ideas....I say bravo!
We are a capitalistic society...if you build a better computer, mouse trap or are a marketing phenom....and the people clamor for your product...bravo again!
I point out, once more, the explosion of businesses that have sprung up around the WALMART Neighbord Market in So. Ogden! Do you think the same would have happened here?
I do. Some of the new WalMart Stores are being designed to fit in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The one in Draper is quite attractive. NOT BLUE!
While we are wrangling about the gondola, and improperly selling public assets.....what the heck is going on at the old mall site?
WHERE is Larry Miller? We could at least be going to the movies, right?
Dian, perfect analogy, which will be lost on the Lift crowd.

Former Centerville Citizen said...

While I can see the argument against municipal golf courses (I'm not convinced that cities should provide public courses), I think that an important point to consider is that the land was dedicated for public use, and if it's going to be sold off, there'd better be a good reason.

If the concern is competition with private golf courses, then maybe the land could just be used for park facilities, nature preserve, gardens, etc. And then "it's losing money" would become a moot point, since every park in Ogden is losing money, so to speak.

Centerville owns 180 acres on its east bench, between the forest service land and private homes. I'd be up in arms if Centerville City ever tried to sell a single piece of that. Because once it's gone, it's gone.

Anonymous said...

The Lovely Jennifer has hit the Wal-Mart issue nail right on the head. Well done.

There are [and were] three separate issues: (a) Would locating a Wal-Mart in downtown Ogden be good for the city [financially and in other ways]?

(b) should the private residences of families unwilling to sell be siezed by the City under eminent domain procedures in order to assemble enough land to enable Wal-Mart to locate downtown?

(c) Should the city provide all kinds of financial incentives [aka tax revenues of one sort or another] to Wal-Mart in order to entice it to locate down town?

It is quite possible for people to answer, quite reasonably, yes to some of the questions, and no to others.

The connection of the Wal-Mart issue to the Mayor's Gondola/Gondola scheme is this: should city policy be changed, the relatively new Ogden "general plan" be altered, Mt. Ogden Park [all of it, not just the golf course] be sold, and huge amounts of city revenues be devoted to building and maintaining and operating a gondola system that will largely serve the needs of one private real estate developer, Mr. Chris Peterson?

One final point: the Utah State legislature has banned, by law, the use of eminent domain powers for RDA projects designed to transfer property to a private owner [like Wal-Mart.] But eminent domain powers are still fully available for cities to use for truly public purposes. If Mayor Godfrey manages to get the city end of the gondola/gondola scheme designated a public transit project [say, by convincing UDOT or UTA to pick up part of the construction or operating costs], then the city absolutely can use its eminent domain powers to acquire land for its construction, operation and maintenance. If the City decides it would be beneficial to put a gondola tower in your back yard to shorten the route, it can do it, taking the footprint of the tower pad under eminent domain powers, and paying you for the land seized. Same if it wants to add parking space at a gondola "station," say somewhere near WSU. Once it's designated as a public transit project, eminent domain powers are again available to the city to use and all bets are off. [Think about it. Since the current version... at least the one being bandied about last week by the Mayor... has the gondola running non-stop between the downtown mall site and WSU, wouldn't it be attractive instead of running it up 23rd street and then south down Harrison [since it isn't going to stop anywhere along that route] to angle it cross-city straight from downtown to WSU? So much shorter...] Probable? No. But are you willing to bet your back yard it won't happen? The Mayor's "plan" for the gondola/gondola scheme has changed so often since it was first proposed, who knows how it might change again?

Anonymous said...

Dian,

Now your speeking of publicly owned land as an Asset. Be careful not to let government become a business with assets and liabilities! You're coming close to dismantling your original argument.

RudiZink said...

Too funny, anonymous. The east-bench parkland is a property held in trust, by the city, as trustee, for the benefit of Ogden citizen beneficiaries, pursuant to a donative restiction that would at least equitably (even if not legally) prevent its use for business purposes, and require its continuing use as a public park.

That's about as far from a "business asset" as you can get.

You and your fellow BIG GOVERNMENT TYPES would, of course, change the status quo, and convert it from a trust asset to a freely-alienable and unrestricted business asset.

The park's current status dovetails nicely with Dian's anti-government-intervention argument, I think. A government entity like Ogden City is an ideal choice for the adminitration of a public trust.

Dian has seen the BIG GOVERNMENT ENEMY, and it may be YOU!

:-)

Anonymous said...

When I floated the WalMart idea, I probably should have noted that I only support such an idea if it DOES NOT involve eminent domain. Eminent domain should never be used to take land and hand it to a private developer. I could support temporary tax incentives for businesses to relocate, because that may be necessary to truly revitalize Ogden. Ask Riverdale if they're hurting very badly from the tax breaks they gave WalMart back in the Nineties.

As to the debate over whether possessing land assets makes government too much like a business, remember who is, and always has been, the largest land owner in this country.

Anonymous said...

Turdust and Jen,
When I wrote in favor of WalMart, I was trying to dash out the door...so did not make the points on eminent domain that you so succinctly have!
Please correct me if I'm in error, but as I understand the WalMart fiasco, the administration,(with Reid as mouthpiece or hired gun??) bullied the homeowners who MAY have wanted to sell thier property if they'd been approached properly and handled with respect.
When last I heard, Ogden is still in the United States of America and one should not fear the seizing of one's property. Of course, there are instances of this happening right now back East.
Perhaps a delegation of respected citizens, who know how to talk to people without bullying and denigration, could have paved the way for WalMart by sitting down with those homeowners and found common ground and a fair price for their land IF they were willing to sell.
Of course, WalMart could also compensate landowners whose property they would need to build a store.
Tax incentives are very often necessary, and when dealing with a corporation, such as WalMart, Ikea, or Cabela's, we KNOW we will receive a handsome financial windfall.
It's disheartening to see So. Ogden, Riverdale, Harrisville, etc., putting revenue in their coffers, while we appear to have the worst managed city in Utah..... and a proposed gondola, the financing of which keeps floating around like a feather in the wind.
I applaud the two petitions going around. We need more and we need to speak up. When Godfrey and his gang are finally out of office he can team up with Peterson and be the Visionary in Chief...on call 24 hours a day. Anonymous once said Godfrey's on call 24/7. This is what we get when the guy can't get his rest for thinking up schemes and visions.

Anonymous said...

Turdust

Your blog name denigrates any thing you write herein!

Turdust - smells like a fart to me! Seems like a smart guy would not want to conjure up such pictures in a readers mind, especially when he was trying to convey an intelligent thought. And yes, I said "Guy". A woman would never use such a silly, bathroom humor, device. This is something that would be more fitting in a junior high school boys bathroom, or maybe some military boot camp.

Yet you do write some pretty intelligent and pertinent stuff. And yes, I do remember you writing that the name was given by someone now deceased, and therefore is somehow sacred. Well my friend, I hate to tell you this, but being dead doesn't mean you didn't come up with some pretty dumb shit when you were alive, and being alive doesn't mean you have to carry around some dumb shit that some now dead guy laid on you.

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved