Gondolists Grow GloomyBy Curmudgeon
This morning's Standard Examiner has a front page story which is a pretty good indication of how desperate the Lift Ogden Wired Ascent Cheerleading Squad is becoming. The story reports that the results of the recent telephone survey [the headline inaccurately says "poll"] commissioned by Lift Ogden supporters will remain secret. Even though, the Gondolist Gang insists, the results were very favorable to the gondola/Malan's Basin project.
Uh huh. Sure. The alleged "poll" shows overwhelming support for the project, but they're going to keep the results secret. Right. You believe that, you probably spent Halloween Eve hoping to catch a glimpse of the Great Pumpkin.
My lord, if they can't get a favorable result out of a push poll like this one [a push poll is one designed to produce a particular result: it might in this case contain "questions" like this: "Do you think Mayor Godfrey's gondola plan is a good plan, a great plan, a wonderful plan, a fantastic plan or all of the above?"], they've got to know the kind of trouble Peterson's real estate speculation scheme is in.
Which explains why the Geigers have been insisting, rather urgently to anyone who will listen of late that "we are winning." Uh huh. Right.
The signs of the Lift Ogden crowd's desperation are increasing: supposedly favorable polls they won't release; continuing to try to convince people the gondola will connect to Snow Basin when it won't; implying that you'll be able to hop off a plane at SLC International Airport and onto the Front Runner commuter rail to Ogden from there [you won't]; and repeatedly insisting to anyone who will listen [and apparently fewer and fewer are] that they are "winning." Look for them to begin telling the press that more loudly and more often as their scheme continues to unravel.
Also in the SE this morning, a long piece by WSU President Ann Millner and Richard Kendall on the importance of establishing a "deliberative process" to determine whether WSU will sell the land [one third of the present campus] that Mr. Peterson says he must have for his project to go forward. They stress the importance of taking the time to do fact finding, and to collect as much information as possible before making the decision.
We can only hope that the Ogden City Planning Commission and the Ogden City Council will follow their example and take the time necessary to examine these proposals, and to collect solid information about their impact, their feasibility, and their probability of succeeding [or the lack of it] before committing any city funds, lands or other resources to the scheme. A real-estate speculator's assurances, pulled out of thin air and unsupported by evidence, should not be enough. Not nearly enough.
---------
And local golfers also call a penalty on the Parkland Land-grab
There's plenty to discuss in this morning's Standard-Examiner, not much of which is likely to put a smile on the face of our guileful gondola groupies. And what better place to do that than here, we ask?
Please don't let the cat get your tongues.
35 comments:
Putting things in perspective:
Just learned today that what the Mayor is proposing to sell to Mr. Peterson for his real-estate speculation is fully 28% of all of Ogden's publically owned recreational open space. 28% of it all to build 400 homes behind the gates of a privately owned golf course and gated community.
Twenty-eight percent. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Some of the gondola crowd are thinking the golf course is going to be sold to Peterson for around $15 million. Assuming the actual value is $45 to $50 million, that could be $30 million plus in instant profit to Peterson at the expense of the tax payers of Ogden. He could then take that property to the bank and get a big enough loan to pay for the property and the development on it. In other words, the tax payers of Ogden will be actually financing this whole scheme with what amounts to a give away of public land. A thirty million dollar gift of our land to Peterson from the mayor. Well, it does pay to have friends in high places!
Did I read somewhere that municipalities in Utah are required by law to sell publicly-owned land at fair market value?
Can anybody shed some more light on this?
Centerville Citizen,
From what I understand, that is correct...however, what is fair market value? Godfrey can sell the land without council approval! As the land is zoned now, it could be sold at a relatively cheap open space price, and then rezoned, and subdivided, and sold making Peterson and minions a tidy profit at Ogden's expense. Oh, and ruining my neigborhood!
YEAH! Let's hear it for good old fashioned WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY! Let's help those who can afford to help themselves, just like in the bible.
Oh really? The council doesn't get to vote on whether the city will sell the property or not? I find that surprising.
Are you sure anonymous?
Today's issue of the SE makes it worthwhile to pay the price.
Did you hear gnashing of LiftOgden teeth at your place too?
