We would like to remind our readers of the important event being held this evening at 7:00 p.m., at Ogden's Wasatch School, concerning Blessed Boss Godfrey's proposed Mt. Ogden Park land-grab. A similar event is also scheduled for tomorrow night. The object of these open houses appears to some of us to be a possible subterfuge to fulfill statutory public notice requirements necessary to amending the Ogden City General plan.Although we had a fairly robust discussion of this event a few days ago here, we are bringing up the matter again, as a reminder. It is imperative, we believe, that Ogden citizens who are concerned about the paucity of information surrounding the Mt. Ogden Parkland proposal, (or the lack of merit of the proposal itself) attend these events, in significant force, to lodge their objections to a public input process that is premature and faulty, at best.
In the intervening period since we last discussed this topic, one of our gentle readers and I had a conversation with a prominent local lawyer, an expert in municipal law. We asked for an informal written opinion about the role of the planning commission and council in connection with the parkland sale proposal, and this is what he provided:
In short, the Ogden "Gang of Six" City Council, which was originally granted the power by the legislature re the disposition of City owned real property, delegated (in 2003) that power entirely to the mayor's office. The present council no longer retains any legal authority to directly approve or disapprove the disposition of ANY Ogden-owned real estate. Under current Ogden City ordinances, the city council's sole remaining authority with regard to the Peterson/Godfrey scheme is thus limited to the role of approving or disapproving the general plan or zoning amendments.I read the post today on the Weber County Forum [the above-linked WCF article.] City Councils are empowered to govern the disposition of municipal real property. The City Council does this by passing an ordinance which sets forth how municipal real property is sold. Where the property is deemed "significant," (1) the contemplated use of the property after the sale must be consistent with the General Plan (as reviewed by the planning commission) and (2) a 14 day noticed public hearing must be held. The City must obtain "fair and adequate consideration" for the property. However, such consideration can be both monetary and non-monetary in nature.
An appraisal is not required. The Ogden City Council delegated authority to the Mayor to despose of municipal property. However, any property valued over $75,000 has been deemed by Ogden City as "significant" for purposes of the statute.If the proposed sale of park/open space is valued at over $75,000, then the two above provisions kick in. Since the open space appears to be slated for residential density, which is inconsistent with the current General Plan, that Plan must be amended before any sale takes place. All General Plan amendments must go before both the planning commission and city council, with a public hearing mandatory at the city council level.
Hence, although the city council does not authorize the sale, it appears that the city council is an essential part of the process for an amendment to the General Plan.
In addition, the Ogden City Council could always modify the ordinance on the disposition of property and require all such sales to be approved by the City Council. Most jurisdictions leave the disposition of "significant" parcels of real property to the legislative body, who is in charge of the budget.
Attacking a sale on the basis of whether of not "fair and adequate consideration" has been given is generally a losing proposition. Courts only look to whether the decision-maker was acting reasonably -- a very low standard. Consequently, I do not believe there to be a Utah case which overturned a sale based upon inadequate consideration, unless there was no consideration given at all. [Emphasis & Links Added.]
We strongly urge all concerned citizens to attend these two open houses, and to voice your objections loud and clear. There's too much at stake to allow this project to be rammed down our public throats by a Mayor who is hell-bent to demonstrate "who's boss. "
Update 6/13/06 11:57 p.m. MT: As a result of some discussion in the below comments section, we have just now gotten off the phone with the Ogden Planning Department and have confirmed that the open houses of tonight and tomorrow are to be regarded as public meetings, open for attendance and public comment by ALL Ogden citizens, irrespective of whether they reside within the described Mt. Ogden Neighborhood boundaries between 26th Street and 36th Street, and from Harrison Boulevard east to the foothills.
Update 6/13/06 3:55 p.m. MT: In response to the continuing confusion about tonight's open house event, we have now spoken yet a SECOND TIME with Sharon, of the Ogden City Planning Department. She again confirms all of the information in the preceding paragraph.
She adds, upon inquiry, that meeting moderaters intend to focus on narrow neighborhood planning issues, such as traffic, economics and other traditional neighborhood questions, and touch only marginally, if at all, on the ubiquitous gondola question.
Whether tonight's discussion will remain as narrow in scope as advertised and planned... we shall see, shall we not?
Sharon has also graciously emailed us a copy of tonight's agenda, which we have now uploaded to this archive page.
