Reporting accurately is a difficult, but not impossible job. And an independent newspaper with a commitment to ferreting out the facts about major community issues and reporting them fairly, honestly and, when need be, fearlessly, is an asset to any city that should be highly prized. It is an asset that, sadly, Ogden seems just now not to possess.
Being as I am a faithful subscriber to the SE and a daily reader, I say this with some sadness. There is much evidence that it is true, and this morning's paper contains two good examples.
First, there is Ms.Rebecca Palmer's story on the recent Mt. Ogden Community meetings the Planning commission held at Wasatch Elementary as the first step towards drawing up a Mt. Ogden Community Plan. It is a prime example of the kind of "he said/she said" reporting to which the SE is apparently [and sadly] addicted.
He said/she said reporting works like this: say there is a public meeting held regarding some controversial project. Nine people speak against the proposal and one speaks in favor. If you have the subsequent story saying "Residents divide on plan" and quoting the one speaker who spoke for it and one of the nine who spoke against, and mentioning nowhere that public comment was overwhelmingly against the proposal, you have the SE "he said/she said" style of reporting in a nut shell.
Ms. Palmer's story is a prime example. I attended the second night of the Mt. Ogden community meeting, both the general session and three of the four break out sessions. Comments from residents that dealt in any way with the Peterson proposal or its consequences ran at least nine to one against the proposal. In the three breakout sessions I took part in, no one spoke in favor of the Peterson proposals. No one. All who did speak to it, spoke against.
I did not attend the Tuesday meeting, but I've spoken to several people who did, and they report as well that those who spoke about the proposal and its consequences far outnumbered the few who spoke in favor.
And how did the SE report this? This way:
"I propose selling the golf course," said Ken Burton, a businessman who has lived in the Mount Ogden neighborhood for more than 50 years. "Our tax base in Ogden is eroding ... I just think we need to increase the tax base."The first person actually quoted favored the Peterson proposal. Then one quoted in opposition. Any indication at all in the story that the overwhelming majority of comments was opposed? No. One quote for, one against. I have no doubt that Ms. Palmer considers this "balanced reporting." It is not. It is biased reporting. It gives the impression that commentary at the meeting on the issue being discussed was fairly evenly divided. It was not. But you won't learn that from the SE story.
Other residents said they wanted to keep the neighborhood just as it is now.
"As far as what I want to see in 20 years, I've lived here for 20 years," said neighborhood resident Chris Bentley. "I run these trails every morning ... I would like to see it stay pretty much the same."
The SE has another story about the gondola/Peterson proposal today as well, one by Mr. Scott Schwebke. But strangely enough, in that story, the "he said/she said" approach Ms. Palmer so sadly illustrated in her story is dropped in favor of reporting only the Mayor's version of what happened and why.
The story is headlined Godfrey Talks With UTA About Gondola. That, of course, is not the story, as the first paragraph makes clear: "OGDEN Mayor Matthew Godfrey says he has dropped a request for $8 million from the Utah Transit Authority to help fund a gondola system that would extend from downtown to Weber State University." The lead at least got it right: the Mayor has dropped his attempts to get UTA to kick in $8 million of public transit funds to help build the downtown leg of the gondola.
An interesting story, to be sure. Why, a reader might wonder, did he drop his attempt to get UTA to contribute millions? The story goes on to discuss a letter sent by Mr. John Inglish, UTA General Manager, to Mayor Godfrey in April, responding to his request. Here's what(in part) the letter said:
So far so good. Then the story quotes Mayor Godfrey, explaining why he dropped the request for UTA money:Inglish said in the letter that before he could make a recommendation to the trustees he would have to be assured the gondola funds would be used for public transportation.
There would also have to be a consensus among local elected officials that the gondola project should be funded with public transit money that accrues to Weber County, Inglish stated.
In addition, an analysis of potential risks associated with the project must also be completed, he said.
Some potential risks include construction cost overruns, insufficient operating revenue, the failure of private development to occur, difficulty in obtaining environmental permits, and public opposition, Inglish said. Other possible difficulties may include gaining permission from the Utah Department of Transportation to use Harrison Boulevard as a route for the gondola, Weber State University's acceptance of a lift station on campus, and acquisition of right-of-way easements on federal property.
