"Q: Do the plans include the gondola connecting to Snowbasin?
A: Yes, the plans do involve a leg of the gondola that would go to the top of the mountain which would allow skiers with a Snowbasin lift ticket to enter Snowbasin."
Standard-Examiner ad
Submitted by the office of
Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey
Ogden City Update
April 20, 2006
"The word 'yes' implies a future connection between the two resorts, which is wrong. The real answer to that is 'no,' and that is something I made plain to the mayor last year. And I made it plain to Chris Peterson."
Clint Ensign
Senior vice-president
Sinclair Oil Company
Standard-Examiner
April 28, 2006
"It only says that from the top of the mountain you can access the resort. That language is trying to to say that from the proposed link that goes to the top of the mountain you can, as a matter of geography, go to Snowbasin."
Ogden City Mayor
Matthew Godfrey
Standard-Examiner
April 28, 2006
Bob Geiger, chairman of Lift Ogden, a group of businesses and individuals supporting the gondola proposal, agreed that the question seemed to imply a connection. He said he was taking that question off the Lift Ogden Web site immediately. "That statement splits hairs. The fact of the matter is the guy from Sinclair is right and we'll eliminate it."
Bob Geiger
Lift Ogden Chair
Standard-Examiner
April 28, 2006
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Well?
14 comments:
What's really funny is, having gotten nailed but good on including the lie [yes, lie] in their pro-gondola propaganda, their explanation is that it was all a mistake and they never ever meant even to imply what they in fact plainly said:
"Ensign's statement brought a quick denial from Godfrey that any connection was meant to be implied."
And "Chris Peterson, the developer of the mountain resort, said Thursday afternoon that Ensign was correct... Peterson said he was unaware the incorrect statement was run in the ad and said he was correcting it Thursday afternoon."
Uh huh. 1984 is alive and well and living in Ogden, Utah.
In all the posting I've done on this matter here and there, I've carefully avoided using the word "lie" in regard to the Mayor's and Lift Ogden's statements in re: the gondola/Malan's Basin scheme. No more.
BUSTED!!!!!!!
This lie is not the only one that was in this artical. the whole page of answers was so full of only what they wanted for the people to here.
the biggest thing, that this project is not telling us is how much this will cost the taxpayer after it is all built and when there is not the expected ridership that they think there will be. then the services to the taxpayer is now going to be reduced and we will be thowing our money to the great chris peterson pockets.
I wish that some one will look into the great crystal ball that the mayor is looking into for this vision and tell me how wonderful the city will be in 20 years, because history is the telling factor of what the future holds.
the mall was 20 years old and was torn down because of a lack of support and now the conferance center is costing us 1 million a year and how long will that keep going on. and in 20 years will we be tearning down or suporting the gondola with our tax dollars.
So what's the big deal with the Gondolist's telling un true stories, or flexible truths, or lyin for the lord? They have been doing it all along, in fact lying is one of the main characteristics of the parent organization, the Godfreyites!
Can any one here even count the times that the Little Lord has twisted the truth and or logic to fit his own perveted little sense of priorities! He is a little man trying to build a big monument to memorialize his own mammoth ego. He will do what ever it takes to full fill his calling. If innocent bystanders get caught in the cross fire and have to sacrifice for the greater good, then so be it, amen.
How can Chris Peterson be unaware of this statement when it was on the panel presentation (the displays around the room,) at his WSU open House?
This Panel Presentation was at one time on the Ogden City website in PDF form. (It may still be.) I downloaded it from there and now find:
Link to top of the mountain 9300'
--Application being made to Forest Service
--Views of four states (photos)
--Access to Snow Basin
Also, still on the Ogden City Website is a page:
OGDEN’S PROPOSED GONDOLA/RESORT
The proposed gondola/resort project is generating much interest throughout our community, and
unfortunately a lot of misinformation is being circulating. In an effort to provide answers and
facts, listed below are the most frequently asked questions about the project and answers to those
questions...
...6. Do the plans include the gondola connecting to Snowbasin?
Yes, the plans do involve a leg of the gondola that would go to the top of the mountain, which
would allow skiers with a Snowbasin lift ticket to enter Snowbasin...