I think it possible that Peterson never intended to develop Malan's with a hotel, restaurants, etc...nor build HIS gondola going up there.
If so, the logical thing to do is build his resort, then his gondola...then his gated community, if he can wait that long to line his pockets.
I feel very certain that ALL he's interested in is building those 400 footprints.
And, can anyone come up with the correct answer to the question of why a gondola needs to run down Harrison to WSU? Those college kids don't have the time to drive to the "hub", and then sit in a sweatbox for an interminably slooooow glide to the campus. Repeat glide after classes. How do the students who work (and probably most have jobs) get to those jobs on time? IMpracticable!!
Do Allen, Geigers' Richey, Musgrave, et al get a big slice of this Pie in the Sky???
I like what Zane says: That IF the property is worth $45,000,000., and Godfrey lets it go for $15,000,000., then the taxpayers have LOST Thirty Million!
Of course, the legacy seeker will assure the rabble that THEY aren't being taxed...nothing to lose. Of course, we have nothing to put in our pockets either.
A wag once said..."I like to be kissed before I'm screwed."
Centerville Citizen, I am about as unhappy as you! Thursday night at our Council Work Meeting, it was explained to us that the Council does NOT vote on the sale of the golf course. I can't believe it, but that's what we were told. The only way that the Council can stop it, is if we do not amend the General Plan to include a housing development there.
I've been saying for several weeks, why are we wasting our time and energy on a project that we don't even know whether it's feasible or not? Where are the feasibility studies?
Where are the geological studies? Where are the ecological studies?
According to Utah law, public land must be sold for the highest fair market value appraisal. But if the zoning remains recreational/open land, it will appraise for much less than land that is appraised for development.
I have had a gnawing sensation that goes along with Abner's assessment: What guarantee do the Ogden taxpayer's have, that Chris Peterson will build a resort with ski runs and a gondola to it with his own money? A blind man can see through the scheme just by the way the golf course and gated community developed. At first, Chris was going to build a 4-season resort on his Malan's Basin property with ski runs (that are hazardous) and he would pay for and build a gondola from WSU to it. ALL AT HIS EXPENSE -- NO TAXPAYER MONEY INVOLVED! Then he was proposing that Ogden sell the Mt. Ogden Golf Course to him, and WSU sell him their land east of the campus, and he would build 400 million dollar homes in a gated community -- now we're finding our that he wants ALL the city-owned land between the golf course and WSU's land so that he can build his gondola and resort. I guess the fact that he would be getting the Ogden golf course for peanuts, at a great loss monetarily and recreationally to the Ogden taxpayers, doesn't count. Oh, I know Chris has said that the golf course and hiking trails will remain open to the community. At first, I agree that they will, but when the residents of those expensive homes start crying that they have no privacy and that they don't want strangers walking all over their property, I see the public being shut out.
By the way, did you all know that the gondola at Jackson Hole is being dismantled as well as the one in Moab where it's only been running ONE year! I'd really like to why. Does anyone know why? I say that Ogden needs to address its traffic problems NOW, not "ten years from now when there's a need" then the street car or express bus system can be looked at. I guess the ones who are saying that haven't tried to get from Combe Road across from Albertson's to 20th Street on Harrison at 5:00 PM! Talk about "stop and go." I've been on California freeways that moved faster than the traffic on Harrison Blvd. We have some real traffic problems NOW that should have been addressed several years ago. Let's take care of them before we start dreaming about a gondola.
I have mentioned four grave concerns I have with Chris Peterson's proposal. If Chris can convince me that he has taken care of all these concerns and that traffic will be less congested on Harrison because of the gondola, then he will have my support. I also want to know why Jackson and Moab are dismantly their gondolas.
Dorrene...good post! Notice that the SE Editoial today agrees with your vote nixing the two story demand of Godfrey and Harmer. Kudos.
If you have time...call the city planners/manager? in Moab and Jackson Hole and ask, eh?
I'm out the door now...but someone who has time this am could do that!
Catch the letter in the SE today, also, poking fun at the 'big name' who dropped in to push the gondola for Matt!
What about the Portland gondola / aerial tram that was designed to connect with part of the Oregon Health Sciences University? As far as I can tell, it's been a work in progress since the early 2000s and is still not finished. If I can Google Portland gondola and dig around for info, so could Batman and Robin.