OK, fair enough. The Mayor is certainly entitled to have the paper report his explanation. However, might there be another explanation of his action? There are people in Ogden who believe the Peterson proposal and gondola projects are unwise. One might think the SE, which seems to be so enamored of the "he said/she said" style of reporting would interview some of them to see if, perhaps, there was another explanation for the Mayor's dropping his pitch for UTA money.Godfrey said the $8 million originally requested from UTA is no longer needed, due to a proposal from developer Chris Peterson that would provide sufficient capital for the project.
Peterson proposes to buy Mount Ogden Golf Course from the city, redesign it, purchase about 150 adjoining acres from Weber State University and put upscale homes on some of the combined land.
Peterson also wants to purchase some additional city property adjoining the golf course and proposes to extend the gondola from Weber State University to his proposed resort at Malan's Basin and possibly farther up Mount Ogden.
The sale of Mount Ogden Golf Course and the adjoining property would be used by the city to fund its leg of the gondola, Godfrey said.
Turns out, there is. It seems [as Mr. Schwebke reported] that the UTA would require of the Mayor and Mr. Peterson precisely the kind of feasibility studies that any prudent commercial lender [like a bank or pension fund] would require before underwriting a project of this magnitude. Mr. Inglish seems to be a prudent manager of his agency's resources. Could it be that neither the Mayor nor Mr. Peterson can offer any evidence suggesting that the gondola/Malan's Basin developments are economically feasible, that they have a reasonable [much less good] chance of succeeding? Could it be that he withdrew his request for UTA money for that reason? Might it have been prudent of the SE to have interviewed someone with a different view than the Mayor on this for the story? Apparently, the SE thought not.
For this story, the SE seems to have suspended the "he said/she said" style so prominent in so many of its other gondola stories. As I said, it's not a particularly good style of reporting anyway, but if the SE insists on following it, it should do so consistently, and not apply it to the Mt. Ogden Community meetings story in such a way as to minimize the overwhelming majority of views opposing the Peterson development expressed there, and then turn around and permit Mayor Godfrey's self-serving explanation of his dropping the request to UTA for funds to stand un-challenged in that story. I don't think I'm the only one who suspects a double standard is at work here. And, on the evidence, I don't think that suspicion is wholly unfounded.
For example, a reporter interested in actually doing some digging might have asked himself this: The Mayor says he dropped the request because the Peterson proposal made it unnecessary. Well, when was it that the Mayor made his pitch to UTA? What date? [The story doesn't say.] And when did Mr. Peterson make his proposal to buy Mt. Ogden park lands so the city could use the money to build the gondola? Did the Mayor perchance make his pitch to UTA after Mr. Peterson made his proposal [which if so would render the Mayor's explanation of why he dropped the proposal nonsensical].
I don't know the answer to that question. But having read the SE story, I should know the answer. Maybe the answer will be consistent with the Mayor's explanation of his actions. Maybe it won't. The point is, the SE seems not to have asked.
The kind of "he said/she said" journalism in the Palmer story this morning, and the kind of non-probing "accept the statement unchecked" journalism in the Schwebke story this morning are not what make for great reporting and great city newspapers.
Or even good ones.
25 comments:
Excellent post, Curmudgeon!!
I totally agree about the coverage of opinions sticking excluslvely to "one for, one against," when the real circumstance is 20 for, two against, or whatever, is misleading reporting.
And I too wondered about the timing of Peterson's offer making it unnecessary to ask UTA for funds. The latest letter UTA wrote back to the mayor regarding his request for $8 million is dated April 4th, 2006. Here on our own Weber County Forum, our Esteemed Blogmeister posted an article with links about the proposed sale of the golf course on March 10th, 2006.
In looking at that, one can't help but wonder why, if the proposed sale of the golf course is the offer from Chris Peterson making the $8 million unnecessary, UTA was not aware of this, and proceeded to write its response of April 6th. It was not as if this wasn't all over the news.
The way Schwebke's article is written, with the mayor's comment that the loan from UTA is now unnecessary because of this offer leading right into the background on Peterson wanting to buy the golf course, does imply that the proposed golf course deal is part of the "offer."
But the article doesn't come right out and say that. And neither does Mayor Godfrey. So we really don't know, do we? This "offer" from Peterson making the $8 million unnecessary could be something entirely different, because this story doesn't really pin that down.
And another thing about this---I don't think the Ogden City Council had any idea of the mayor's latest request from UTA for gondola money. Since these funds, if given, would have been taken out of other UTA funding for us, our council should have been involved in this one. Had UTA not attached all kinds of conditions that must be met before this money could have been disbursed, would we have had a binding agreement between UTA and the mayor without the council even being informed of it?