The news article is stating that a connection between the two resorts is "implied" by #6. I disagree. It is not implied, it is stated. The question is--Do the plans include the gondola connecting...-- and the answer is Yes.
Another concerning aspect to this is this quote from the article regarding the mayor's explanation of what was actually meant by the answer:
...you can, as a matter of geography, go to Snowbasin.” In other words, a rider could take the gondola to the top of Mount Ogden and get off, much like getting off a bus. Once there, Snowbasin is on the other side of the ridge, with nothing to keep anyone from going to it.
With nothing to keep anyone from going to it.
If I were Sinclair Oil, I would have a problem with this. I would have problems on several levels with this. First, these people are providing access to my private property, and with that last statement, as good as giving permission to use that access.
Secondly, am I now liable for the access these people have created to my property? Do I need to maintain it and make it safe?
Third, these people are, in effect, promising skiiers one run down my side of the mountain. The statement says that "skiers with a Snowbasin lift ticket" will be allowed down. Is the implied meaning that skiiers without a lift ticket will Not be allowed down? Who is going to police that? I am not in the habit of checking lift tickets for people on their way down, only those on their way up. I would have to change all my processes to accommodate this, since it will take place on my property. As I am in business charging money for people to ski down, I don't quite think that someone else has the authority to horn in in this manner. They would certainly have to make arrangements with me before they did that.
Mr. Ensign today made it quite clear that there will be "no connection" between the resorts. And yet the mayor's response is that there's "nothing to keep anyone from going to it."
There is a hint of a---You can't stop this---tone here, which might get my as Sinclair Oil's back up.
I imagine many people have assumed that there will be a connection between the two resorts because all the promotion has said there will be, and people just don't go saying things about projects of this nature without having made arrangements with other parties involved. Do they.
It looks like they do. Mr. Ensign spoke of no arrangements the Peterson project has made with Snow Basin. In fact, his statement that there will be "no connection" could extend beyond the geographical, meaning that there will be no arrangements.
But it looks like they're still saying there will be. Under the aegis of Ogden City, no less, both in yesterday's "Update" ad in the paper, and currently on the city website. (By the way, who paid for that ad?) And in the mayor's response in the article today: "... Snowbasin is on the other side of the ridge, with nothing to keep anyone from going to it."
Access to Snow Basin or lack thereof is a Huge part of this project. We need a straight answer to a straight question---Will people be able to ride up on the Ogden side and ski down the Snow Basin side?
And unfortunately, we need this answer from Mr. Ensign. The mayor has said that people will be able to do that, and from today's coverage, it seems that Mr. Ensign might differ.
At the risk of further irritation to him, we really have to pin that down.
At the top of Albion Basin, skiers at Alta and Snowbird are separated only by a rope line. The skiers are literally only 20 ft apart, and both sides of the rope are National Forest, just like the upper part of Mt. Ogden where Malan's Basin joins Snow Basin. There is a checker at the gate in the rope line that makes sure you have a pass for the area you are entering. The checker also stops snowboarders from entering Alta. After 30 years of competing, Alta and Snowbird figured out that it was a bad idea to turn away customers that are willing to buy a pass. Lets see, that would make a joint lift ticket for Malan's Basin and Snow Basin available in about the year 2036, unless the Forest Service put the squeeze on Snow Basin to cut the canyon traffic and allow skiers with a Basin pass to enter from the top. I don't think Earl Holding got where he is today by turning away paying customers, but sheesh, maybe this time he would.
If one skiis into an unauthorized area, will we see helicopters, rescue dogs and handlers, and other rescue personnel up there digging someone out of an avalanche? Endangering those own lives and costing A LOT OF MONEY!!! Or, maybe leaving the bodies til the summer thaw?
Since there won't be road access, I suppose any rescues will have to originate at Snow Basin?
I don't know why Curm has been so hesitant to state the obvious: Godfrey LIES!!!
He lied about the 7.3 mil needing to be spent by Dec 31, 05 ...'use it or lose it"...34 other projects were waiting for that money!
Lies and crisis management define Godfrey's legacy.
I see that Peterson, LO and their ad writers, subscribe to the same base 'style'.