26 comments:
Rudi:
I think you are mis-informed. The two meetings, one tonight and one tomorrow, are only for residents of the Mt. Ogden Park neighborhood, and their purpose is to begin drafting a community plan for that neighborhood.
There are not the mandated public meetings required before amending the general plan. The first of those will be held in June. Contact the Planning Commission for more detail.
But the meetings tonight [Tuesday] and tomorrow [Wednesday] at Wasatch Elementary are soley for Mt. Ogden Park neighborhood residents to provide input to the planning staff for the drafting of a Mt. Ogden Park community plan.
I find this act by the previous city council to be short-sighted, irresponsible, and an abdication of its responsibilities to those it was elected to serve.
Municipal property is Our Property. We elect the Council to represent us. How often do we hear, "Contact your city council and let your voice be heard!!!"
But not in matters concerning Our Property, not any more.
Utah State law says that the Council determines what happens to municipal property "by ordinance." So what did they do? Passed an ordinance that they didn't want to deal with it and that the mayor could handle it by himself. Not only that, but that future councils would be unable to have an influence in the matter of Our Property and what happens to it.
Because of the previous council giving the right to sell or otherwise dispose of, encumber, etc., municipal property to the Mayor, contacting our City Council as to whether or not we have opinions on the sale or disposition of Our Property is a useless action. Not only did they give up their right to have a say in what happens to Our Property--they gave up ours. In doing so, they deprived us of one conduit enabling us to have a voice in our government.
This has nothing to do with trust and harmony in government. If a Council trusts and agrees with the decisions of the mayor, it is perfectly capable of going in there and voting yes, item by item, issue by issue.
But it should Never give up its right to do that.
If it gives up the right to vote yes, it also gives up the right to vote no.
If the present council wishes, it can step up to the plate, overturn or amend this ordinance, and return to the exercise of its powers which it is entitled to under Utah State Law. As we have seen, what one council does, another council can undo, for good or for ill.
Undoing this ordinance giving the power over municipal property solely to the mayor I think would fall on the good side.
Rudi's right---the sale of Mount Ogden Golf Course and surrounding property would be a done deal right now if it were not contrary to Ogden's general plan. Since the previous council gave up its right to oversee how Our Property is handled, that general plan is the only thing prohibiting the mayor doing whatever he wishes with Our Property, not only the Mount Ogden property, but All Municipal Property, which is Our Property.
And therefore, I personally hope that the present Ogden City Council refuses to even open the door toward amending that plan. That plan is our only insurance that our city will not run amok with overdevelopment because of the State Law mandating conformance to it. It's a contract with us, and we, and they, should keep it.
Thanks for the heads-up, Curmudgeon. You are truly a trusting soul.
We have zero confidence, however, that the administration will not re-interpret -- or mis-constue -- the "purpose" of these meetings.
And the fact that these meetings are ostensibly limited to particular Ogden neighborhoods does not mean that all Ogden Citizens cannot attend.
A new Mt. Ogden neighborhood plan will affect ALL ogden neighborhoods.
And harbor no innocent delusions. The "to-do" about suddenly formulating a Mt. Ogden Neighborhood Plan is all about the Mt. Ogden Parkland Land-grab.
We ignore these open houses at our own peril.
Excellent observation, Dian.
As we are all aware, the last city council acted as a mere "rubber stamp" for Blessed Mayor Godfrey," and abdicated its legislative responsibilities in MANY areas.
I was tempted myself to launch a paragraph or two about the dictatorial powers that the "Gang-o'Six" council bestowed upon Mayor Godfrey, but refrained from that, in the interest of saving a little front-page bandwidth.
It's been our continuing hope that the current council will re-examine its role as a "check" against a particularly aggressive Mayoral administration.
A council ordinance amending Section 4-3A-5 to require council approval for ALL sales of real property with valuations in excess of $75,000 would be a sensible start for a council that is interested in restoring its proper role in municipal government.
We believe we should strongly urge our city council members to move immediately in this direction.
Rudi:
I don't much trust them either, Rudi, but tonight's meeting matters to neighborhood residents, and the venue is relatively small. Hate to see residents croweded out by those from other parts of the city who will probably not be permitted to speak or have their points recorded once they give their addresses as out of the neighborhood.