There are serious cost over-runs. Could Chris afford $50 mil for the downtown gondola instead of $20, or would the taxpayers be stuck for the difference? You guess.
Councilwoman Jeske:
Interesting post. I notice this morning's editorial in the SE ends this way: The City Council was right to throttle back on the Administration's enthusiasm absent the hard data to back up the optimists' hunch.
Absent the hard data to back up the optimists' hunch. Exactly. Replace "optimists" with "real estate speculator's hunch" and you end up with advice the Council would be well advised to follow when it considers changing the general plan to accommodate Mr. Peterson. Absent hard data generated by indpendent sources doing the necessary feasibility studies, the Council should not enable the Mayor to sell off the 28% of the city's public open space that he wants to sell.
And thank you very much for pointing out that if the city alters its general plan in such a way that the city-owned open lands [Mt. Ogden Golf Course and the park lands east and south of it] are made available for sale, then all control over whether that sale happens passes exclusively to the Mayor's office. The Council will, in short, by amending the general plan at this point surrender all legislative control over whether the park lands are in fact sold, over whether or not that would be wise policy for the city to follow. I was not aware of that. Thank you again.
"By the way, did you all know that the gondola at Jackson Hole is being dismantled as well as the one in Moab where it's only been running ONE year!"
I'm not familiar with the Moab situation, but the Jackson Tram is very old, and the resort claims that maintanence has become too expensive. Plus, with the advent of high-speed 8 passenger gondolas (with seats!), my guess is that skiers would prefer that Jackson replace the Tram with a new gondola. Though, I don't know if that's their plan.
Anon:
Mr. Peterson will not be stuck for any of the construction costs for the downtown leg of the gondola/gondola scheme. That gondola [downtown to WSU] is to be built entirely at city expense. And we don't know, as you point out, what that expense would be.
The most recent estimate we have, done I think about 18 months ago for the city, is that the downtown gondola then proposed would cost about $22.5 million to construct. However, since then, materials costs [particularly steel] have risen dramatically in price largely due to rising energy costs, and the current Godfrey downtown gondola proposal involves three intermittant stops before reaching the base of the mountain gondola Mr. Peterson says he will build. The gondola on which the construction estimate was based did not involve so many stops, and each addition stop would have added about a million dollars in construction costs when the study was done. More now. Best estimates I've seen lately suggest the construction cost of the downtown gondola [all of it to be paid by the city] is approaching $30 million. And that does not include possible cost over-runs or additional increases in costs of materials.
And since even Hizzonah himself has abandoned the claim that the downtown gondola is intended as a solution to Ogden's mass transit problems, if the Malan's Basin resort does not get built at all once Mr. Peterson gets ownership of the city open lands and WSU lands he wants to develop [a distinct possibility], or if it is built and it fails [a distinct possibility since we have as yet no study indicating that a west-slope ski venue is even feasible at that altitude], the city will be left with a very expensive white elephant tracking mostly empty gondola cars over the city's streets at huge expense.
Why might the resort fail, if it is ever built [which I doubt]? Well, for one thing, we'd have to ask ourselves why skiers from all over the land would choose to fly to SLC, take a cab to the Front Runner Station downtown, wrestle their luggage onto a commuter train, ride it to Ogden, lug their bags onto a gondola, ride it to a downtown hotel, then ride the gondola again to WSU, then take another gondola to Malan's Basin where, at last, after just over two hours travel time, they can ski a vest-pocket mini resort. [This is the scenario Hizzonah and Mr. Peterson and the Lift Ogden crowd insist is a can't lose one.]
What other options might skiers choose instead? How about this one: fly to SLC airport, take one of the ski shuttles to say Snowbird and be delivered, with their bags, to their hotel at the base of the ski lift in just over an hour. [Or to Alta, or Brighton or Solitude.]
And then, there is the simple fact [which Lift Ogden and the Mayor do not want us all to notice] that the Peterson gondola will not connect with Snow Basin, and that Snow Basin has announced plans to develop its own resort complex [hotels, condos, restaurants, shops] at Snow Basin. When that comes on line, skiers will have a real choice: take one shuttle from the airport to Snow Basin resort, [about an hour and fifteen minutes travel time], or spend over two hours in a cab, on a train and in three gondola cars to ski Mr. Peterson's mini-resort on the west slope.