No respect for us yokels. We don't live up on the east bench away from the veddy veddy common folk. So, obviously, our opinions will never be valid. Just negative obstructionists....
The question was asked on the last thread...shouldn't the sycophants undulating around Godfrey be ashamed of themselves? Something like that.
Another good post, Dian.
I'd also point out that, by the mayor's current standard... that there's nothing in the geography to prevent anyone from going over the top of the mountain ridge from Malan's Basin to Snow Basin... we really don't need the gondola/gondola scheme at all. By that standard, downtown Ogden and Snowbasin are already connected since there is right now "nothing to keep anyone from going" from the Sheraton or Ben Lomand to Snow Basin. By that standard, we don't the gondola. The job's already done.
In the interests of knowing what we're talking about, here is a link to an excellent map on the Sierra Club site showing exactly where Peterson's property and the adjoining areas are.
Ogden Front Land Ownership
Thanks, Dian.
Speaking of maps...
I have another excellent one I plan to link tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
I will see that my gondola goes up to the Basin just as soon as my pain in the @** father IN LAW bites it, and I make off your precious, little, crappy golf course, you ignorant, peasant cry babies!
Mr Alter-Ego C.P.:
No doubt, you have looked into the heart and mind of Mr. C.P. and have seen his dark thoughts and motives?
One shudders at the thought, but....?
Since we're dealing with lies, here's another one that C.P. has spawned: Building a ski area below his resort. Only professional skiers should be allowed on that mountain - the runs are short with big drops. Ogden City would be setting itself for quadruple the lawsuits that have already been filed against them because of Godfrey's arrogance.
Another interesting scenario: Godfrey claims that C.P. came to him with the ski resort in Malan's Basin plan and the connecting gondolas, while C.P. says his original plans were to swap the Malan Basin land for some land in Vegas that he wanted, but that Godfrey came to him and sold him on the current plan as presently known. Who's lying? I think it's the Mayor -- our trusted City leader!
How many other lies has he told us? 1. Taxpayer dollars would not be used to fund the gondola (original promise and plan). 2. Economic development downtown is contingent on the gondola. (If that's the case, it's because his stooges drop the ball and don't follow through with businesses. 3. The success of C.P.'s resort and ski runs depends on a gondola coming from the Intramodal Hub to C.P.'s gondola above W.S.U. (THINK, people! Is that logical? It doesn't matter whether by bus or street car or gondola as long as they get there.) 4. Ogden is selling the Mt. Ogden Golf Course to C.P. at fair market value. Less than $50. million for 120 acres of prime land?
The lies go on and on! When are the citizens of Ogden going to wake up and look at this proposal for what it really is -- a SCAM?!! Not the supposedly big deal that's going to save Ogden, that's for sure! We have a couple of fast-talking flim-flammers here!
Revision
Revised question and answer
Question 6. Do the plans include the gondola going to the top of the mountain?
Yes, the plans do involve a leg of the gondola that would go to the top of the mountain, to a terminal located on a relatively gentle ridge overlooking both the Snowbasin side and the Malan's Basin side of the mountain. An environmental study, a Special Use Permit Application and other documentation will be required before the Forest Service can make a decision to approve or deny construction of the top leg of the gondola, which would cross about 800 vertical feet of National Forest land. The rest of the project can be built on private property without Forest Service approval.
This is arrogance.
Even though Mr. Ensign has stated that Sinclair does not wish the resorts to be connected:
"For a number of avalanche and liability reasons, we do not feel that it is correct to connect and we have no plans to do so," Ensign said. "We've advised (Godfrey) and Chris as well as the Forest Service. That's not in our master plan, it's not in the ski permit nor are there any plans to change that.
this "revision" states that the proponents of this project are going to take steps toward a connection anyway.
What part of---No, I don't want you or your children playing in my yard---do these people not understand?
This is counter to the current administration's professed respect for private enterprise and the rights of private property owners.
If proponents of the Peterson project do indeed wish a relationship with Snow Basin, steps toward what appears to be a hostile invasion is not a good way to accomplish that.
But, as you remember, someone once wrote that the current administration had forced the IRS to build in downtown Ogden. Perhaps this belief that the administration is able to push the federal government around has led to a corresponding belief that this tactic will work also.
New comments are not allowed.