Looks that way. There is the full text of a letter written from UTA in December of '05 to Councilman Safsten regarding this issue on the Smart Growth website. I will link that, and our March 10th article by Rudi here on WCF below:
Gates, Golf, Gondolas, and Greed: WCF March 10th
UTA's December '05 Letter to Safsten
On Wednesday, 6-14, Schembke wrote and the Standard Examiner published a story about the Budget and the Council's "punitive" message it allegedly sent to Fire & Police for going to what they call "impasse." According to the story, only Dorrene Jeske voted against the adoption of said Budget while Amy Wicks was the lone dissenting vote against the "sliding scale," which was the essence of the punitive message. The story reads as if EVERYONE else voted "Yea."
What this crack reporter left out was the fact the Councilmember Glasmann was ill and under the care of a couple of doctors since late May. He neither participated in any Fire or Police discussions or votes, over the last 3 weeks, yet the story insinuates that he was indeed present.
On Wednesday I spotted a small "Correction" on pg. 2A of the SE, mentioning that Glasmann had in fact been ill and that the story was somewhat misleading.
This tells me is that one must be diligent when reading these so-called "facts" that come to our doorstep with morning coffee. I wonder what else has or has not been accurate?
The AP wire service gets the headline right:
Ogden Mayor Drops Request to UTA for Gondola Funding,
And cuts to the chase re the most probable rationale:
"UTA General Manager John Inglish said in a letter to Godfrey that before he could make a recommendation to the authority's board of trustees authorizing the $8 million he would have to be assured the gondola funds would be used for public transportation."
Isn't it refreshing to know that SOMEONE has a clear head in this sideshow???
Any bank, bonding or lending institution would require a thorough investigation of all aspects of this gondola scheme before investing in it. Apparently UTA requires the same before doling out a pile of dough to this goofy idea.
The Little Lord will not ever go this route because he knows that if this scheme were ever to be thoroughly and competently studied it would be exposed for the foolishness that it is.
That is why he and his bestest buddy the "Son in Law" (SiL) have cooked up this reverse Robin Hood scheme to get it financed.
The basic idea is: Sell the golf course and city land to the SiL for pennies on the dollar - say $10 million for a $50 million dollar piece of property.
The SiL takes the $50 million property to bank and gets loan for say $40 million. Pays city for land and has $30 million left over. SiL puts $10 million in his own pocket as reimbursement for his efforts in putting deal together. Spends what is left on building so called "high end" houses.
If houses do not sale as expected to keep the deal rolling, then SiL takes hike with his aforementioned $10 million and whatever else is left over in the kitty when he decides the whole scam is going south.
Net result: Ogden City citizens lose the park land and open space. Same citizens are stuck with a monstrosity running through town that could end up costing them $60 million bucks. (See Portland, Oregon experience)
Now you Gondolists are sure to scoff at this projection, but in my opinion a variation on this theme is much more likely to occur than what the Little Lord and the SiL are trying to sell people on.
Ultimately this group of scalawags know that conventional financing sources will not fund this deal, and that the only suckers that could do it, and that might do it, and that won't ask for any pesky engineering or financial proofs - are: yep you guessed it - the great unwashed citizens and tax payers of good old Ogden.
After all, the Little Lord was able to scam those same trusting citizens into paying for his $20 million dollar boondoggle Rec Center without so much as one tiny bit of proof, or feasibility study, or any legit thing that said any of it made any real sense.
Why wouldn't he go back to that same well of endless public money that requires no rhyme nor reason before coughing up the millions?
The only thing standing between the Lord and his Gondolist, and the SiL, from pulling this scam off is the good senses of the City Council and the Board of Regents.
Let us pray for their health and mental acuity.
Jack:
Thanks for the fill in on Glassman. I was unware he was seriously ill. I wish him well and a full recovery.
In defense of the SE corrections policy: there is an on-going debate in the paper biz about where best to place corrections. On the same page, close to where the error was made? Or in one spot in the paper where all corrections, regardless of where the original error appeared, go?
Arguments on both sides. [More likely to be seen by people who read the original story if placed on the same page vs. if readers know all corrections appear, always, in the same place, they are more likely to check them and find them.] I confess, with some embarassment, that I have in the past angrily berated an editor [not here] for placing a correction involving me in the inside correstions section instead of on the page where the story appeared, and many months later, berated a new editor, who had changed the placement policy, for not placing a correction in the usual place on an inside page. Ah, well. All I could do was hide behind the fig leaf of Walt Whitman's comment that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It didn't help much.
