There's lots of nutritious political red meat in today's news for our gentle readers to devour.
Here's our personal favorite for today: LDS leader: Refrain from bickering over gondola
Apparently Boss Godfrey got his dander up for being rightly-called "lacking in integrity."
He thus apparently appealed to the "higher muckimucks," so as to get the LDS "pod-people" in line.
In an extreme violation of the boundaries between church and state, LDS Church Stake President Goff "threw in" for Boss Godfrey at the pulpit last Sunday, and apparently intends to do the same at LDS church services tomorrow.
According to Stake President Goff, it's religiously unacceptable to label liars for what they really are.
Somebody needs to alert Gordon Hinckley of the gross political practices of politically-immoral people like Godfrey
As we understand it, upper echelon L.D.S. Church leadership "officially" frowns on this kind of political interference.
And what say our gentle readers about this?
49 comments:
Rudi:
You are making a huge assumption here, and one that I think may not be valid: that the statement was issued at the Mayor's request and to serve his ends. I don't think that's necessarily so. I've neither heard nor seen anything to suggest it's so.
This issue has in places pitted neighbor against neighbor, and church member against church member, and it has, sadly, led to more acrimony and personal attacks and raised voices than are healthy in a community [religious or civic]. Wouldn't surprise me at all if under those circumstances, a religious leader called for better manners on both sides, unprompted by the mayor or anyone else in particular.
Seeing Matt Godfrey skulking behind every tree and under every bed seems a little over the top to me.
"You are making a huge assumption here, and one that I think may not be valid: that the statement was issued at the Mayor's request and to serve his ends."
My assumptions are drawn from some obvious logical inductions, Curm. As Ace reporter Schwebke said, Goff's pronouncement was "unusual."
Having been involved in smoke-filled back-room politics for over 35 years though, I'm confident in trusting my instincts on this.
As for you, Curmudgeon...
I believe you are unduly cautious.
Rudi:
I am fairly sure this particular decision was not reached in a smoke filled back room...
[Grin]
well if this angle of politics is suprising to you, I guess you should all know that when the mayor ran for election the first time, he used the church directory to go and meet with all the stake pres. on Ogden and that is a direct violation of church policy. Oh no! Did Godfrey do that! Yep. But Godfrey's highly acclaim Integrity is but highly. It would be nice if godfrey would own up to whether or not he is using the church directory to send things to all the bishops in ogden as communtity leaders and how did he get all the address's to send out the information. if he didn't use the church directory?
well so much for highly acclaim Integrity!!! Now this is a fact and not just something made up.
Couple of things here. This:
The letter goes on to say the Ogden Stake does not condone bringing into its congregations “ill-tempered actions” toward stake members and warned worshippers against “backbiting” that might undermine or impugn the integrity of others.
First--is the insertion of that word, that word of the week, "integrity," from the letter, or is that Schwebke?
No matter the source, the use of it might be construed as making a not-so-veiled reference to the council meeting in which a speaker questioned the integrity of the administration.
Questioned. Not impugned, or undermined, unless questioning is considered to be either of these activities.
The use of that word in that context might be construed to imply that our recent incident involving the word "integrity" was somehow wrong, and I strongly disagree with this. More than strongly disagree with it. Questioning the integrity of the administration is not wrong. In fact, questioning leaders is a responsibility here in America, a free country, a democracy, where government functions at the will of the people. And furthermore, the questioning was not done in a situation of "backbiting--" it was done out in the open and face to face.
Add to that the end of the article, in which the mayor, having the last word, requests civility and speaks of uncivil actions towards him.
And I say again, neither the mayor nor the administration are victims in what has now been pinpointed as divisiveness in the community over this issue. In fact, they instigated the issue. The fact that some people do not agree with their take on the issue and say so does not make them victims.
Although the article states that the letter makes it clear that there are both good and bad people on both sides of this issue, I sense a journalistic slant here, a sort of messaging between the lines that I find unnecessary and more than a bit biased.
I suppose we can hope I'm misinterpreting that.
Please forgive me…..But I can’t understand what is going on in our society. Regardless of how little I think of Mayor Godfrey, I don’t think I am biased if I question why a religious leader makes such a public statement over this issue. I have worked the streets of Ogden for over a decade and have seen many disturbing things. There is a rampaging methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin epidemic in our city that brings with it violent crime, lost children and true victims. Why has these facts not motivated this local religious leader to speak out against them? Why doesn’t this pillar of the community chose to use his pulpit to better the common citizen in the city which he lives and preaches? There have been many definitions given as to what integrity means, on this site as well as in the City Council Chambers. It is my humble opinion that no matter what you think that definition to be, it was not displayed in Mr. Goff’s comments.
Anon:
Well, we disagree. Not being a member of the congregation involved, I can only speak as an outsider, but it doesn't strike me as strange at all that if members of it were descending into acrimony over the gondola matter, that a spokesman for the congregation might remind them that people can... and should... disagree about public policy without becoming disagreable.
