We received this excellent and articulate article from gentle reader Stuart Carver
It's a lengthy tome, so we are linking it here, in the interest of saving front page bandwidth.
Willing to Compromise
Editor's Note: This "lengthy tome" has been "promoted" to the Front Page from one of our comments threads. Congrats, Stuart. We've been awaiting some non-inflammatory and rational argument in favor of the gondola plan. Bingo, you've accomplished that! You made the front page with your very first post. That's a FIRST @ WCForum, BTW. A hat tip to ya's. Nice article & thanks.
Don't let the cat get your tongues, gentle readers.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
15 comments:
If the Mayor would quit siphoning off every spare dime of the City's budget for ridiculous things, like rewarding Stewie Ried $45,000. And trips to Europe and trips to Las Vegas, and personal get rich schemes, committing BDO money that should be going to infrastructure. The City wouldn’t be in dire straits.
What this all amounts to is what the Mayor presents to the Council as his Budget proposals. The Council needs to scrutinize the proposed budget, and do away with frivolous expenditures such as lobbyists to screw over the public safety, and having flunkies like Scott Jenkins sponsor bills at the State Senate that have Matt written all over them.
Dear Mr. Carver:
A thoughtful and civil post. Thank you for making it.
I expect you will be getting replies on a number of points, but let me begin with two comments.
First, you wrote:I was surprised to hear cheering and applause when a resident mentioned we shouldn't care if Mt. Ogden Golf Course is losing over $320,000 of our tax dollars a year as long as it remains open for our use. We need to care!
I was there too, and I think the point the speaker [and audience] was making was that all city parks "lose" money [English translation: take tax funds to operate] and so the simple fact that Mt. Ogden Park golf course "loses" money in that sense is not, by itself, much of a reason to sell. Someone asked, for example, how much money the Ogden River Parkway "loses." A not inapropriate question it seems to me.
Further, the kind of cost accounting the mayor keeps refering to with respect to the golf course and the park lands above it [which will be sold] ignores the "value" they add to Ogden via improved quality of life and city attractiveness. In my own case, for example, the existence of an urban trail system here [I'd never heard of such a thing] played no small part in our decision to move three generations of our family to Ogden four years ago.
And finally on this point, some of us suspect the Mayor has overstated the annual "loss" at Mt. Ogden Park Golf Course. I understand some folks who know their way around a ledger are looking into it. Granted the amount of money it takes to operate a park may be a significant issue, but I want to reserve judgement on that until I hear back from those looking into it. I am not willing to accept the Mayor's number as fact merely on his authority. You shouldn't be either.I could be wrong about this, but I will wait for more information to decide.
Secondly, you spoke of the importance of asking questions, and getting answers, and of the importance of the public process that the city will set up to seek public input, to provide answers and deal with concerns about the plan. I could not agree with you more about the importance of that public process. The problem is, I don't think the Mayor agrees with either of us about this. My sources in City Hall tell me that the Mayor has been assuring people that [in his words] "I already have four votes on the Council for the plan." If that is so [or even if he believes it is so], then the public process he talked about when he pitched the plan to the Council Monday evening becomes a sterile, and all but empty gesture, designed mostly to tweak and tighten the development agreement, not in any serious way to solicit community input or to deal with community concerns about the plan.
Interesting post. Chewy. Thanks again.
Who are these new businesses that are so interested in Ogden because of the gondola? Do you know?
The mayor last night mentioned this, but nothing about exactly who they are or what level of interest they were showing.
There have been some very good points made on this thread and some of the recent threads. One of them was by Dian and I agree with her as I posted a few days ago: "You want a plan to replace the gondola, gated community and the resort in Malan's basin? I have one for you!:
Keep the beautiful legacy of Ogden's irreplaceable green, open space as is, and focus on bringing retail and businesses to the down town area. Businesses are the answer to Ogden's future! They'll bring people (hire) who will live, pay taxes and shop, eat, etc. in Ogden. BUSINESSES -- not a gated community is what will turn Ogden around!" Dian didn't say those exact words, but she suggested that the development Ogden needs should be down town.
Has anyone else noticed when the little mayor wants to get rid of city-owned facilities, he neglects them so that they are running in the red or needing city subsidy, so he can justify getting rid of them? The Union Station, the Marshall White Center and now Mt. Ogden Golf Course? If he wants it to make money, he could hire a pro with with some drive (no pun intended) and the knowledge to run a profitable course and then GIVE HIM THE MEANS TO DO SO! You're right, Curm, the figures that the mayor touts are ALL inflated -- even how much this project is going to bring to Ogden.