The question has arisen here several times, i.e., whether the Mt. Ogden Parkland Property could be sold by Blessed Matt Godfrey for less than "adequate consideration."
I googled a little bit this morning, and came up with a tantalizing Utah Supreme Court decision, Price Development Co., L.P. v. Orem City
I won't get into any analysis on this at this point. To do so would probably require a trip to the law library, among other things.
But starting with paragraph 25, the language becomes very interesting:
"¶25 Price's [City's] final challenge is the contention that Orem's required expenditures under the agreements are not supported by adequate consideration flowing to the City and, therefore, amount to an illegal gift of public money and property, all in violation of article XI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution, section 10-8-2 of the Code, and our prior holdings in Salt Lake County Commission v. Salt Lake County Attorney, 985 P.2d 899 (Utah 1999); Lowder, 711 P.2d 273; and Sears v. Ogden City, 533 P.2d 118 (Utah 1975), aff'd on rehearing, 537 P.2d 1029 (Utah 1975).
¶26 We elaborate the legal reasoning underlying Price's position. Article XI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution describes the powers "to be conferred upon the cities."(6)
Price notes that nothing within this section grants cities the power to make a gift of public funds. Section 10-8-2 of the Code, in which the legislature conferred the general power of appropriation on city governing bodies, provides that they may appropriate money for "corporate purposes only," and those are defined as "any purpose that . . . provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the city." Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-2(1)(a), (2) (1999). Again, there is no provision within section 10-8-2 which allows a city to give away public money. And this court has held that although this section is silent on the subject of necessary consideration for any appropriation, in fact, public property is held in trust for the public and may not be disposed of other than "in good faith and for adequate consideration." Sears, 533 P.2d at 119; accord Lowder, 711 P.2d at 282; Salt Lake County, 985 P.2d at 909-10. "Adequate consideration" means that the local government must show that there is a clear "present benefit that reflects . . . fair market value" for whatever is given by the local government. Id. at 910 (quoting Lowder, 711 P.2d at 282). A future benefit will not suffice, nor will a benefit that is of uncertain value. SeeLowder, 711 P.2d at 282."
(Highly-attentive gentle readers should also read the entire case report.)
Whether this language from a 2000 Utah Supreme Court decision reflects the current state of Utah law... we don't know. But we definitely intend to find out.
For now, it would seem that the standard for the disposition of the Mt. Ogden Parkland Property would be that Utah law would require that it must occur, if at all, with "adequate consideration," at "fair market value."
Councilwoman Jeske has commented here, and pointed out that under current zoning, this property (currently zoned as open space) would appraise at far less than if it were zoned "residential." I presume that's what the administration is now telling the council.
We don't see present zoning as an obstacle to determining what the property is really worth, if the zoning were hypothetically appraised as residential. Any competent local real estate broker could do the number-crunching, by putting together a comparative market analysis. An appraiser could do likewise. Either an experienced broker or an appraiser would be competent to testify about this.
Any argument that the determination of the property's "fair market value," has to be "pegged" to present zoning is ludicrous.
Our guess is that this project is entirely predicated upon leverage, i.e., Chris Peterson must obtain the raw land at a highly-preferential bargain basement price. Absent that, we don't believe he has the financial "juice" to do the real residential development, let alone construct the gondolas.
If the issue isn't resolved by the city council, it will surely find its way to the courts.
You can bet the farm on that.
Rudi:
"A future benefit will not suffice, nor will a benefit that is of uncertain value."
Very very interesting....
The Jackson Hole Tram is being REPLACED because of age. They have not decided whether to replace it with a tram or gondola. A tram is only being considered for historical reasons(The Jackson Hole Tram is a community icon in those parts)
The Moab tram is being dismantled because they were denied trail access across public lands to connect to the very popular bike trails.
The Ogden plans have very little in common to either those or the Portland project.
I was a supporter of SOME ASPECTS of these local plans but the scenario has become so bizarre it deserves no support at all.