I have no more information than you do, but I don't think, as reported, the Goff statement singled out the mayor for rhetorical protection. That's Rudi's reading of it, and I guess yours. Which conclusion you are of course free to draw. Just be aware that you are interpreting what was evidently a very general admonition to all sides to keep things civil and not let a difference over public policy tear apart neighborhoods or congregations.
Still seems an unexceptionable statement, on the whole, to me. And I still think folks are reading far more into it than the statement itself contains. It's very much the sort of plea for civility and an end to name-calling that several people have posted on WC formum over the last few months. I'm hard put, these days, to criticize calls for civility in public discussion. By anybody.
Which of course in no way limits the public's ability [and right] to draw conclusions, favorable or otherwise, about the integrity of public officials, based upon their statements and actions in office.
Thanks Anonymous for introducing a serious new element in this Godfrey Integrity issue.
The real core problems of Ogden that nobody in the administration gives a damn about or lifts one finger to deal with. To me that is the real test of integrity.
Godfrey has all this time and effort and public money to squander on his buddy's idiotic plan and the poor huddled massess can go to hell as far as he is concerned. I don't care who's book you look into, that is pure low class and heartless, and that ain't integrity. He is supposed to be the mayor of all of the citizens of Ogden, not just the Gondola jingoists.
Godfrey can blow off lord only knows how much of our tax dollars promoting the private, and so far unofficial, development deal of Petterson's, and at the same time stiffs and insults the very best public servants that we have. He chisels them out of a decent raise, makes it so that they have to prey upon the citizens by writing tons more tickets in order to finance his bankrupt regime. He tells the cops and fire fighters by his every action to go screw themselves. He lets his Chief insult our finest without raising a lousy little peep in protest. Not once in the entire salary debate did Godfrey say one stinkin little public word of incouragement or appreciation for the men & women in blue. You call that integrity? I sure as hell don't.
I don't think it is fair to make the implications toward the church that some have made here. If you seperate Schlebke's inaneness out of it, it was a pretty basic plea from on high to cool things down. I assumed maybe they were talking more to the Gondola fanatics than they were to any one else. Let's face it, the Gondola group has been incredibly agressive, disingenuous, and abusive to any one who wouldn't drink the cool aide with them. The Smart folks seem to be pretty non aggresive, and focused on promoting the asking of questions and finding the truth.
I think it perfectly within the rights of the church to speak to their followers on subjects like this. It is sad that a few of their own high priest leaders have caused this split in the community. I think President Goff was speaking to them. At least I hope he was.
How did a statement made in church by a Stake President end up in the paper anyway??
I don't recall other pronouncements made for one congregation making the morning papers.
I thot that Godfrey's whine at the end of the article seemed planted there by Schwebke. (for Godfrey).
Why not quote some other ward or stake member?
Godfrey brot all this upon himself when he unblushingly set himself up as the epitome of integrity.
I agree with TED. The real test of integrity can be measured by Godfrey's lack of interest, respect and appreciation for the true public servants of this city.
Not only did he NOT speak up for these men when Greiner denigrated them...he also walked out just as the police spokesman stood to speak a couple months ago. Godfrey had to get across the street for another snake oil exhortation.
Tom Owens called it just right that night. He said ,'here is the true character of the man....'.
If a congregation is being scolded for not being nice to one another, WHY did that have to make the paper?
Not every SmartGrowth supporter, and not every LO supporter are LDS.
No wonder we're looked upon as a 'peculiar people.'
I found the article and its content disturbing and, in my opinion, a schmooz for Godfrey.
Things are very uncivil in my ward...but NO one has ever heard one word from my mouth AT CHURCH about this entire gondola plan nor any of its supporters.
I think Godfrey wanted someone with a higher authority than his own perceived one to go to bat for him.
Just like a bratty kid who instigates fights on the playground and when the other kids bat him around for it, he runs and hides behind the teacher's skirts.
Sharon:
Well, look, the Goff statement involves the gondola/real estate speculation dispute. I figure anything involving that just now is going to draw press attention. And, sorry, but the fact that a church leader thought things had gotten so hostile, neighbor to neighbor, that a reminder to his flock to cool it was needed... well, that's news. And the SE not only asked the Mayor for comment... which seems, again, unexceptionable to me... it also asked one of SGO's more prominent spokespersons, Mike Vause. Again, I'm hard put to find anything wrong with that.
I've thumped the SE hard, here, when I thought they've blown something. But I don't think they blew this one. Had I been an editor, I'd have printed the story. And I'd have expected my staff to ask for comment by the mayor and by someone popularly recongnized as representing the main group on the other side. And the story did that.
That the mayor is trying to spin the statement into an admonition that no one question his integrity is hardly surprising. But let's remember, that's the spin the Mayor is trying to put on it. That's not, it seems, what the Goff statement actually says. All this hooraw about it still seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.