On amending the ordinance as you and Dian have suggested, I agree completely. The whole point of a mayor/council form of government is that two separate, independent bodies "check and balance" each other, and provide a kind of continuing oversight with respect to the other's actions. That purpose is entirely thwarted, as Dian noted, when one of them surrenders its oversight authority to the other.
At risk of seeming overly pugnacious, Curmudgeon, your not-so-humble blogmeister will just say this:
Rudi resides less than a block south of 26th street. As far as he's concerned, he's as much affected by the formulation of a Mt. Ogden neighborhood plan as his own pop and mom, who reside smack dab in the middle of the Mt. Ogden neighborhood.
Not only that, but Rudi was born and reared in the Mount Ogden neighborhood, attending Wasatch, Mt. Ogden and Ogden High schools, and "getting his religion" in the venerable Ogden 41st Ward-house. Rudi and his dawg also use the trails extensively.
Rudi has a vested interest in the Mt. Ogden neighborhood, wethinks.
We're certain there are also others who technically live outside the arbitrarily-defined neighborhood confines who are similarly interested in a new Mt. Ogden neighborhood plan.
Rudi will attend tonight's open house, (where seating will likely be first-come-first-served)
Rudi is certain that other individuals share the same viewpoint.
What's really remarkable is that the Gang of Six council failed to relinquish its oversight powers in planning and zoning, along with its power over property disposition.
Hard to imagine how Godfrey let that one slip under the radar screen.
Isn't there also a general city-wide public meeting regarding the Grift Ogden proposal this Thursday (the 15th) at the 2484 Washington Blvd building?
If I have time I will also attend tonight's meeting, although I live 1/2 block north and 1 block west of the listed boundaries, at least so I can listen to the discussion.
Rudi wrote:
The object of these open houses is to fulfill statutory public notice requirements necessary to amending the Ogden City General plan.
This, if true, is really a concern. My impression, like Curmudgeon's, was that these meetings were for discussing the Mount Ogden Neighborhood Plan. Like Curmudgeon, I thought that these were not the public meetings mandated before amending the general plan.
But could these meetings be cited as being the required public meetings for amending the general plan later on, as Rudi suggests?
I don't know.
I'm going to type out the letter Mount Ogden Neighborhood residents received about these meetings. It does, as you will see, mention amending the general plan:
______________________
Management Services
Recorder's Office
Public Open House
Tuesday, June 13, 2006--7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Wasatch Elementary School, 3370 Polk Avenue
Dear Resident of the Mount Ogden Planning Community:
As you may be aware, there has been discussion about the possible development of the area known as Mount Ogden Golf Course and Mount Ogden Park. You may also be aware that there has been concern that a community plan for the Mount Ogden Community has not been developed. In order for anything to occur other than the present conditions, the City's General Plan would first need to be amended. Such an amendment, however, would also have the potential to alter the present conditions in the Mount Ogden Community in terms of the area of the golf course. The ability of the Community Plan to guide local development is based on the use of the General Plan for guidance in developing a vision for the future.
Ogden City's General Plan, "Involve Ogden," would not have been possible without the contributions of "involved" residents. Your neighborhood input is extremely important to help formulate what direction changes to the General Plan should take - if any; as well as development of the Mount Ogden Community Plan to help direct the future of the neighborhood.
You are invited to help us begin planning the Mount Ogden Community Plan and the General plan items affecting the area by attending a public meeting sponsored by the Ogden City Planning Commission which will be held at the Wasatch Elementary School located at 3370 Polk Avenue, on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. This meeting will begin to address the General Plan and the new community plan for the Mount Ogden Community. The community is defined as the area located between 26th-26th Streets East of Harrison Boulevard.
In order to give adequate attention to public input and have room to conduct the meeting, another meeting for those who live south of 30th Street will be held the following night on June 14th, 2006.
Please mark your calendars for June 13th, 2006, and plan to attend and "get involved." At the meeting we will present an overview of the Mount Ogden Community and define present conditions: as well as gathering information from citizens in your community who are interested in the future of the community and the City. Your ideas about the future for your community are needed.
Property owners, resident and business owners in this community are invited to attend.
For further information, please call the Ogden City Planning Office at 629-8930
________________________________
This line here:
This meeting will begin to address the General Plan and the new community plan for the Mount Ogden Community...
And this one:
Your neighborhood input is extremely important to help formulate what direction changes to the General Plan should take - if any;...
Hmm.
