Swimming Feverishly Against the Tide

There appeared a short but elegantly articulate letter to the Standard-Examiner this morning, in which Eden's Peter Turner astutely makes a series of fundamental points. Short, but sweet, it is:

Keep Ogden's public lands public
Monday, May 1, 2006
StandardNet Website

I have, generally, been a supporter of Mayor Godfrey's efforts to improve the economic opportunities and lifestyle quality for Ogden.

I think it's worth an investment with private and public funds to create an atmosphere and infrastructure to attract business and tourism to Ogden.

However, the latest proposal to give away or sell off any public lands is not acceptable. This public land is used by the people of Ogden and surrounding communities.

The intended outcome of the plan is to sell the public land to wealthy investors for their benefit, at a loss to the community.

One of the rationales is the operating loss of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course. If the loss is not acceptable, close the golf course until it can become profitable. But remember, virtually everything the government runs is at a loss. That's why we fund those services through our taxes -- because the public benefits aren't tangible on a balance sheet.

The $5 million estimate in tax revenues for Ogden on the proposed 400 homes is a stretch. That means the average house taxes would be $12,500. Based on my own taxes, those homes would have to be assessed $3 million to $4 million, and sell for much more. That's possible for slope-side trophy homes at Snowbasin, but an insane assumption for Ogden Valley, let alone Ogden city.

Open space will become impossible to obtain in the future. Keeping public lands public is the greatest benefit for all.

Peter Turner
Eden

In an era where communities up and down the Wasatch Front are scrambling at no small expense to re-establish public open space in their own over-built communities, the Godfrey administration swims feverishly against the tide. Public benefits aren't tangible on a balance sheet, as the writer aptly notes -- except where communities are required to acquire them "from scratch."

Moreover, even the Peterson/Godfrey "plan's" most basic economic assumptions are questionable at best, if not hopelessly flawed.

Once our unique public parkland treasure is transferred from public control, it will be inevitably lost to the public forever. We predict that future generations of Ogdenites will shake their heads in astonishment at the materialistic and myopic attitude of the present generation, if we succumb to the lure of quick-fix government give-away artists and their fly-by-night developer cronies, and squander our legacy parkland by selling it to the lowest bidder.

That's our opinion and we're sticking to it.

And what say our gentle readers about this?