Ted:
Yup. With respect to the Goff statement, I think you've pretty much got it nailed. Good post.
When I saw the article this morning, I wasn't surprised. After the letter that Bob Geiger wrote complaining how badly the Lift Ogden signs have been damaged and stolen, the graffiti and insults that they have endured. Bob lives in President Goff's Stake, and so I think that is what perpetrated President Goff's letter. It's almost laughable, but when all that happens during campaigns, plus attempts to ruin reputations with false allegations, no one gives it a second thought -- that's part of politics, no matter how it divides Wards, Stakes and the City. So I have to question why President Goff wrote his letter now. I do recall that he wrote a commentary that was published in the SE giving some valid reasons for why he couldn't support the gondola/resort proposal. A few days later, he reported that after Mayor Godfrey talked to him, he retracted his statements. This is just all too cozy with preference to the Mayor rather than concern for his congregation I am afraid.
And speaking of integrity, anonymous hit the nail square on the head in his post: "But I can’t understand what is going on in our society. Regardless of how little I think of Mayor Godfrey, I don’t think I am biased if I question why a religious leader makes such a public statement over this issue. I have worked the streets of Ogden for over a decade and have seen many disturbing things. There is a rampaging methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin epidemic in our city that brings with it violent crime, lost children and true victims. Why has these facts not motivated this local religious leader to speak out against them? Why doesn’t this pillar of the community chose to use his pulpit to better the common citizen in the city which he lives and preaches? There have been many definitions given as to what integrity means, on this site as well as in the City Council Chambers. It is my humble opinion that no matter what you think that definition to be, it was not displayed in Mr. Goff’s comments." Nor is it displayed by the Mayor who uses tax dollars that pay his wages to lobby for a private enterprise practically full time while neglecting the duties that he was elected to. He has abdicated his responsibility to the City while using taxpayer money to further Chris Peterson's pursuit of becoming a multi-millionaire by using City resources to advertise and promote the gondola/resort project. If you believed everything that was printed, video recorded, and shouted, then you would think that all the studies have been done, all parties concerned have met, agreed and signed on the dotted line. HOW CAN ANY ONE BE MORE DECEITFUL? And Godfrey claims to not only have integrity, but his is the highest integrity! All I can say is that we do not use the same dictionary, as my definition of integrity is vastly different from his.
I can't say all that I would like to about Godfrey's integrity in performing his job as Mayor of Ogden because I want this post to be published. I've already erased several points that need to be made but may be interpreted as too controversial, so I have toned down my comments. I have studied the Mayor and wondered how he could answer the questions required for a Temple Recommend truthfully and still receive a Recommend. The conclusion that I have come to is that he doesn't believe that he is doing anything wrong. In his warped point of view, he is doing what is best for Ogden, regardless of how he does it or who he hurts/steps on.
When I read the article, the first thing I thought was, "how will Rudi spin/report this to get the greatest response in his blog.
I will admit it does seem a bit odd that a stake president would have a statement like that read in the wards. Seems that there must be some significant divisions going on that he feels are getting out of hand.
I also keep missing the flaming trolls that Rudi keeps censoring (not that I would disagree with him on that), but I wonder how many people who hold the mayor in high regard would have wanted the person questioning the mayor's integrity censored as well.
And the fact that people will post the kinds of things that Rudi would delete (cause I would probably have deleted quite a bit more than he does) seems to indicate that there is a lot of uncivil behaviour out there. Which might lead a religious leader, if the uncivilness were amoung his flock especially, to make a statement.
And Sharon, I think that the statement was meant to be taken into our daily lives. I would hope there are not shouting matches AT CHURCH, but if there are shouting matches between neighbors that are both LDS should that simply be ignored by church leaders? Even when the shouting match is about something STATE related (state not stake)?
Gospel principles are suppose to be how we live our lives not how we act AT CHURCH.
But I have to admit this makes for very intersting blogging.
I have scout camp this week so try to keep things tame while I am gone. I would hate to miss any major meltdowns.
Arc...
Incivility does not always entail 'shouting matches AT CHURCH'.
There are lots of nasty ways to be quietly offensive.
I got a kick out of Michelle Geiger's letter today. she's upset that so many LO signs have been stolen. Not one SGO sign was tho.
Got news for ys, babe. Mine was...dumped at the neighbor's. The same neighbor was paintballed.
Uncivil? Yeah. About 100 Jeske signs and an inderterminate number of Thomas signs gone...uncivil? yeah...and an act of vandalism.
Neighbors intimidated and lied to to remove Thomas signs from their yards. Uncivil? Yep....UNAmeraican too.
Many more instances, right here in a nest of Ogden's 'finest' citizens. The ones we read about, who are either in the higher echelons, or privy to the inner sanctum of the man with the highest integrity.
Sometimes it is pleasant to be here...other times, it is rather like stepping gingerly around a nest of vipers.
Arc...have fun on the Scout trip...watch those vipers and we'll hold the fort.