So I think we have to give the SE a pass on the smallness and inside location of the correction. There is no winner take all solution to corrections placement. And they did correct the oversight.
And here's hoping yet again that Mr. Glassman is on the mend. Thanks again for the update.
rudi:
Well, I think the SE had a much better story than the AP [though granted, the AP headline was better.] The AP story for example mentions nowhere that the UTA told Mayor Godfrey that before it could consider forking over $8 million for his gondola/gondola scheme, he and Mr. Peterson would have to convince the UTA that the gondola and attendant land speculation and development schemes were in fact financially feasible, that they had at least a reasonable chance to be financially successful. The SE/Schwebke story did report that, and the AP story did not. If I have to pick which story I want making the rounds, it's Schwebke's, hands down.
I do hope folks who read it note the timing:
a. Mayor Godfrey asks the UTA for $8 million to build his downtown to WSU toy, aka the gondola.
b. UTA, acting as any prudent lender [bank, pension fund, etc] would when asked to provide major bucks for a big development project, demands feasibility studies to make sure the thing, and its attendant real estate projects [which it is primarily designed to serve] are likely to succeed.
c. Mayor Godfrey, on recieving that news, promptly withdraws his request for the money.
Very interesting. Of course, the Mayor's explanation for why he withdrew the request has I think a very high horse manure content. He says he withdrew the request because Mr. Peterson's offer to buy Mt. Ogden parklands would provide the city with the money it needed to build the gondola, so it no longer needed UTA money. Really? Somebody needs to ask the Mayor these two questions:
1. Has Mr. Peterson pledged to fork over the full construction price for the gondola as payment for the 28% of the city park land he wants to buy? [Now estimated to be considerably north of $22 million and rising.] If not, then why isn't the UTA funding needed?
2. Even if the Mayor has, somehow, arranged full funding from other sources, wouldn't it be wise to continue Ogden's application for the $8 million with UTA because, if Ogden got it, that would free up $8 million of the golf course purchase money for Ogden to use for other things. Like starting on the urgent repair of the city sewers, for example? Or providing reasonable pay raises for police and firemen [even if only by a significant one-time bonus since this would be one-time money]? Maybe let Riverdale train its own for a while.
Curiouser and curiouser.... But in the Alice in Wonderland financial fantasy world of Matthew Godfrey, who knows what he'll say next? Stay tuned....
I am so bloody angry right now!
Just like with Jeske's signs....I had permission for several of Dave Thomas's signs to be placed in my neighborhood.
You guessed it! The biggest supporters of the gondola scheme, who live here in my ward (what must the Lord think????) have managed to lie and itimidate some to remove Dave's signs...and in their place put.....are we ready??
LIFT OGDEN SIGNS...AND SOME GREINER signs!
I keep having this delusion that I live in America. Anyone else laboring under this delusion?
The targets for their lies, (yes, Ed, I said LIES) are very old people (97 and nearly 90 yrs) and widows. One widow said she is 'frightened' to keep Dave's sign in her yard.
Holy moly....who the &^%$#^& do these bullies think they are??
This gondola idea is rotten to the core when its supporters have to resort to lies and intimidation to have AMERICAN CITIZENS remove Dave's signs!
Some of my neighbors have a LiftOgden and Dave sign in their yard. So? We ARE allowed to have two opinions aren't we?
Last night Dave's sign and my SmartGrowth sign were taken. SmartGrowth was put in my neighbor's yard and HAD 3 PAINT BALLS SHOT ONTO HIS HOUSE!!! Dave's sign disappeared.
The paint washed off...but, this is still an act of vandalism and theft. My neighbor said he was young once...but if it happens again, he will call police. HAH!
There is no merit or honor in this scheme and its supporters....these bullies.
Is this how it was in Cicero, ILL in the old days? In Moscow?
This senate race has nothing to do with LiftOgden. The gondola is not on the ballot! IF EVER, we wouldn't be voting on that scheme for light years away. Yet, these bullies have told these hapless widows that Dave Thomas means a NO vote on the gondola. Talk about disingenuosness! They have it in spades!
BTW...know who Thomas's opponent is? And neighbor to these strong-armed thugs?
You're more than welcome, Cur. I agree, the "Corrections" get a pass. The point was the shoddy inaccuracies of the Schembkie story. It's also interesting that it took over 4 months to read where Ernest had "changed its mind," instead of fostering the blame on one or two councilmembers every time something appeared in those illustrious pages of our hometown newspaper.