And did you get that he thinks that the taxpayers of Ogden aren't the ones paying for the gondola?! Anyone who thinks is able to reason that it's the taxpayers who pay for EVERYTHING the City does unless there is a big contributor like the Lindquists, Bob Marquardt, just to name a couple who have made big contributions to the City. Chris Peterson doesn't fall into that category, even tho he would like us to believe that he is contributing to the community. Nope! Not when he wants prime real estate, and insists on obtaining the golf course without due process at less than fair market value for his gated community. He doesn't care about what's best for Ogden -- just what is going to make him bundles of money.
I think that the mayor has crossed the line on what is legally acceptable according to land use laws for elected officials. I'd like to know why DeCaria isn't looking into this? I understand the mayor had lunch with him not too long ago. I wonder what they talked about?! Is DeCaria up for re-election? Maybe he needs to answer some questions.
The SubStandard Examiner Strikes Again!
In this morning's SE [15 April], at the head of the Top of Utah section there is a story headlined "Developer: Gondola Good for WSU" by a "reporter" [politely so called] named Blair Dee Hodges. Here is the lede:
"OGDEN --- A private developer who offered Ogden $500 million to buy Mount Ogden Golf Course as part of a plan to bring a gondola to the city said unused property at Weber State University is critical to his plan."
Mr. Peterson, of course, has not offered Ogden $500 million to buy Mt. Ogden golf course. Hell, if he did offer the city that much, flat out, for just the course, as the story, claims, even I'd say sell it and get him to sign the purchase agreement NOW before he sobers up. The $500 million is the amount Peterson says will be invested in Ogden on the entire project he proposes [construction of the Malan's basin resort, purchase of WSU land, construction of the gondolas, construction of the 400 up-scale private homes in a gated community, etc. etc.]
I have already -mailed the managing editor of the SE asking that a correction be printed, swiftly. It might we wise for others to email or call Mr. Howell [his email and phone number are printed at the end of his weekly column on paper operations which appears on the same page today as Ms. Hodge's story] to suggest... politely, please --- that a rapid correction of Ms. Hodge's story is necessary.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Curmudgeon. You're right--that is truly a new low. I've been saying this for awhile---Peterson is NOT offering the city $500 million dollars. If Peterson had $500 million dollars to put into this project, the gated community would not be neccessary, because he could just go ahead and build his resort without it. The gated community is supposed to pay for the resort.
Sound familiar?
As in Union Square---Phase One will pay for the construction of Phase Two?
As at The Junction---This is only Phase One. The tax increment generated by Phase One will pay for Phase Two.
Have these things worked?
Are we really ready to go through this a third time?
But back to Hodges lead line--this is indeed absolutely incorrect, to my understanding, and will doubtlessly promote further trashing of the "naysayers who are turning down a half billion dollar investment in this town."
If that isn't corrected, the decisions people make concerning it will be based on lies.
Does that sound familiar, too?
You are going to have to excuse the Examiner, for just like many other interested folk, this project is vast and has many facets. To dissect a single facet out of it's total context will continually subject any individual facet to it's cost/benefit OUTSIDE of it's context. Making a judgement on this project requires a somewhat multitasking(for lack of a better term) or omnidimensional view.
A 500 million dollar project is vast and hardly can be boiled down to a single element. So much of this project involves engineering and mechanical equipment. Any individual who does not take at least a passing interest in engineering and planning large projects will be lost in the interconnecting plans to all of this.
Again some posters continue to restate misinfo in the form of:
Selling Mt Ogden Park... It is not being sold.
Trail Access... Will not be hindered and in fact will be improved and expanded.
Gated community....Only to vehicular traffic. It makes for a very quiet neighborhood. Next time the teenage kid's friend up the street peels out or rides by bumping his woofers you may appreciate why some would care to restrict unnecessary vehicular traffic.
Golf Course being sold... Yes .. to be improved and remain accessible and affordable.
Why is the project all or nothing. Well it's not quite that. There is plenty of time for revisions , in fact that is exactly why so many see the story as changing. THIS IS IN IT'S PLANNING STAGES PEOPLE.
If you have ever built or remodeled a home you may appreciate how many variables and opportunities there are to adjust the plan and the process. It is necessary many times due to the availability of materials or tools or skills or simply desiring to tweak as you proceed for efficiency, or a sudden availability of some material or resource. This happens all the time in any high end project. Homeowners make plan changes allll the time as the fruit of their dreams shapes up.
Those dynamics are all that is at play in these plans. Having built I am wary at all times of hard and concrete planning. Weather and many unforseen events can either open up opportunities or shift a days work from one focus to another.
ANY contractor who has built anything of any size knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Those who try to second guess the motives of the players and the complexity of the project from the comfort of their armchairs and limited understanding are only asked to review the FACTS. Science and mathematics undergo a process of POSTULATE, THEOREM, PROOF, to establish foundational blocks to move forward. Those theoritical elements that achieve PROOF status are no longer subjected to review or reevaluation based on acceptance within a learned community.