"...warned worshippers against “backbiting..."
Godfrey agrees, adding he has been the frequent target of vitriol from plan opponents...
back·bite (bkbt) KEY
VERB:
back·bit (-bt) KEY , back·bit·ten (-btn) KEY , back·bit·ing , back·bites
VERB:
tr.
To speak spitefully or slanderously about (another).
This statement accusing plan opponents of "targeting" the mayor with "vitriol," in my opinion is what Goff is requesting people not do. Right in the middle of a statement ostensibly agreeing that this sort of thing should not occur.
Actually, it also implies that these plan opponents are responsible for this state of affairs that has resulted in Goff's statement.
And therefore represents a continued engagement in the "bickering," instead of the cease-fire that Goff is advocating.
Hmm. Now that's interesting.
American Heritage definition--backbite
After all the years I have co-existed in Ogden with the LDS Saints this is the perfect example of why I would never consider becoming one.
No self-respecting church leader would make such a public statement in the newspaper unless it's purpose is to tell the non-believers to "lay-off" one of the anointed.
What is sad is that this division of the community could have been totally avoided if they just put the thing on the ballot and let the people chose if they want this thing to go in.
I guess, when you are of that kind and don’t believe in a true democracy, or understand the purpose of the Constitution Of The United States that starts out with these words.
“In Order To From A More Perfect Nation”.
“A Nation By The People, Of the People, For The People.” which is a democracy.
Why don’t they put it to the vote. That right we are not a Democracy, we are a Republic.
However when the concept of “a Republic decision” begin to tear the fabric of the community apart, then it about time that democracy take over and let the people decide by ballot vote. But when the politicians can not trust the voters to make the right informed decision, then it is time for the politicians to get out of office. The one single word that describe this is call. ”Arrogance” coupled with “Not in touch with the people”.
miz D
I hope you are acquainted with some LDS who are not backbiters and filled with vitriol.
Most Latter-Day-Saints are lovely people and make good neighbors.
However, everyone has the right to express their opinion and to speak up when a wrong is being perpetrated.
Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment, some are prone to excesses in behavior.
In the case of the mayor...it is my opinion that Pres. Goff should have just taken the mayor inside the President's office and had an interview with him about his actions.
Latter-Day-Saints are universally known (with some exceptions) to be a people of honesty in business and personal dealings.
Dare I say most are well regarded for their 'integrity'?????
Every now and then along comes someone who aspires to a high office who truly believes that he (she) is the answer to all of his realm's needs and problems.
Humility and teachableness are not attributes of such a person.
I would say that common sense was not an attribute of those voters who put Godfrey into office TWICE!
Miz D:
I think the paper reported that the statement was read out at churches last Sunday, the LDS equivalent of a pastoral letter. The SE considered it news and reported it. Which is not quite as you've summarized the matter.
Gotta tell ya, I think some folks have abandoned objectivity and are now simply looking for things to grouse about, and stretching things pretty far trying to find them.
The letters I've heard over the pulpit have either come from the First Presidency of the Church..or certainly with their blessing.''I didnt read that this was the case.
I agree with Sharon. I think that Godfrey's President (Goff) should have interviewed him in private. It's Godfrey and his lies and buddying up with Peterson that has started this whole mess.
Seems to me that this letter just helps Godfrey in his self-righteous and arrogant attitude. Didn't someone say that Goff was first against the gondola, but then the mayor gave him all the 'facts', so now he's in support of the gondola plan?
Seems self serving so me. I sure don't agree with curmudgeon.
This should have been a private matter between Goff and Godfrey.
Not a public matter making it look like non-supporters are at fault. A big win for Godfrey on this one.
Can't you see how Godfrey manipulates everythin for his favor?
He now has Reid and Greiner on the ballot...another win win for Godfrey. He'll have 'his man' in the Senate either way!
The little emporer thinks of everything. Dangerous.
Hey anyone that lives in the senate 18 district,
Lets run someone as a write in candidate for the state senate. I know people in both parties that will vote for anyone but those two yaahoo's and this would take the sail out of godfrey lungs. What do you think?
Well, I went back to reread the newspaper article, just to be sure my memory was correct.
Based on what was reported in the article, Goff's statement read to the church members did not mention the mayor, either to criticize or to ask others not to criticize him. He simply was not mentioned, so far as the SE story reports. So where folks get the idea that Goff's purpose was to warn off church members from criticizing the mayor, or even more astonishingly, that his purpose was to warn off non-church members, absolutely escapes me.
The ONLY person who has suggested a purpose of the message was to have people stop questioning Mayor Godfrey's integrity is... Mayor Godfrey. That seems to be entirely his spin on the message. And I am, frankly, surprised at the number of people posting here who are clearly no friends of the Mayor but who are accepting what seems to be entirely his spin on the message as accurate.
Once again, some folks here seem to be going way way off the deep end on this.
But enough for me. This is my last post on this topic. Time to celebrate the victory of L'azzurri in the world cup, anyway. Forza Italia!
