Keep Ogden's public lands publicIn 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."
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
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?
6 comments:
Against the tide is right. Park City has spent $20 million for the preservation of open space, and Salt Lake is currently asking for suggestions on how to spend $5 million on open space. Article here:
SLC seeks open-space ideas
City Council asks residents what to save with $5M
Thanks for the link, Dian
Here's another one, wherein Park City mayor Dana Williams, addresses the U.S. House of Representatives re that city's efforts to preserve that community's open space.
"A broad coalition of business and environmental groups support this bill and understand the importance of open space to the community," Mayor Williams testifies.
Concern for the preservation of open space plainly isn't merely limited to "tree-huggers" in Park City.
Weber County Forum submits that this article expresses the mindset of progressive mayors in REAL ski resort communities, unlike pretenders in "other" places.
And while we'll concede that the parcels described by the attached map aren't the most scenic and desirable around Park City, it's clear that the community of Park City has put its "money where its mouth is" with $35 million expended as of the the end of 2005.
If nothing else, this should illustrate by comparison how truly valuable is our Mt. Ogden Parkland legacy.
Oh, the irony is just too much.
The Salt Lake City Council gladly rezones 13 acres owned by Mount Olivet from open space to institutional (even though Salt Lake needs every acre of cemetery space it has), but a couple weeks later asks for ideas on preserving open space.
What's wrong with this picture?
CC
The thing that is wrong with that picture is called "Hubris", and more specifically the politicians around these parts that exhibit so much of it!
Look up the definition and then attend events that the mayor does, and read his writings, speeches and proclamations.
Get to know him, even slightly, and then the picture will be clear!!!
Just learned that this Saturday, 6 May, beginning at 9 AM, Smart Growth Ogden guides will lead a walk over much of the public land in the foothills that Mr. Peterson wants to develop and that Mayor Godfrey wants to sell him. At eleven stops along the way, the guides will point out what is planned for the land at that point [new golf course fairways or greens, housing, streets, etc], and how it will affect the trails now in place as well as other matters, like the geologic questions raised by construction on steep slopes near established faults. The walk will include at least part of the University land Mr. Peterson wants to buy and develop. Be a good way, I think, to get a firmer grip on what is actually being proposed and its impact public land in the foothills. The SGO people tell me everyone is welcome. As they like to say down on the bayou where I worked for some decades, "y'all come!"
Note: the first part of the walk involves a gain of about 350' from the 29th Street trailhead to the mouth of Waterfall Canyon. But it's all down hill from there.
Note the SE's Schwebke's reportage of the two facades crumbling "COINCIDENTALLY" THE NIGHT BEFORE THE OWNER OF THE TWO BLDS, KUBLY, FROM CA" is to meet with the Planning Comm about the redesign of the facades.
We have so many coincidences, do we not?
Kubly allegedly bought the bldgs to be part of Ogden's revitalization. No mention WHEN they were bought and who will be tenants. Also, I thought it disingenuous that Schwebke juxtaposed Kubly's crumbling facades/meeting with Planning Commission, and Kubly's touting of the gondola (done deal) and the coming ski industries.
Sounds like a propaganda insert.
Also, since Kubly will have office/retail space there, and wanted to redesign the facades....will he be charged for the 'coming down' labor? Or is that a freebie?
New comments are not allowed.