The evaluation of the Gondola project requires the acceptance of some "PROOFS" OR facts SO AS NOT TO CONTINUALLY STUMBLE BACK ON ISSUES THAT ARE RESOLVED.
This is the foundation of logic.
Logic leads to conclusions based on fair evaluation of factual data.
To bring personalities into this equation is the domain of the illogical. It is an abstraction used to defer attention from the preponderance of benefit.
Mutch:
Two points: first, on the Examiner gaffe [and I assume it is a gaffe not an intentional mis-statement]: it is simply factually wrong, and so needs to be corrected. It is not a question of failing to understand the complex financing of a mega-development. It is simply wrong. Mr. Peterson has not offered to pay $500 million for the golf course as the Examiner reported and the Examiner needs to correct its mistake.
Second: part of the reason things you think are fact are continually rehashed is because so much of what has been done so far has been done out of the public eye by public officials. With nothing but rumor and speculation available as the Mayor and Mr. Peterson did their briefing in private and, yes, secret sessions to invitees, it is hardly surprising that so many of us, myself included, are unsure about what is being proposed, or [given the fact that what Lift Ogden has touted as "the plan" has changed so often] what "the plan" at the moment is.
Even granting that it is all a work in progress, when changes come out of the blue [or seem to], arragned by processes not open to the public, they only engender more suspicion. For example, Thursday's pitch by the Mayor to the Council was the first time it was announced that the proposed gondola route up Harrison is not down the middle of the road as the Mayor's previous photo montages indicated. The route is now to be along the west side of Harrison, apparently along the sidewalk there, or just next to it . A matter I imagine of some concern to residential owners along the west side of Harrison who will now have the gondola running through their front yards, in some cases [setbacks are small there] about ten yards from their porches. Straight out of the blue.
If you are truly working to find some common ground, you need to understand how much distrust in the Mayor and city administration the steady drumbeat of these out of the blue changes made out of public view create. The process in so far as the City administration is concerned, HAS to be transparent. And it has not been.
The simple fact is, our Mayor does not play well with others [on the Council or off] whose reaction to his demand du jour is not "Yes, Massa." Recall again his handling of the rollaway seating for the amphitheater. Council said no, not now, too expensive. He went ahead and bought them anyway. Recall the the financial information regarding manditory repair work on city infrastructure [particularly the sewers] that was withheld from the Council until after [sometimes only the day after] it had made key votes on funding for projects he wanted funded, like the High Adventure Rec Center. Recall his using the partly tax funded city cable station as his personal toy, even using the channel to campaign last year against a school bond issue up for a public vote. And of course, recall his secret meetings over the gondola project. Of course people are suspcicious. And distrustful. He has so managed things that many now more or less automatically discount his statements unless they can be otherwise confirmed. That kind of public suspicion is not the consequence of an Administration employing wise governing policy. But the distrust is now a fact that we, including supporters of the project, have to recognize and deal with. Many of us don't trust him because he has given us, over the past few years, good reason not to.
You stress the complexity of the mega-development Peterson and Godfrey are proposing. Granted. No argument. But simple common sense says to me that the very complexity of the project means that proponents, particularly public officials, must go out of their way and the extra mile to keep the public informed, every step of the way, about what is happening, to see that changes in what has already been proposed are reached by a transparent public process so that they do not come as surprises. Evidently, the Mayor thinks otherwise.
Mr. Carver wrote:
"I've held winter season passes for the last 18 consecutive years. I mountain bike on the shoreline trails religiously. So much so, I find myself ditching out of work for hours at a time because of the strong desire to enjoy the trails or snow."
Then later he wrote:
"I’m a ten year veteran of law enforcement employed by the State of Utah. For the last seven years I have served the citizens of Ogden."
Is it any wonder that the citizens of Ogden can't get a cop to respond to their calls for police assistance?
Thanks Curm, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion. The details(HarrisonAlignment) of course are still in flux but the spirit and the essentials are clear. Such as the park and golf course plan. No agreements have been signed but the spirit of the deal which will make it to paper includes open trails, no sale of the park, public affordable golf access, etc. Someone can assume that because it has not been inked then how is it fact. All negotiations must move along some kind of track.
While the actual meat of the deals(remember, still unsigned)have so far been the domain of the mayor and Chris Peterson exclusively, beginning next week you will be able to meet with the Mayor and Chris Peterson and give him your feed back. I would suggest formulating your concerns and have them at the ready with constructive contribution to these plans. You'll find a receptive ear.
I have found none of the principals involved to be anything remotely resembling the harsh characterizations found here. They all have Ogden's best interest in mind and all of the liftogden crowd are volunteers with no stake other than the progress of our city.
As for the Harrison alignment, again it is not set to stone, but it may be related to the cost of a terminal that straddles Harrison. I am sure the resident's along Harrison will have a say. I found it unusual but there will be ample time to determine and shape the details.