Ciao, paisans....
In regards to the Geiger letter in today's paper mentioning all the "Lift Ogden" signs being stolen, I have a different conclusion as to where those signs are going. I think the signs are being removed by the home owners themselves. I have talked to a couple of people that had signs in their yards and asked them what happened to their signs. They indicated that they no longer believe that the urban gondola is a very smart idea and have removed "Lift Ogden" signs from their yards. All want to see improvements in the city but the more info they get about the project the more questions they have and the less they see it as doing what the promoters are claiming it to do.
Well, Well, Well.....Look who the “WHINERS” are.
First you have the police being called "Whiners" by the Chief of Police himself, who is "whinnying" about "whiney officers" who forgot that he had to do some "whinnying" to get his high salary and along with his police pension without leaving the job. And if that not enough money "whinnying" to the voters to become a Utah Senator to collect more money because the city of Ogden not paying him enough.
Then you have the Mayor after accusing everyone who attended the council meeting that evening, “whinny” by claims that he is the only one in that city council meeting with the most "integrity", which leaves a bitter taste in everyone else mouth that not only is he "whinnying", but he insults everyone one else by implying that they have not the "integrity" to the level that he has.
Then when he received the backlash of the fallout over that statement. He then goes to his stake president, like a good little spoiled brat "whiner", and has him read a letter to the wards, to get everyone off of the mayor’s back for his piss poor example of leadership.
Where is the Chief of Police Jon Greiner, to go the new media and call the Mayor Godfrey nothing more than a "whiner"?
You also have L. Nate Pierce "Whinnying" about the being under Godfrey leadership and leaves Ogden, but not until he "whines" to get his $100,000 severance package, where he starts work for the county the very following Monday. Then Stewart Reid "whinnying" for his severance package as well.
Then you have Mark Johnson "whinnying" about having to take his Hummer back because the citizens feels he was out of touch with the taxpayers who money he used to lease this thing.
This whole damn administration is full of nothing but a bunch of "WHINERS".
Remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
My husband is an employee of Ogden City. Weeks ago his department head provided all employees with Lift Ogden signs, with instructions to place them on our lawns. We refused to do this. Instead, we have ours hidden in our garage.
Hopefully, nobody from the city will be checking up on us.
We are neither for or against the gondola, but we feel it's wrong for Ogden Officials to coerce employees to involuntarily promote a proposal that some of us do not favor.
I don't have a firm opinion on whether or not the letter was written at Godfrey's request. Don't know. As Curmudgeon says, the letter basically asks people to stop personal attacks and divisive behavior, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, in reading the article, one did have the impression that the Mayor and Goff were allies. This impression was caused by the quote of the mayor's at the end of the article, including as it did, first, a statement of agreement with Goff, and then accusations against non-supporters of the project-- that they indulged in behaviors Goff was speaking against.
That was what caused that impression, in my opinion, and for all I know, it may indeed be a correct one, but I agree with Curmudgeon---the letter itself did not state that. Delicate nuances here.
Interesting about Ogden City, Anonymous!
Anonymous,
who has the husband that works for the city,
If that really happened then the press really needs to know about it because there is a state law that is to protect the employees form this coercetion, as well as don't politic on the city's dollar, and I wonder if this how gondola thing is not just a polical campaign. and should be look as such. some thing to think about. maybe the mayor is braking the state law with this whole lift ogden deal. some one should look into it?
Here is the law and I would really like to have someone's oppinion on this matter. maybe curm you could give an opinion about this or maybe dian would you look at this.Utah state law on employee rights
To the last Anonymous,
This isn't the first time the mayors pressured city employees or contractors that work for the city.
He tried to get the fireman's union to endorse his urban gondola and they went to the press but nothing happened other than his people denied it. In his mind, if you have your people make the request instead of doing it yourself personally, then techically you didn't do anything wrong. He's a real integrity type of guy.
Most of the people that work for the city are afraid to voice their opinions against his urban gondola project. The consequences are to great on their personal situation.
And as for proving the money trail, Councilwoman Wicks, has filed a legal request for the information that would answer the question as to how many city dollars have been spent. I don't think the mayor has turned loose that information. I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than he's let on.
As far as breaking the law, maybe that's why the mayor doesn't want to timely answer Councilwoman Wicks request for the information.
Employee Rights:
Thanks for tracking down, posting the law. Just read it over. It keeps referring to "political" activities, "political party" and "partisan" activities. I don't think distributing gondola signs to city employees and asking them to take them home and post them constitutes the kind of political activity that is referred to in the law. No election is under way, the gondola scheme is not a matter of partisan dispute between Democrats and Repulbicans, and there is no referendum on the matter coming up. So distributing the signs to city employees and asking them to put them up on their lawsn may in fact not violate any of the provision of the law you posted.