Peterson and Mayor have demonstrated that they are willing to say anything to attempt to appease any concern. To throw out assurances like all trails will be accesible and improved, and municipal golf prices and access will be maintained in a gated community of outsiders. This is hogwash.
Even more bizarre is Peterson's village. His rendering shows it built into a north facing slope. This forces more tree cutting of tall timber on springfed shady slopes and necessitates excessive snow removal operations. Even a fool knows that you want to locate in as much sun as possible. His clocktower and doodad festooned Tyrolian design requires so much unecessary applique of weak facadery that weathers poorly in that climate.
Shops, spas, restaurants, convention facilities?????
Isn't this what DOWNTOWN is for????
You are all so right on this airport connection swill...
We are told that to have stops at 23rd Monroe or 30th/Harrison will increase travel time from Hub to Malan's making the whole concept less desirable when the route from the airport to the HUB is hardly seamless.
Peterson is too cheap to spend a few thousand on virtual reality, topographic overlays, and superior aerial shots to make sense of his plans. Pretty amazing when he wants to spend half a bil. SCAM is right.
Ski trails down to WSU???More friggin' baloney. I thought they didn't want to scar the face of the mountain. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a groomable ski trail down the face without a full clearcut on it's path through all the scrub that occupies those slopes now. They have said they may use Taylor Canyon for this as an option. Oh Really, in dangerous avalanche terrain????
Snowbasin hit the nail on the head when they said, "From an operational standpoint we decided it was too costly"!!!! They do know what they are talking about. It is the OPERATIONAL issues that make this whole thing folly.
Peterson seems to have a cost-is-no-object strategy yet spending even a mil to clarify these issues is not feasible for him until getting some kind of commitment from the community. Obviously the strategy is to get the community commited first to the land sale then whatever happens hence is no issue after the golf course is sold. We are told the course must be sold to accomplish two goals, to finance the town gondola AND finance his resort?????
Say what? He needs the home development to finance the resort?? When this all began there was NO talk of him needing to FINANCE his resort. He was going to build it and CONTRIBUTE to WSU a school of resot management. Maybe this whole mess reflects the kind of resort MISMANAGEMENT WSU would rather not teach.
I am so sick of his repetitious and rambling stories about how far some will walk in ski boots and how ticket prices will hit the tourist hardest and be easy on us locals. ATTRACTING tourists with this line is stretching it. He has laughed off lifetime passes, and educational discounts. This resort will be so excessively costly to build roadless that NO pricing scheme could be accurate at this stage.
I am also sick of hearing the overblown Malan's Hotel stories. Anyone who has hiked Taylor and pondered the "Wagon Ride" to Malan's can see what a load that all is. Yes there was some pioneering going on there but take a moment to imagine wagons going up there. I contend that those wagons were WINCHED most of the way up there in desperation. Hardly a Sunday drive and no one went up there for an afternoon brunch!!! These quaint scenes are spewed to make the thought of all this palatable. Malan's Hotel and resort of the past was a dream for those folks and Peterson is riding on the same dream.
I favor Kent Jorgenson's staged proposal but it will get no airplay when this proposal has now reached critical mass and must be done like it being proposed or Ogden will continue it's slide. I do not buy into that at all. Ogden is moving up as we speak by simple demand for a place to live. It's a shame all those new home buyers are so suckered into sloburbia in Layton and points south. Nothing compares to Ogden's quiet shady central and bench neighborhoods. Slowly people are discovering what is the gem of the wasatch front. This is happening without these cornball plans.
Great posts on the blog today!!!! I hope everyone in Ogden City and Weber County is reading them!
Great find, Rudi---beautiful!! Hang on to that one!
HEY! Let's be careful talking about the Great Pumpkin - a little respect here!!!!!
I have a question for anyone who may know. While it may seem that I am trying to be a smartass - nothing is further from the truth.
1. IF it is true that our council can do nothing to stop this sale, why not?
2. IF it is true that they are powerless to control such things, of what real value are they then??
Rudi
Where do I go to contribute to the legal defense of Ogden fund that may be needed to finally stop this madness?
