Thanks to reporter Brandy A. Lee's morning story, the Deseret Morning News provides us a partial preview of tonight's council double-header, during which the city council will address the two hottest political issues that have been recently boiling, here in the Land of Oz:
- The proposed Dustin Chapman Planning Commission Nomination
- Public Safety Officer Pay
- Planning Commission Appointment. Consideration of the appointment of Dustin Chapman to the Planning Commission. (Approve/not approve appointment – roll call vote)
- Employee Negotiation Review Workgroup. Proposed Resolution 2006-22 proposing an Employee Negotiation Review Workgroup. (Adopt/not adopt resolution – roll call vote)
- Pay Standards. Proposed Ordinance 2006-51 amending Section 2-6-9 to amend the pay standards by rescinding the new standards recently adopted for classified employees and readopting the previously applicable standards; and providing that the ordinance will be retroactive to July 1, 2006. (Adopt/not adopt ordinance – roll call vote)
- Salary Schedule. Proposed Ordinance 2006-52 adopting new salary schedules for all members of the classified service; and providing that the ordinance will be retroactive to July 1, 2006. (Adopt/not adopt ordinance – roll call vote)
We've already had plenty of discussion on both these issues, so we won't delve further into the merits here.
Instead, we call upon the handicappers amongst our gentle readership to predict how tonight's vote will shake out. Will Boss Godfrey's radical young pro-gondola accolyte land a seat on the counsel, despite strong evidence of personal bias and deceptive conduct? Will the council vote unanimously to correct the pay plan inequity which was the real core issue about which our public safety officers had rightfully complained? Will the council demonstrate a commitment to the highest ethical standards, and reject the "power politics" of the past? Will the council "choose the right?"
And one other thing. If any one of you has forgotten to contact the council, to register your own opinion on either of these topics, we are pleased to inform you that council contact information is just as close as this link.
Both Dian and your humble blogmeister expect to be in attendance at tonight's meeting, and we'll post a report as soon as we can.
In the meantime, let us hear your predictions. How do our gentle readers predict each individual member will vote?
Oh. One other thing -- and this on an entirely different topic. One of our gentle readers, the owner of a prominent downtown business, spent some time last night googling and burning the midnight oil, and compiled and submitted this wonderful digest of articles, relevant to the still-mysterious Chris Peterson project. Perhaps we can all stew on this material, while we breathlessly await tonight's council meeting results.
The floor is open, gentle readers.
Please don't let the cat get your tongues.
Update 8/15/06 9:55 p.m. MT: For those gentle readers sitting on the edges of their seats, awaiting the score from tonight's council double-header... we post this brief update:
- Police and firefighter corrective ordinances: All three ordinances passed.
- Dustin Chapman Nomination: Continued two weeks, while the council gathers more information and conducts an interview with the candidate.
19 comments:
Environmental planning is essential for proper development in any community. What cities should be doing, but never do--especially in Utah, are Suitability Analyses (Ian McHarg proposed these decades ago, they are not a radical idea, lets do them). Before they build, they should know what risk factors they are building upon. What are the soil conditions? (look at the National Historic Landmark builidng in Vernal's Dinosaur park) what about depth to water? what about depth to bedrock? slope? etc. Cities, developers, and homeowners are all losing a lot of money because they are not properly planning! I am sick and tired of seeing incidents that could've been prevented (as Rudizink shows in his link) had people done proper analyses of areas where they build.
Anyway, tonight's meeting should be a good one, I am not a betting man so I won't risk a wager, but I am confident the council will do the right thing.
Hmm. Thought I would look up what the planning commission does and came across the following from the Ogden Municipal Code, which just might be the reason the mayoral nominations for seats recently have been pro development individuals:
15-1-16: EFFECT OF GENERAL PLAN ON PUBLIC USES:
A.Conformance; Approval: No street, park, or other public way, ground, place, or space, no publicly owned building or structure, and no public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, may be constructed or authorized until and unless:
1. It conforms to the Ogden City general plan; or
2. It has been considered by the planning commission and, after receiving the advice of the planning commission, approved by the city council as an amendment to the general plan.
B.Determination Of Conformance: The determination as to whether any of the above proposals conform with the general plan shall be made by the planning commission either directly or under guidelines established by the planning commission.
(1999 Code; amd. Ord. 2003-49, 9-16-2003)
Smidgen of power regarding land use there, wouldn't you say?
Did anyone see Geiger's stellar dot-matrixed, typo-ridden, nonsensical letter about lawn signs? This is an alarming tactic. The Lift Morons are attempting to stifle public debate about their land theft until Godfrey can bully the council into taking incremental but dangerous steps in shoving aside our entire development approval process and spending time and money to create a new one just to satsify this clown Peterson. Apparently this has the tacit support of the Stand-Ex's editorial page. This is an affront and needs to be countered. Maybe we should consider holding weekly rallies against idiocy, only with better DJs than Bernie Allen and with much more booze. Dark times are upon us. Dark times.