I doubt the Mayor could order them to display the signs, or overtly punish and employee for refusing to do so. But I suspect he has not violated this particular law by distributing them and asking them to put them up. Was it ethical for him to have done so, and in such a way that employees believe they may be punished in some way by the administration for refusing? Of course not. But it probably wasn't illegal.
However, I am not an attorney, and would welcome the opinion of one of that tribe on the matter if any such are reading this.
Emp Rights:
Seems to me that (e) fits the bill.
If the wife of the city employee is correct, and I believe she is, then "lending the lawn" to push the gondola scheme would fit here.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd like to play one on TV. Ch 17, perhaps.
Anon...I've noticed a few less LO signs in my neighborhood. Thank goodness, some people are waking up.
Perhaps Curm, who is sick of discussing the Stake President/Godfrey saga will like to comment on an article in the same edition?
Those businesses who are aclosing to make room for the River Parkway project.
June Robinson closed her Cedars Restaurant June 16. She stated, "they are screwing us over." And, she will never do business in Ogden again.
There are others who are isenchanted with teh business friendly atmosphere created by Godfrey and his A Team.
Read yesterday's article, "River Parkway in Limbo.
Yessiree...Godfrey really knows how to get and keep businesses thriving in Ogden.
Any bets on which CC members will get the blame for this?
Helloooo
Any news about the West Liberty company?
Have they gone to Tremonton?
Understand they need more power to run their plants. If the city can pay gas allowances for 'administration' and find money for the mayor to fly to Europe...couldn't they find some money to help West Liberty stay in Ogden?
Sheesh!
abner,
I think that you are right in the paragraph (E)which states (e) a municipal officer or employee may not directly or indirectly coerce, command, or advise another municipal officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute part of the officer or employee's salary or compensation, or anything else of value to a political party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes;
Is not lift Ogden a committee to get the issue past by the city council?
I would think that it would then be in violation of the law! espically where it states command the employee, and the officer of the mayor told the employees to help the lift ogden committee, by putting the signs up.
At looking at this futher I think that lend the property of the employee or anything of value, which also could mean time and energy.
Employee rights:
I am not an attorney, either.
My browser crashed on the Utah State Code page during an attempt to look up the definition of the word "political," as used in the Code. I guess this task was too much for it.
However, the word "political" is defined in the yahoo dictionary, meaning #5, as:
"Having or influenced by partisan interests: (ex.) The court should never become a political institution.
And the word "partisan" is defined in that same work as:
"A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."
So if we look at these garden variety definitions, this could, in my opinion, be termed a political activity.
For the sake of argument, let's say that it is, and go on to the next question, which deals with "something of value." You would have to prove that, in placing a sign in your yard, you had been made to provide something "of value." You could argue that you did, in that you had provided advertising space, which is valuable. They could argue that you didn't, since no money changed hands. This is another thing that would have to be decided. (section e.)
In another part of the statute, the question of the effect on your employment of this action is gone into. To make it open and shut, you would have to be able to prove that your employment status had been affected by this situation. As in being demoted if you refused to place the sign, promoted if you did place it, etc. (section f.)
Which brings us to the third part--direct and indirect coercion, which are mentioned in the statute. Direct coercion would be, for instance, the making of statements like--do this or you will be fired. Indirect coercion Might, and I say Might, be that the possibility of being fired for noncompliance is there, but nobody came right out and said it. This then would be a matter of interpretation both on the part of you having gone through it and on the part of the legal entity looking at it.
So my thoughts would be that these questions would have to be answered in order to see if 10-3-1008 applies here:
Is this a political activity? (Would have to be a yes in order to make the statute apply.)
Was something of value given under duress?
Or...
Was employment directly affected by compliance or non-compliance?
Was direct or indirect coercion present in this situation? (I think this also would have to be a yes, and indirect coercion the way I am looking at it might be a tricky thing to establish, if it were felt that a threat to your employment was there, but was never carried out because you complied, or something like that.)
I was thinking that if this activity is indeed defined as being "political," Section d would also fit, in that "officer may not use municipal equipment when engaged in political activity" and this would include telephones, computers, storage space, meeting rooms, etc.
But it might be a stretch to establish the meaning of that word, "political" in this context. That's what the whole thing hinges on, I think. In my opinion, of course.
Sharon:
Well, sick is going a little far. Just seems that we have, on the Goff statement, arrived at the point where every thing that can be said based on what we know has been said by somebody, and we're starting around the circle again. Little point to that, IMHO, so I'm done on that topic. Others are free to keep on discussing it all they like. It's just that absent more information, it doesn't seem to me more discussion is likely to lead to more light on the matter, only more heat.
About the River Project article: I read it. And I saw the same complaints by business owners you did . I also saw quoted in the article business owners who said they'd been treated well by the city in this matter and thought Ogden was a good place to do business and they were going to stay in business here [none of whom I noted you quoted in your post.]