But I would think that the two public meetings required to amend the general plan would have to be well publicized and everybody would get letters about them.
Wouldn't they?
I would hope so. Otherwise, it would mean that after the meeting on the 14th, the way would be clear for a decision to amend the general plan to be made.
I typed that out hoping to clear this up and am now hoping I didn't make it worse.
I just looked at LiftOgden's website and they claim that they are holding a meeting from 4:30 to 7:00 pm, Thursday the 15th, at Ogden High School. On Ogden City's website they have notice of a community meeting that same night at 6:00 pm at 2484 Washington. Why would Lift Ogden hold a meeting the same night as the City? Or is the meeting mentioned on LiftOgden's website the City's meeting? Anybody know what is going on?
Anon:
I suggest you contact the Planning Commission office to ask which, if either, of the Thursday meetings have been called by the commission, and for what purpose.
Dian:
The Planning Commission meeting I attended, which called tonight's and tomorrow's meetings, made it very clear they intended them to gather information from Mt. Ogden community residents about the Mt. Ogden community plan. They also discussed general public meetings to be held later that would be part of the process of considering amendments to the general plan. Tonight's meeting and tomorrow's were called specifically for neighborhood residents as the first step in generating a Mt. Ogden Neighborhood community plan. Period.
Rudi:
Interesting, because when I saw your update, I called the planning commission office and they flatly contradicted what you posted. The meetings tonight, as per the letter every resident of Mt. Ogden community got in the mail, is for neighborhood residents only, and its purpose is to begin gathering public input to help draft a Mt. Ogden Community plan. It is, they have just confirmed for me, not a general public meeting for all residents of the city to consider alterations in the general plan.
Captain Red:
One point of clarification: though I post here a lot and support SGO, and I appreciate Mr. Zink's providing a public forum for discussion of WC matters, WCFORUM is not a SmartGrowthOgden website or blog.
Furthermore, nothing in the photo Mr. Zink placed at the head of this thread suggests it was done by, or on behalf of, SGO. I can tell you that SGO does not condone defacing or removing signs from the property of those who support Lift Ogden.
Thanks for the compliment, but I couldn't let your implication that defacing LO signs was something SGO condoned or recommended go un-challenged.
Does ANYone know.....
In order for these meetings to meet criteria REQUIRED by law, do they not have to SPECIFICALLY be advertised as such??
LOL! No... Weber County Forum is definitely NOT a Smart Growth Ogden affiliated blogsite, although our outlooks coincide on certain issues...
One thing we definitely DO have in common, though: we believe in asking questions.
This site is entirely independent, and is designed purely to promote unfettered 24/7 public discussion -- and shine the light of day on government in Weber County.
Kinda like the local beauty shop, or the friendly corner bar, where the townsfolk gather to discuss politics...
All points of view are welcome here, of course.
And as the old saying goes, politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows.
Captain,
You're a bit exclusionary, aren't you?
BTW, one or more LO people in my neighborhood are using some unwelcome muscle to bully residents from displaying Dave Thomas for Senate signs on their lawns.
In their place have gone up LO signs and Greiner for Senate signs.
Some have even been asked in a rude manner 'why' the resident would even think about supporting Dave!
This is just what happened with Dorrene Jeske signs during the very heated (in this neighborhood) recent City Council race. Even to asking, "Are you going to vote for her? Why?" And, "who told you to put that sign there?"
The ashes are still glowing red hot from that contest!!
I have observed that the group that has the least to offer is often the one that displays that truth by acting in very unseemly ways.
I agree that even if one does not reside within the stated boundaries, anything done to the Mt. Ogden properties affects all of us.
I attended a legislative luncheon today in SLC. Very interesting 'take' on Mayor Godfrey and his European trip, gondola scheme, and general disregard for the citizens of Ogden.
Capt. Red:
Two points: first, in defence of Mr. Zink [who absolutely does not need me to defend him], if he was told it was a genral meeting by someone at the Planning Office or Commission, he's got some ground to stand on. I think he's mistaken on this, but then, I didn't hear his conversation with the Planning Office. Not having sufficient information to state a firm opinion, I'll not state one. [Hmmmm... there's an interesting idea you folks over at LO might consider. Not reaching a conclusion until you have the evidence to back it up. Take a break from chanting "Yes!" and give it some thought.]