Anyone seen John Wright?
Has anyone forgotten that the one that concocted the scheme only those police officers that have manage to meet their QUOTA goals of CITATIONS would get a pay raise in the police department. Oh Ya it is not a quota but is called “Personal Performance Goals”. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
This was the brain child of both Chief of Police Jon Greiner, (who is running for State Senate) with the help of the mayor.
Then after these officers pulling the citizens over day and night to reach their quotas. It now was funny that the following year they had no money to give the police officers their well earned way over due pay raise. Meanwhile the district courts have been swamped with court cases resulting from these citations which means a huge back log of arrest warrants.
Then Ogden city decided to offer amnesty of those who would come in and volunteer to pay their fines without going to jail. (Because the officers have not time to hunt down these people who haven’t paid their fines on these tickets because they are trying to meet their monthly ticket quota. Then the mayor gets this “Idea”. That maybe Ogden City can make even more money if they take the courts system from the state and create their own J.P. courts.
Now they need a building. They get it from the Weber County Health Dept.You know the one that is now vacant, run down and needs repairs badly. They figure to spend 1 million now they find out it is closer to 2 million and I wonder what the terms of that note is going costs the taxpayers, is there really going to be any saving for the first 10 years.
Now this is where the firefighters come in he threatens to make Ogden City Fire Dept. An all volunteer fire department!!! Which is a very big insult to these professionals that put their life on the line any day of the week for us citizens. Then to add insult to injury. He then tells them that he would given them more firefighter and more police officers if they would endorse the Gondola, then when this leaks out to the news media. Both him and Jon Patterson denied that was ever said during the negotiations.
After reading what I just typed this sounds to much like the Bad script to a episode of the “Dukes of Hazards” and they are boss hogg cronies. Like Mark Johnson Hummer, the soon to be J.P. Norm Ashton with his top of the line $50,000 plus Volkswagen, Chris Peterson Land swap deal for Gondola project. And then the three top Cronies of Godfrey are now running for political Office.
Which includes Nate Pierce with his $100,000 severance package. Leaves Ogden on a Friday, (bows and curtsey, while throwing kisses to the Taxpayers of Ogden saying thank you, Thank you very much, to Ogden Taxpayers) works for the County on the following Monday.
Stewart Read, $44,000 severance package that was not part of a written contract.
Chief of Police~ Mr. Ticket quota himself!!! Jon J. Greiner, Who threaten to fire every police officer that isn’t in shape, who he himself doesn’t look like any spring chicken yet alone Rambo.
It is too bad that these people don’t think that their sh~t stinks. Peeee-Uuuuuu.
Another Blast From the Past:
September 7th, 2005 Article, Standard Examiner, by John Wright, begins:
Landowner Chris Peterson is expected to submit to the city plans for a year-round resort in Malan's Basin on Mount Ogden within approximately 60 days.
Well, that didn't happen.
Moving on, we have:
...Godfrey, who has estimated the leg's cost at about $20 million, expressed confidence that other sources -- including possibly the Utah Transit Authority -- can be found.
UTA funding not happening, either.
There is no mention of housing in the park, but rather:
...Mount Ogden Golf Course remains a possible location for the station.
And finally, this gem.
...Peterson's billionaire father-in-law Earl Holding, who owns Snowbasin, has not expressed support for the proposal.
"I'm just not going to worry about that now," Peterson said.
He added that he is unsure how soon his resort could be completed.
"I can't make too many grand predictions like that," he said.
Well, if Earl Holding's non-support of this project might have been a reason for worry then, perhaps that is the reason for the new golf course/housing plan now. Maybe he really was banking on Snowbasin cooperation and money in order to bring this in.
And insofar as not making grand predictions,it seems that all we have is future predictive thinking. The gondola will bring X number of jobs, Y amount of tax dollars, Z tourists stopping off from I-15.
We still don't have a resort plan. They are now trying to get the "other funding" from the sale of our property, all the while spinning the phrase: There will be no tax dollars involved in the project. Whatever the truth or otherwise of that statement, the fact remains that the sale of public property results in public dollars, and it will be those public dollars being spent to build the downtown leg.
If they sell the golf course to do this, Our Money Will Be Used To Build That Gondola. No ifs ands or buts about that. Our money would be a portion of the "half billion dollar investment in Ogden." Possibly quite a large portion of it, too.
And speaking of that oh so distant past---do you think that Mayor Godfrey would have won the election had people known that he would try to sell the golf course and put houses in Mount Ogden Park?