As for me: the River Project is a done deal. The previous council locked it in. I have no idea if it was a good idea or not, if it will ultimately succeed or not. Part of the plan clearly involves up-scaling the businesses in the river redevelopment area just as it involves up-scaling residential properties in the area. Clearly the city is hoping to move, say, car repair shops out and upscale retailers and fern bars and cafes in. Whether this will succeed, as I said, I don't know. Whether the whole RDA project was wise, I don't know. We will have to see. I certainly hope it succeeds.
As for the complaining business people, in their situation, I'd be complaining too. But we also have to remember that some of them were bitterly [and probably with good reason] opposed to the whole project from the start. Given that, nothing the city could have done as part of their forced removal would have satisfied them. And certainly the delays in the project have made things worse, leaving them in limbo [as they noted] far longer than they had reason to expect. On the other hand, one was complaining that he was being moved out too fast.
I think Mr. Godfrey has mismanaged the city's business and has, so far, a not very impressive record of fostering successful development. But cherry picking complaints from the article [and ignoring those happy with the way the city's treated them in the same development area] doesn't add much to the discussion.
We are going to have to be patient on this. It will work well, or it won't. I hope it's the former. I am not optimistic, but Ogden has nothing to gain from a failed River Project. We just won't know if it was a good idea and well managed for some years yet.
Regarding the River Parkway, I attended a council meeting wherein it was decided to use the $2.5 million insurance money the city expected to receive from the Shupe Williams fire to purchase properties for that project.
I don't know whether or not the city has received that money.
Council members who spoke to the issue appeared certain that all issues had been resolved, and that the property owners were eager to sell. In fact, some indicated that at this point it was best for the city to buy these properties, since these people had been "in limbo" for years, and this was a way to resolve that problem.
In the past month, I have heard some things indicating that not all owners are happy with this "solution," and this article now indicates that lessees are not happy either.
The thought that now occurs to me is that if the city is driving away downtown businesses by its own actions, any statements about Ogden needing gondolas or projects to improve the tax base are shown in a new light. We have been told that people have left Ogden because of undesirable conditions here, and because of this, we must "do something," and that something involves supporting all these projects. Now that it appears that some people have left not so much because of an undesirable status quo, but because of conditions imposed by the city that have had the effect of driving them out, it does change the picture.
I wonder how many of them there have been.
Dian:
Damn good question.
Regarding the River Project: I hesitate to speak up because I'm rather ignorant of the details, but I do have a few thoughts to add.
First, I can certainly see the potential. Just visit Boise to see a tremendously successful river trail that's been integrated with a variety of neighborhoods including downtown. The biggest difference between Boise and Ogden is that their university is adjacent to downtown and ours isn't--thanks to a decision made decades ago that in hindsight may have been unwise. But even without the university, I think there's a great opportunity to join the Ogden River Parkway with commercial and retail (and additional high-density housing) development. I commend Mayor Godfrey for his role in extending the River Parkway itself from Washington all the way west to Gibson.
Second, most of the controversy surrounding the River Project seems to have centered on the threatened use of eminent domain. If I'm not mistaken, this is no longer an option for the city thanks to the law passed by the legislature a while back. Whatever our opinions on eminent domain, I would suggest that we now set that issue aside and give the project a fresh look.
Third, I wonder if the city is trying to move too fast on the River Project. The southern edge of the RP is five blocks north of what's usually considered the center of downtown (25th Street), and three blocks north of the Intermodal hub and whatever transit development (streetcar, gondola, bus rapid transit) eventually heads east from there. It's well established among urban planners that most Americans are not willing to walk more than a quarter mile (two Ogden blocks) at a time, so the River Project will not be within walking distance of most downtown destinations. In the space between the RP and 25th Street there's a lot of real estate that still needs redevelopment. I suspect that it would have been wiser to fill in more of these gaps first, and hold off on the RP until there are more attractive places within walking distance of it.
Fourth, all of these issues are probably academic, because the city has already committed too much to the RP and any delay at this point would probably do more harm than good. So I suppose we'll just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Eventually, of course, we should push for a second streetcar line that heads north from the Intermodal Hub to the RP and destinations beyond...
Dan S:
With respect to the spread between downtown and the river project: absolutely right. The problem is, Ogden's rivers do not run though downtown. The very successful riverside developments in other cities, like Boise and San Antonio, all involve rivers that run through the downtown areas.
Can Ogden support two restaurant/shoppe districts, one on/near 25th street and the other along the river relatively far north? At this time, I doubt it very much. What trying to develop two at this point may do is insure that neither succeeds. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
Curm.:
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the river and downtown are totally separate. The river is at approximately 19th Street, six blocks north of 25th. The River Project is within walking distance of Temple Square and the nice apartments that the LDS Church built several years ago. There's also a new office building going in soon just north of Temple Square. Clearly the vision is to expand "downtown" up to the river, and I think that's a pretty reasonable goal for, say, 15-20 years from now. I think it would have been wiser to focus on the area south of 22nd for the short term, but I'm reasonably hopeful that the whole scheme will succeed eventually.