As for both organizations having some zealots who in their enthusiasm go too far: well, I don't know. I'm not sure that's true of either SGO or LO. Unquestionably there are some so commited to the gondola/real estate speculation and some so committed opposed that they overstep the bounds of good civic behavior. That they are [both groups] members of our respective organizations, I'm not sure. I don't think you are either.
So: I won't assume the "pro" zealots are LO members if you will return the courtesy and not assume the "anti" zealots are SGO members.
By the way: SGO has not taken a position in unalterable opposition to the "proposal" [politely so called] the Mayor and Mr. Peterson are flogging about the town, in various forms. It seems to change a lot. What SGO has done is raise a number of questions about the proposals --- serious ones, I think --- which need to be answered before the Planning Commission or the City Council or any citizen can come to some reasonable conclusion about whether the various plans will or will not be in the best interests of the city and its residents. I won't go through the list of questions... you can find them over at www.smartgrowthogden.org... but I will mention just one: the Mayor has recently gone on record to the SL Tribune saying he will not explain how he derives his latest estimate of $10 million a year in additional tax revenue for the city if the projects go forward. I find that extraordinary. The Mayor of a city promising specific increased tax revenues from a real estate deal by his friend that requires the sale of 28% of the city's parklands, and he won't explain how he derived the estimate?
Wow. Talk about chutzpah!
Interesting chattng with you, Red. Wish WCForum drew more diversty of opinion. Glad you came over for a spell.
2. The highest and best economic return to the city, as referred to in this article, shall be for cash, or its equivalent, and for not less than fair market value as estimated by one or more of the following methods:
a. Evaluation by qualified and disinterested appraiser; or
b. An information market survey conducted by the director of management services, or under his/her express written authority, in the case of items of real property possessing readily discernable market value.
I believe this would indicate that an appraisal is required because I don't think the land in question would be 'real property possessing readily discernable market value'.
If it were not for this blog and participants like Curmudeon, Arcritic, Dian, RudiKink, ArmySarge, Sharon and many Annony Mouses, this God Awful Gondola Scheme would just simply be steamrollered right across the whole city of Ogden.
God Bless the WCF, and God Bless Tiny Tim.
Nice point, ARCritic.
I think you may be on to something.
Although Utah courts tend to be slavishly deferential to decisons made by executive or legislative municipal bodies in general, the statute is fairly clear.
The only statutory alternative to a qualified appraisal under state law seems to be occasions where the subject property has "readily discernable market value."
Very good!
And here's a WCForum hat-tip to you for your extraordinary legal acumen!
Please move up to the front row of the WCForum class!
You have a good native legal mind. Maybe it has something to do with your self-admitted AR.
Thank goodness you didn't waste it all by becoming a lawyer.
Ozboy,
If it wasn't for the wicked witch of the east I would think that I was back in kansas. oh and toto too!
Rudi:
Your post reminded me of the storied career of the revolutionary firebrand Patrick Henry, who tried to make it as a store owner in colonial Virginia and went under. Then he tried to make it as a tobacco planter and went under. He tried to make it again as a store owner and went under. At which point he abandoned all hope of manking an honest living and became a lawyer.
That reminds me of the guy who tried to get into law school, but they wouldn't take him once they learned
that his parents were married.
"Patrick Henry?"
Funny you should mention that. Rudi will definitely COP to that.
Some of us throw grenades.
The rest of them sip green tea and chardonnay and toss creampuffs.
Rudi is an Ogden Boy; which means he's a streetfighter.
This is a blue collar town.
Get a grip.
Godfrey and LO are making major war on the creampuff-tossers.
Meanwhile, some folks still conduct themselves like they're attending a non-partisan tea-party.
Not to worry!
Our Weber County Forum readers will sort this all out.
And God Bless OzBoy!
Please toss me a cream puff...and a pot 'o herb tea!!
Oh, Toto, Toto, theres NO place like home!"
"And, Auntie Em, if ever I leave home again I'm going to ride in a gondola....those wild tornado winds can't touch me then!"
Thanks rudi, I find that very often I can see both or more sides of most issues and it often makes for some difficult decision making.
I have to read and deal with the law quite a bit in my professional job and that has helped me.
I do have to say that I was sure I would also find that in fact the council had retained some control of the actual sale of certain property in the city but other than the modification of the general plan and zoning, I don't see it in this ordinance. That does concern me.
It does seem like the Council gave away most of the farm on that one.
New comments are not allowed.