And do you think WACOG, who voted its support for the gondola, still would have done so if this new housing development/golf course sale idea had been unveiled then?
This plan has changed so much that it seems sort of pointless to be talking about organizations who support the gondola plan. One would have to go back to the time of their support to ask which one.
That was then, this is now, in other words.
Here is a link to the article: Landowner commits to building gondola leg.
Dian:
One minor point: WACOG did not, I think, vote to support the project. Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey tried to get WACOG to do that. The most his brethren mayors would do was vote approval of "the concept" but since they said the Council had not approved of the project, they thought it would be premature [if not presuptuous] to decalre support. Especially of a project the Council had not yet received, much less approved.
Of course at the time, our Esteemed Mayor did not inform his co-mayors that any UTA money he got for the gondola would be taken out of existing Weber and Davis County UTA operations. I.E. bus service in their cities/towns would be reduced by the dollar amount UTA put into Ogden's gondola. And I think [I would have to check the dates] our Esteemed Mayor knew that at the time he pitched WACOG.
So, they backed "the concept," but not the project. Perhaps not a significant distinction, but Mayor Godfrey had asked for their full support and they chose instead only the "concept" wording so the WACOG group apparently thought the distinction worth making.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall of all those mayor's offices when they learned that Godfrey had tried to euchre them into approving a UTA funded Gondola in Ogden that would have resulted in significant cuts in UTA bus service to their own towns. Flys on the wall have all the fun....
It seems like the Chamber of Commerce and the Ogden Country Club endorsements were also for the "concept" and not the specific proposal as it now may or may not stand. Seems like there were some qualifying language in both endorsements. Seems also like the some of the stuff they, and others, are giving the thumbs up to are: 1200 new jobs, $5 million for the schools (or was that $10 million?), etc, etc. In other words every one likes the carrots that the Gondolists are hanging out there. Hey, what's not to like. Unfortunately, they are all just a bunch of Non-Sequiturs. All of these goodies are not supported by the evidence that the Gondolists are so short of, and secretive about. None of their logic justifies coming to these conclusions. They are selling pipe dreams and they are doing it with smoke and mirrors.
Hey Bernie--
Always an honor to be mentioned in the company of Charlie T. But if he and I and two others were the only ones you heard express skepticism at that event, you must've been choosing your company pretty selectively as you stood there guarding the poster that said how wonderful a ski area we'll have on the west side of the mountain. I could name dozens of others who came out of that event rolling their eyes, saying it was all nuts.
Rather than wasting our time speculating about what private commitments the mayor may or may not have, why don't you simply ask him how much the urban gondola will cost, how much he plans to sell the park for, and how much he really has in private commitments? If he's so sure he can make ends meet on this project without help from UTA, then he must have some pretty firm figures for all three. Why, then, is he keeping these figures secret? The mayor refuses to answer questions from me and from Smart Growth Ogden, but surely he'll answer if you ask him. Go do it! Get back to us soon.
Bernie:
Permit me to note that, unless I misread your post, you too thougth the Standard Examinerhad not accurately described an event it covered [the Peterson presentation at WSU]. Not having been there, I can't speak to the accuracy of your claim, but I do note that you made, essentially, the same complaint I did.
From my POV [and you seem to be replying to my post, at least in part], the SE should be, must be, no less scrupulously accurate in covering an event that has a visibly pro-gondola crowd present that it is in covering a public event in which those present lean the other way.
Look, newspapers are vitally important. They are pretty much the first line of defense in the country against the excessive or misleading actions of people in positions of power: in government or out. Who else is going to do that job? Certainly not the tv news shows which were infected with the "happy talk" format nearly a quarter century ago, and serve up chirpy banter about this anchor's hat and that one's shirts between reports of the latest gory car crash or murder.
Newspapers are all we have, and here in the Top of Utah, the Standard Examiner is it. It's what we have. And its far too important, and what it does matters far too much for it to settle for "adequate" or even "good" as a standard of performance. It's because what the SE does matters so much in a popular replublic like this one that they have to demand of themselves [and we have to expect from them] excellent reporting. All the time.
It's the news reporting staff that makes a paper excellent. The features, columnists, editorial department provide added value. I read them and enjoy their work, but without excellent day-by-day reportage, all that matters little. You can have a paper with an editorial page that is an industry embarassment but if it's reporting is top flight, it can still be a great paper. [All together now, let's say Wall Street Journal.]