Dan S:
I hope it will too. But in my experience [Mrs. Curmudgeon and I are accomplished strollers in places like the San Antonio Riverwalk development and similar though smaller venues elsewhere], enticing walkers like us out involves having interesting things [bookshops, antique shops, galleries, local crafts stores and other stores, bistos, etc] to look at, shop in, stroll past all along the way. A significant dead zone [so to speak] separating two areas will make it very hard for a "walking city" zone to develop, I think. At least now. Twenty years from now, maybe. And if a trolley connects 25th street with the riverdevelopment, maybe sooner.
Clearly the Mall site development is aimed at bridging that gap to some extent. Here's hoping it works. The proposed city gondola project, seems to me, will do exactly the reverse.
Curm.:
The mayor has actually spoken favorably of the concept of a trolley within the downtown area. So he must realize that most people aren't gonna want to walk between 25th Street and the River Project. Who would pay for and operate such a trolley, and when it could be constructed, I have no idea. I worry that the mayor is thinking only about tourists, not about commuters and other residents. I don't trust the city to design or operate any form of transit, so I say we grab the opportunity for a UTA-operated trolley/streetcar between downtown (Intermodal Hub) and WSU, and meanwhile start working for a second trolley/streetcar line that would head north from the Intermodal Hub to the River Project and beyond, maybe to the ATC. These transit systems would not only move people around within the downtown area, but also bring people into downtown from the rest of the city.
Dan S:
You wrote: I say we grab the opportunity for a UTA-operated trolley/streetcar between downtown (Intermodal Hub) and WSU, and meanwhile start working for a second trolley/streetcar line that would head north from the Intermodal Hub to the River Project and beyond, maybe to the ATC.
Couldn't agree more.
Dan, what you suggest about a trolley going south to WSU and north, possibly to the ATC makes sense.
Those tenants quoted in the article on Saturday, with the exception of Mrs. Rallison and the Hearing Center, all state in one form or another their displeasure with the the 'city'.
Some state they wish they'd known more about taxes before granting the city a purchase extension...would this be a seller beware caveat?? Apparently the city was not forthcoming in telling Kevin Bryant anything in Bryant's favor.
Sharon Fernandez' lease on the King's Castle restaurant runs til Sept, but the city asked her to relocate within 30 days...."they can't wait to kick us out."
So, if one of the owners interviewed and quoted for this article had no beef with the city, the others who are quoted make it clear that they don't feel the city has dealt with them fairly.
"They were rude, they really don't care." Alex Fernandez.
At any rate, these are not isolated sttements. I've heard the same from some who wanted to open a business here and were, in their opinion, treated, 'arrogantly and rudely by Godfrey."
They stated they would never open a business in Ogden now.
I'd supply a name (after gaining permission) if I could recall who told me. One man was a fellow delegate at the Republican State Convention. Perhaps he'll post here.
I sincerely hope The Junction and the River Parkway projects are successful.
Instead of a gondola, which is not necessary for an influx of businesses, I'd like to see the ones the mayor promised were breathlessly waiting for the $7.3 million flowrider, bowlling alley, hang glider and climbing wall to sign on the dotted line as "anchors for The Junction."
Surely, all the construction downtown hasn't been started without those signaures???
So, WHO are these businesses that will 'revitalize' our 'blighted' downtown??
Is it true that Larry Miller has NOT signed a contract with the city for construction of one of his mega movie theatres??
Who has the answers?
Sharon,
Only the Shadow knows!
Miller had a certain time to sign up or Boyer was to find another theater operator. I am sure that the time has run out. So, does Boyer have another theater company on line?
It does seem a bit interesting that Miller would come up here last winter and tell us what a bunch of losers we are for not blindly jumping aboard the dream, then flakes out on us as it currently appears.
Nance:
The list of things no one knows seems to be growing. Has the mayor responded to Councilwoman Wicks' query about how much he has spent in city money promoting his crony's real estate speculation? No one seems to know.
Has Mr. Miller signed with Boyer to build theaters at the Mall redevelopment site? No one seems to know.
Both would seem to be questions the SE might want to look into. They cover Ogden business news. Surely Miller signing on would be business news. Was it reported and did we miss it? [Certainly possible.] Surely if he has not signed and the deadline passed, that would be business news, especially if Boyer is now searching for another client.
And since the SE reported Ms. Wicks' query to the Mayor and the administration's claim that it was going to reply soon, surely it's failure to do so --- I think it's been about two weeks now, right? --- should be of some interest to readers as well, que no?
WHo will be asking questions at tomorrow night's CC meeting?
I think it is outrageous that you refer to "The" Church as "The 800 pound Gorilla"
Have you no shame? No respect? No sense of dignity?
Every one knows that the Church (its members) have been on a serious diet for the last year, and it is working.
For your information, the Church now only weighs in at 795lbs.
Get your facts straight before spreading your poison lies!
New comments are not allowed.