A couple of points here:
Yes, they did used to go to Malan's basin by wagon and buggy. The trail, which was a one lane dirt road, goes up Taylor's canyon, and through a series of switch backs, makes it's way to the top of Malan's peak, then up the draw to the basin. It has been many years, but I went up that trail on numerous occasions on foot, motor cycles, tote goats, and later on a mountain bike.
Another point is this numb skull Shea who so heartedly endorses Ogden giving away millions to build this numb skull gondola. He sashayed into the council chamber a couple of weeks ago to publicly tell us what a great idea this was. It was kind of funny as he made his grand entrance with a big wave and loud hello. It was obvious he was expecting a standing ovation! The room was deathly silent, which threw the poor dumb ass completely off his game. He fumbled around through a long pregnant silence till it dawned on him that he wasn't getting any applause. He then launched into a very stupid stream of babble about how grand this gondola idea is. It appeard he had just been briefed on the deal. He also seemed to be half in the bag. I wondered who was paying him to be there? Does any one know if he was paid, by whom, and how much?
At any rate, the letter writer in this morning's Sub Standard hit it right on the head. What kind of business and financial advice could possibly come from a knuckle head, who's only claim to fame is going down the side of a steep mountain head first with his face inches away from the ice? This after all is this dude's only claim to fame. He has no education in urban planning, finance, business, gondola building, or any thing else worth while for that matter.
Is this the "due dilligence" that we can expect from our little mayor who is now apparently also a famous jock sniffer?
Sarge:
I am not on the Council, but I've talked to several council persons about the land sale and from what I can gather, here is how things stack up.
1. The Mayor and Council are both bound by the city's General Plan. The General Plan has the Mt. Ogden Golf Course and surrounding space designated as "open space" and so it cannot be sold unless or until that designation is changed. That designation cannot be changed except via recommendation of the Planning Comission followed by the approval of the City Council. It may be that the designation must be changed to "surplus land" before a sale can occur. Not sure about what exactly the change in designation needs to be. But so long as it remains "open space" in the General Plan, the Mayor cannot sell it.
2. Once that designation is changed, so that preservation of the land as public open space is no longer part of the Genral Plan and it's been designated "surplus" property or whatever other designation Mr. Peterson and the Mayor require, then the Mayor can sell it [in accord with some other provisions of the law regarding value, etc.] without further approval by the Council. Just as he can, for example, sell city-owned water rights without the Council's prior approval.
So, the Council is not powerless. However, if it changes the General Plan to accommodate Mr. Peterson, particularly regarding Mt. Ogden Golf Course and the public park lands to the east and south, then the Council will have in effect surrendered all legislative oversight of the sale after that. Or so it was explained to me.
This is particularly disturbing since a major reason for switching city government to the mayor/council model [away from the city manager model] a few years ago, was to create a system of checks and balances in which two branches of elected public officials [one executive, one legislative] would have to approve major actions before they took effect. Why the Council would want to surrender its responsibility for legislative oversight to the Mayor on this issue escapes me. Let's hope it will not want to do that.
If anyone else has another view on this, or more or better information than I've got, please pass it on. I am not an attorney, and would very much like to hear here from someone who is, and who is familiar with the law in Utah regarding the distribution of powers and responsibilities in municipal government in a mayor/council run city.
I'm not an attorney either, but looked in the Utah Code and found this:
10-3-1219.5. Council-mayor form -- Ordinances on transfer of municipal property and regulation of subdivisions or annexations.
In the council-mayor form of government, the council shall, by ordinance, provide for the manner in which:
(1) municipal property is bought, sold, traded, encumbered, or otherwise transferred; and
(2) subdivisions, or annexations are approved, disapproved or otherwise regulated.
Enacted by Chapter 39, 1979 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 10_03144.ZIP 1,753 Bytes
Here is a definition of "encumber," from the American Heritage Dictionary:
TRANSITIVE VERB:
en·cum·bered , en·cum·ber·ing , en·cum·bers
To put a heavy load on; burden: a hiker who was encumbered with a heavy pack; a life that has always been encumbered with responsibilities.
To hinder or impede the action or performance of: restrictions that encumber police work.
To burden with legal or financial obligations: an estate that is encumbered with debts.