To be the excellent paper it should be, and all of us --- left or right, liberal or conservative, Lift Ogdenite or Smartgrowther --- need it to be, it seems to me it has to accurate, fair and thorough in its coverage of public affairs. And that means encouraging its reports to dig a little, to take an elected official's public statment, or a partisan on either side of any pubic debate or discussion as something that needs to be checked, in so far as possible, all the time. And not merely as a statement to be reported accurately, period. I complain about the SE only when I think it has reported something inaccurately [the crowd commentary on "the elephant in room" at the recent Planning Commision meetings] or when I think it fails to do the kind of fact checking and apply the kind of healthy skepticism all reporters should apply to all public statements by government officials or participants in a public campaign or debate. Regardless of the party of the speaker or his or her position on the matter at issue.
It's a high standard, but, again, newspapers are so vital to the conduct of democratic government, what they do [or don't do] matters so much, they have to be excellent at it. I see no reason why the SE and its reporters cannot be, right here in Northern Utah, right now, a newspaper that sets the standard for excellence in public affairs reporting. If there is a reason the paper can't be that good, someone's going to have to explain it to me, because I don't see it.
Came across a quote from Bill Moyers just a few moments ago that might be appropriate here: "News is what they don't want you to know. Everything else is just publicity." A little over the top, I agree. But not by that much.
Since you're around, and mentioned a productive conversation with Mutch, I wonder where you stand on the idea he seemed to think is worth considering [I do too]: more or less Kent Jorgenson's Option B. The city or WSU sells Mr. Peterson a small piece of land, a few acres, somewhere near the head of 36th Street for his gondola base. He builds his gondola, with funds he has or raises on his own, and devolops his Malan's Basin Resort the same way. Frequent city bus service from downtown connects to the gondola station. He gets to develop his property, the city gets to keep its Mt. Ogden Parklands and not spend twenty-five million or so on a downtown gondola system designed primarily to deliver customers to Peterson's gondola.
That suggestion, I am told, is beginning to resonate with some Lift Ogden people. Are you one of them? I'd be interested to know what you think of Jorgenson's Option B.
Wow, I just about fell off my chair when I read this thread this morning!
For the very first time in the entire Gondola debate I have seen one of the rabid Godfreyite's actually write something that is true! Of course like an old fetid hot dog it was wrapped in a number of untruths!
Anyway, the only true statement I have read from this bunch comes from the Uncle in Law Bernie when he referred to himself as an "oily lawyer". Somewhere in his dim awareness he at least recognizes that basic fact!!!
A BMW Dealer?
Howbout a crooked used car dealer from Nogales with a lot full of Dodge Darts and Ford Pintos?
F*&k yer stupid!
Bernie:
You wrote Mudge, get me someone with money, desire and a little influence who will run with the idea you outline for the gondola and you may get the entire Lift Ogden crew.
Well, this involves exactly the point which looms so large for many of us who are skeptical about whether the Malan's Basin development is a viable idea [purely in economic terms; leave any other questions about it aside for the moment.] My view would be this: If this Malan's Basin development makes economic sense, if its a feasible project and is likely to succeed, then the private lenders who normally finance such projects [banks, pension funds, etc.] should be willing to provide Mr. Peterson the funding he needs to go ahead with it.
Your post seems to suggest [correct me if I'm wrong] that you recognize he cannot find funding there [or hasn't tried, or doesn't think he can find it there --- all amounts to the same thing]. Presumably because he cannot demonstrate to prudent lenders that the project has a good chance of success and would be a wise investment for them.
The golf course/gated community development therefor seems to be a necessary part of the plan because Mr. Peterson cannot provide prudent lenders with a plan for Malan's Basin development that will convince them it would be wise to invest.
I and others whose views I share are arguing that Ogden City should be no less prudent about what he wants us to invest [the park lands, and a multi-million dollar downtown gondola to service the Malan's Basin Resort] than a private lender would be. We ought to insist upon the same kind of feasibility studies, market projections and business plans first so we can determine if it looks like a sound investment. Until we have what any prudent bank or pension fund investment manager would insist on seeing before considering investing [indeed, there would be no way to evaluate the proposed loan without having that information first], the city should take put nothing of value owned by the public at risk.
We think Mr. Peterson's [apparent] inability to convince private lenders that his Malan's Basin development will work is a pretty good indication that it's not a viable project.
Speaking for myself: If he can secure private funding for the Malan's development, I wouldn't oppose the City or WSU selling sufficient land to him at the head of 36th Street to house his gondola base station and perhaps a shop or two adjacent. I gather you would not either. Our difference is, apparently, that I take his inability to find that private source financing as evidence that the project is not a sound one, and you do not. That about it?
