Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Elevator Shoes for Short Buildings

Tonight is the night that the Ogden City Council will consider leasing the upper two floors of a downtown office building that doesn't even exist -- not even on the developer's blueprints.

The mayor (Mr. G) and his million-dollar "A-Team" have decided that the originally-contemplated four-story building will be too short, in comparison to some of the surrounding structures. It's giving them all a prospective inferiority complex. We suspect that are some amongst the mayor's "brain trust" who would know more than a little bit about that psychological dilemma; so maybe they have something of a point.

The Boyer Company, who was presumably ready to begin construction imminently, isn't crazy about the idea of adding an extra two stories at the eleventh hour. They don't believe the market will support a six-story structure. What do they know anyway, though? They're mere professional builders and developers. They get all balled up with facts and figures -- and obviously aren't privy to the "vision," and don't sit at the right hand of Gawd hisself.

They're willing to go along with the mayor's revised plan though, apparently, so long as the lumpen taxpayers can be dragged along at the tune of $400,000/ year until the end of time -- or until the bulding is 100% leased out -- whichever happens sooner.

And it's reported that some on the council are actually taking this proposal seriously.

We swear we couldn't make something like this up.

Two of our regular contributors will be in attendance at tonight's "can't miss" event. It's bound to be a real "hoot." We'll do our level best to have a full report for our gentle readers on tonight's council hijinks in time for tomorrow's morning coffee.

In the meantime, consider this an open thread.

Feel free to chime in with your gentle comments.

Update 5/30/06 8:20 p.m. MT: The vote is in. The motion to enter into lease agreement with Boyer Company, as a guarantee for the construction of the two additional floors, failed this evening by a 4-3 City Council vote. Voting in opposition to the motion were councilpersons Garcia, Wicks, Jeske and...

(Drumroll....)

Safsten.

That's right gentle readers... Safsten.

All-in-all, it was a very interesting council meeting. We'll provide a play-by-play narrative later.

Comments?

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