So it appears that one scenario would be for the Council to pass an ordinance reaffirming the use of the entire area as open space, thereby sort of "encumbering" it and preventing any sale. If a majority of them would agree to do that, that is. The sale is at this point encumbered by the General Plan, it seems.
I mean, if they could pass the anti-long term motel stay ordinance, they could certainly do something like this.
Furthermore, at the Smart Growth meeting regarding the neighborhood plan, Greg Montgomery stated that Mount Ogden Park was a "dedicated" park. Have no idea what this means, but it was in his list of things that would have to be addressed before any sale could take place, like amending the general plan, etc.
A possible point of clarification:
Would the city have to change the zoning from open space before it was sold? Or could it be sold while still being zoned for open space, and CP would just have to petition to get it rezoned as residential if he wanted to build houses?
I think its the latter, but I'm no attorney either.
There is an old saying: "Money talks and bull shit walks"
So unless the citizens of Ogden, through the mayor and council, gives this Peterson guy the money (golf course) I guess that means that he will be walking.
After all, he really doesn't have big money himself, and he is full of bull shit.
I just hope that he takes the punk with him when he does.
And the Gieger's too!
After all, why would such great visionaries want to stick around a town full of naysayers and un-inspired trolls that can't see the true and pure genius of the short one.
Maybe they can follow shorty to that magical planet that is hiding behind the comet Hale Bopp!
Now isn't that a delicious thought!
It seems that all this speculation can be brought to a screeching halt when WSU 'just says no!'
Both Godfrey and CP have said the deal is over if WSU won't give away its land.
Certainly, this CC will not allow the General Plan to be amended so Godfrey and CP and their fellow visionaries can emulate the Duke Lacrosse players.
I had to wonder if Glassman and Stephens were chagrined today after reading the SE editorial giving a high five to the 4 CC members who did not give in to Harmer and Godfrey's pitch for those extra two stories.
It was obvious that Glassman was flattered into his 'yes' vote. ("We defer to Councilman Glassman's expertise as a realtor...blah, blah, blah.") Bill was so happy to be recognized as a real estate market expert that he played right into the evil flatterers' grasping hands.
But what the &^%$@$%! happened to Stephens? Does he just want the reputation of being a maverick?
Whatever.....I hope they had the grace to be stung by the rebuke from the SE, in that the 4 who voted NO were praised.
We can and must remind them of their campaign promises and philosophy.
As I see it, Peterson will not develop Malan's into a RESORT. I predict he won't build a gondola either.
BTW...what has he developed in the past? Where might we take a gander at any other gated footprint homes he's 'developed', and which city has benefitted from a half billion INVESTMENT?
Some of you are well acquainted with CP and know first hand his relationship with Earl Holding. If CP is such a talented businessman and developer, why isn't HE the Sinclair Exec, and Ensign CP's subordinate?
What money does CP have OF HIS OWN? WHAT'S THE STATUS OF HIS MARRIAGE? DOES ALL, IF ANY, of his 'investment funds' come from the wife? If they divorce, as I've heard rumored, will he be cut off, (in every sense?)
We have a right to know just how solvent HE is! We already know that he's as disingenuous as Godfrey and the sycophants.
Those of you with a good ear to the ground, when will the phone survey results be revealed to the panting public? I can't imagine that this group of 'overly pleased Ogden business' leaders, as Pinnacle Marketing described them, aren't panting to publish and gloat over the results.
Dian is great in the way that she finds and explains State Law.
"10-3-1219.5. Council-mayor form -- Ordinances on transfer of
municipal property and regulation of subdivisions or annexations.
In the council-mayor form of government, the council shall, by
ordinance, provide for the manner in which:
(1) municipal property is bought, sold, traded, encumbered,
or otherwise transferred; and
(2) subdivisions, or annexations are approved, disapproved or otherwise regulated."
As I understand this, the Council needs to obtain a copy of that ordinance, study it and if necessary, change it to reflect this Council's position, if it differs from the Council who originally developed it. And I think it might if the Mayor can sell the golf course without Council input.