Bernie
Thanks!
You said it pretty much like I expected. Slick, smooth, articulate - and Oily! You even had some true stuff in there - the attack on me that is.
As you know, representing clients who practice the "big lie" method of operation like you do, repeating the lie is a basic component of success. That is, tell a big lie, repeat it loud enough and often enough, and a lot of people will believe it. Sort of the hallmark of the Godfreyite movement.
Well naturally the antidote for this sort of social evil
must also be repeated over and over. I get a little tired of it myself, but some bodies gotta do it. Some one has to drive the stake through the blood sucking evil one's heart!
If it were not for this forum and honest intelligent promoters of the truth like Rudi, Dian, Curmudgeon, Arcritic, and many others, you and your band of incompetents would jam this goofy scheme through and cripple the tax payers and property owners of Ogden for the next fifty years.
I quite frankly do not understand how you and the rest of the puppeters in the inner clique at LO can look at yourself's in the mirror. Your tactics are very deceitful and manipulative, your collective business acumen and intelligence is of the lowest order. Your words are high brow and intellectual, but they are empty babble in the end.
Speak for yourself Bernie.
I for one happen to enjoy Ozboy's posts.
He seems to consisantly put the lies and
gyrations of the gondola backers to the "truth" test.
You do not seem to be able to answer his accusations with any reasonable facts or explanations, there for you are trying to diminish
his message by discrediting him.
I know he does a certain amount of personal belittling himself toward the gondola supporters. But at least he does it with some wit and humour and he basis his arguments on the truth.
You seem to be a pretty bright guy Bernie. Certainly you must know that the truth cannot be suppressed and manipulated for long in a free society. There will always be people like curmudgeon, Rudizink, dian, and yes ozboy - that will throw the lies right back in your face.
If there's ANYONE who doesn't drink "cheap Scotch," Bernie old boy, it's Ozboy. He's a native son, Ogden property owner (house not a shed), and one wealthy philanthropist with the best intentions imaginable toward Ogden.
Next time, look before you leap, dude. You might just land in some dog crap again, just like you did this time.
Cut Barnie some slack!
He's jaded by a lifetime's experience of "pretending" his depravced & felonious clients are all WRONGLY ACCUSED!
He's spent his whole miserable life spinning the facts in defense of murderers, thieves and mother rapers -- so long as they could manage his hefty retainer.
Promoting lies, half-truths and spin is his natural reflex to all situations. The tendency is burned into his brain. It's reflexive, in the Pavlovian sense.
To Barnie, his Lying Grift Ogden Lemmings are mere "grifters" -- mere petty thieves at most, in the greater scheme of criminality.
To Barnie, "they" should get merely a slap on the wrist for their deception.
Even a slap on the wrist would be too harsh a sentence for this Lift Ogden Bunch, in the Lawyer Mind of Attorney Barnie.
Barnie has an ax to grind on this issue too, since he's one of the perpetrators himself.
;-)
Ah, Rudi, you were born in the wrong century, I fear....
When the rebel governments following independence were drafting new revolutionary constitutions [since the old royal charters were now null and void], some debated adding clauses making it illegal to provide legal services for pay. I think Virginia was one of them. Alas, none, I think, of the revolutionary provincial congresses and legislatures that drafted the new constitutions include such a ban. [Been a long time since I worked in those documents.] You will not be surprised, I know, to learn that attornies were uncommonly well represented in most of the drafting bodies.
That aside, I've found few LO folks who are willing to discuss their advocacy, who do not simply resort to waving little signs and chanting "Yes!" Bernie seems willing to engage on the issues. Not many of them are. I figure he's entitled to some points for that.
Gentle Curmudgeon: "Bernie seems willing to engage on the issues."
Perhaps, then, Barnie will reveal to the lumpen townsfolke Chris Peterson's offered Purchase Price and Terms, sometime soon, we hope.
That would be a good start, wethink, now that Barnie has become a hesitant but semi-regular contibutor to this site.
And what about it, Barnie?
Frank disclosure will no doubt elevate your stature here from merely "oily" to outright squeaky-clean!
New clients will come to you in droves!
You can hang out a new "shingle," saying "Honest Lawyer Here," for the first time in your entire legal career!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Is not Bernie somewhat selfserving in that he's for the gondola so his property values in dowtown will rise?
New comments are not allowed.