From my own perspective, the pattern of information that has been released actually fits the profile of "public officials and proponents keeping the public informed." Unfortunately everytime some information is released, critics characterize it as more closed door negotiations. Believe me, there is much to negotiate. I find the whole project and process exciting. That is why I want to be involved. I think you ,too, Curm should be actively involved. This project needs consensus. No doubt it is something many will react to but, given time the details will paint a picture that is far less threatening.
So let me get this straight,
The Lord Mayor is going to trade off the perpetual - open land crown jewel of Ogden - The Mt. Ogden Park, Golf Course and foot hills, in exchange for a mechanical contraption that will have a relative short life span - maybe 50 years.
Rather we like it or not, he is going to trade this beautiful open land for something that by its very nature will become old and decrepit and have to be torn down, at great expense, in fifty years or less.
Long after this contraption is gone, the future citizens of Ogden will be paying the price by permantly losing this open foot hill space.
Some deal. Doesn't any of these gondola boosters have any concern for their children, grand children and great grand children on into the future? Are they truly willing to hock their descendants future open space for some completely off the wall mechanical contraption that no legitimate study has verified will even work and perform as advertised?
It reminds me of the fool who trades off the family farm for a new car. In twenty years the new car is in the junk yard and the family farm is long gone and he and his children have nothing.
Is this Carver fellow a descendant of Roberts Carver? Roberts was, and still is I presume, a great citizen of Ogden and a long time police officer. He was well connected to the Mt. Ogden Park way before it was a park. He used to take us horse riding through that whole area as kids with the Weber Mounted Posse. What if he and his peers in Ogden City government would have hawked this pristine land 50 years ago for a hand full of shekels or some other off the wall scheme? How would we feel about them now? We wouldn't have the park or the shekels.
Mutch:
You wrote I have found none of the principals involved to be anything remotely resembling the harsh characterizations found here. They all have Ogden's best interest in mind....
Mutch, it is not the Mayor;s intentions I doubt [though I am sure others who post here do]. I don't know the man well enough to raise any questions about his intentions. I will accept they are good and aimed at what he thinks is best for Ogden. [But you know what the road to hell is paved with. We all do.]
What I question is his judgement and --- I wish I could think of a gentler way to put this --- his understanding of what constitutes ethical conduct on the part of an elected official.
Second point first: using the public-financed TV station to flog his side of a controversial topic [the gondola, a school bond referendum] to the exclusion of other views is not the act of someone with a good grasp on what honorable conduct requires of a an elected official. Witholding important information about city financial obligations on the eve of a council vote involving obligating city tax revenues for some years into the future isn't either. Keeping the new Council almost militantly uninformed about the Ernest matter wasn't either. [Please note: It's not just carping Curmudgeon who's called him to task on his, I think, self-defeating penchant for secrecy. The Standard Examiner, which has, sadly, too often proved itself to the the house organ of the Godfrey administration, called him to task on it to in a lengthy editorial.] He acts, far too often, as if he has on matters of public policy the Light and the Truth and the Way, and ignores all others who think differently. Note the amphetheater bleachers incident.
True believers at any level of government make me very nervous.
Nor has his judgment over the past years of his administration been such as to convince me that it should be followed unquestioningly. I don't know how long you've been here, Mutch. Were you here when he "improved" the Ogden Summer Festival out of existence in only one year? The Union Square project did not go as expected. The Amphitheater has not proven to be the revenue generating venue it was touted to be. Nor has it been as useful for local non-profit groups as other venues are in nearby towns because of the way it's been priced and managed. Again, it's the Standard Examiner I think that called him to task on that. The Wal-Mart land-aquisition was handled bull-in-a-china-shop fashion. The river project seems to be stalled. So I'm not questioning his motives. I'm questioning his judgment. Maybe it's good on the mega-project now being proposed. But his track record is not such that I have much confidence in just his opinion on it.
He is a true believer, in all that he proposes, and the moderate, compromising, seeking-input kinda guy you claim is there I don't see. Neither do many others. By way of minor illustration, consider the west-side of Harrison relocating of the gondola towers he announced at Thursday's pitch to the Council. You say it's being considered, it's not settled, etc. That is not what the Mayor said. He said "it WILL [emphasis mine] run along the west side of Harrison." Not "we're thinking about" or "it may" or "we think it would be be best to, but it's not settled yet." Just "it will ." And given his penchant for ignoring, and running rough-shod over, and going around anyone who thinks differently [again, I reference the amphitheater seats incident: possibly minor to you, but I find it telling], I think he means exactly what he says: "It will" go there if it's built. Period.
I'd be curious to know what evidence you have for the moderate, compromising, willing-to-listen to those who disagree with him nature you seem to find in him. Nobody else I know has found it.
Curmudgeon for mayor!
The "Curmudgeon for mayor campaign" grows in strength...........
New comments are not allowed.