Lovely Jennifer, you are absolutely right about what the statement "dedicated open space/park" means. I received a telephone call from one of the children of the Mayor who received the land from the Malan family. It was donated with the stipulation that it remain open space to be used as a park. I don't know how Mr. Montgomery means that would have to be changed. How can it be changed when that was a condition of the donation? If it can be changed, then that means that CP can change any conditions that the Council puts on the sale of the golf course (if it does sell it), like keeping the trails open to the public, the golf course would ALWAYS be available to Ogden residents and the fees would be about the same as El Monte's. All it is, is propaganda to get the public to go along with his scheme to rip off Ogden. Like I've been saying, when those ritzy footprint owners, start complaining about strangers trampling all over their property when they hike or play golf, then all those conditions will be ignored and those gates on this elite gated-community will lock and keep us out.
I am encouraged by the postings on this blog and by the many emails I have received from people who have not been fooled by the hype and big promises made by CP and the Mayor. We need to continue to let our concerns be heard, and encourage others to study the validity of Peterson's proposal. We need to keep demanding truthful and realistic answers to our concerns.
Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
BTW, Anonymous, I'm happy to see that you've seen the light!
THIS IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.
I don't know how many of you read my follow-up post about making the agendas for the Council meetings readily available that I did on the thread "5/30/06 Council Notes." So for those of you who didn't get it, here it is again:
I brought up putting the Council agendas: on Channel 17, and was told that it is already being announced from Friday through Tuesday, but they will look at having the meeting agendas announced at SPECIFIC TIMES. They are supposedly on the City's web site. Go to ogdencity.com, go down the left red sidebars to red bar that says Agendas and Actions, click on that bar and it will take you to a page where you find info about regular meetings, work sessions, Listen to Council, RDA and MBA meeting minutes. WHERE TO GO TO GET INFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA. But they suggested the best place is the AGENDA HOTLINE: 629-8159. (I didn't find the agenda posted any where.) Also, you can learn how to get a Discussion Item put on the agenda; the policies that govern City Council meetings. At the bottom of the page there's a link to "Minutes and Upcoming Agenda." I was told that the agenda for the Tuesday Council meeting would be available the Friday afternoon before the meeting. But I didn't find it.
There were suggestions to include the agenda in the emails that the Council sends out, but some staff members were concerned that the majority of the people wouldn't want them so that suggestion was shot down. If you would like to have the agenda included in the emails, you can call Mavis at 629-8153 and tell her you want the Council/RDA/MBA Meeting agendas in the email she sends out.
I hope this helps you.
Dian responded and suggested that Rudi receives the agendas and post them on WCF side bar so that you all have access to them. I will try to arrange for him to receive them every Friday afternoon.
Councilwoman Jeske: In Re Agendas
1. I checked this morning's Standard Examiner "Agendas" section. The City Planning Commission agenda is there, but the City Council Agenda is not. From your post, I gather the problem may be the Council's failure to get the agenda out in timely fashion [since you could not find it posted where it was supposed to be posted.] But you are absolutely right, it should not be this difficult for an Ogdenite who wants to know to find easy and regular access to Council agendas.
2. With all due respect to your fellow Council members, the idea of not including the agenda in the Council email notices that people have requested be sent to them is... well, nonsense. We all have easy to use delete keys on our computers. I use mine quite often. Including the Council agendas in the emails to folks who have asked to be kept informed of Council news and happenings seems like a reasonable and useful thing to do from my POV. I will make the call you suggested.
WHAT??? The Council agenda couldn't get out to the public in a timely fashion???
Isn't that one of the reasons Gloria Berrett was fired??
She couldn't handle her job??
Gloria wasnt fired because she didnt do her job in a timely fashion...it's because the little guy on the ninth floor had a boner for her and anyone else who doesnt go along with his chicken shit convoluded vision.
Mercy:
I don't know that the Council staff didn't get the agenda out on time. I was speculating that that might have happened since Councilwoman Jeske did not find the agenda posted in places where she had expected to find it. I offered that as a possible explanation only . I don't know if it is accurate.
Stand corrected, Curm...
to Sick Of.... I understood that the REASON given for her to tender her...uh....resignation, was that she just wasn't plowing thru all her paperwork.
what ev er! it was a dirty deed.
Rudi,
You run a really classy blog site here. Did "I Don't Like..." just get early parole, or something?
New comments are not allowed.