I like this idea of Suitability Analyses. I'm thinking that maybe that's where our zoning and slope ordinances came from. In fact, much of this "need to know" information is already out there--just last night I re-read A Resort In Malan's Basin on the SmartGrowth page, and am linking it here because it really goes into a lot of these concerns.
As to what the Council will do tonight, I make no predictions. Have no idea, but a lot of hope.
Jason W.:
I don't think the SE editorial board has endorsed the special no-zoning zone that Mr. Peterson wants created just for him, or the special approval process he wants created just for him. Not even tacitly. But if I've missed something, I'd be glad to be informed about it. Do you have a link to what makes you think the Editorial Board has already decided in favor of the two special interest provisions Mr. Peterson and the Mayor are pushing?
Wow, Dian
Section B of the code is scary, eh? Unless I didn't understand, it appears the PC has the final say.
Reading about all those lawsuits and slides in other areas; some right close by is another scary and urgent issue to be addressed.
We often ask, "why did they build that home UP there?" Well, they must've been assured that their home will be safe.
Hah... And, you are right, Junebug, the Museum in Vernal is in big trouble.
No predictions tonite...like Dian...full of hope.
I'd posted this to the previous thread, but it really belongs here with the discussion of landslides and building in earthquake zones.
I hadn't truly understood this joke until I moved here and saw developers and Lift Ogden in action.
-----------------------------------
Three real estate developers hire a seaplane to take them into the Alaska wilderness to hunt caribou. The pilot tells them in advance that his plane can carry only them and ONE caribou on the way home.
When the pilot returns a week later, he finds 3 developers and three caribou carcasses ready to load. He reminds the developers of the weight limit, but they assure him that if they strap one animal on each wing and one in the middle that all will be fine. For a large additional fee he agrees to fly them out.
They load the plane, it makes some headway across the lake, starts to rise, then sputters and dives into the water. "I told you we couldn't make it, said the pilot." Meanwhile one developer says to another "Wow! That was 100' further than we got last year!"
Just substitute sliding houses for the plane and unscrupulous profiteering in the face of facts for the flying caribou.
How many of you remember those houses that were going to side off the hill on the top of 20th street? now they are moved over to 22 and buchannan.
well I have a lot of history on this little law suit. and the city thought they were getting away with out paying, and told the land owners that it was there fault for bulding on the land slide area.
well a long story short, the city lost and the people now have some great property right next to the resevoir.
I wish I could write the whole story here but it would take to long.
well sometime I'll have to tell the blog master all about it.
Curmudgeon:
Sorry for the mangled syntax; I hear that the editorial page might be considering putting the ax on letters and commentaries about the Little-Matty-Godfrey-gondola-Jetson-car-land-theft-larcency-abuse issue because of the continued absence of any proposal -- or any spending, beyond the hiring of a lawyer -- whatsoever by this ridiculous assclown Peterson. This would coincide with Geiger's silly letter about removing the Lift Moron signs because they have "served their purpose," that the council has "taken the next step" in considering this fraud, and that we can now consider Frump Peterson's illusory $500 million construction of opaque lies. Lift Morons' quietude is a tactic and, in this case, effective, because it allows Little Matty to spend city time and money in creating a new zone to suit this absurdity. I would like to see opinions that refuse to take Godfrey's and Frump Peterson's postulations at face value; that suggest Peterson is not actually spending time and money trying to propose something beyond an implicit theft of land; that do not disregard facts and common sense in that Ogden's infrastructure cannot support 400 homes (a new sewer line would have to be installed from Taylor to Wall, because there is no trunk large enough to handle a new subdivisions, among myriad other concerns), Peterson cannot build new golf holes on 60-degree slopes and veritable cliffs, WSU's land is not suitable for building housing, and the fact that the entire idea is predicated on a city selling its most valuable real asset at a tenth of its value for one-third -- at most -- the cost of a gondola from Wall to Weber that no one will ride. It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard of in my life. I would like to see something that points out that Little Matty and the Lift Morons have spent eight months dividing the community, spending enormous sums of public funds in shaping a faux proposal Frump Peterson should be paying for, wasting our time, and making a national laughingstock of Ogden, and something that does not simply parrot whatever Godfrey says. What Godfrey and Peterson are proposing is that Ogden City amend its entire development approval process to abide grand larceny; that's it, that's that, and that's final. There will never be a fantastic castle in the basin, built without a road, serviced by sewage orbs and guarded by magical fairies Peterson and Little Matty bought when they were traipsing across Europe, hand in hand. There will never be a gondola from Wall to Weber, zipping 900 riders per day at $12.50 per rider in order to break even; there will only be four rusting gondola poles on the south sidewalk of 23rd because Little Matty ran out of money and found out that UDOT will not abide a Jetson car going down Harrison. For God's honest sake.
Landslide Update:
DRAPER - Most of the spectators at Tuesday's City Council meeting came to get the dirt on potential landslides along Traverse Ridge - now home to hundreds of upscale homes.
The 3,800-acre master-planned community named SunCrest is expected to have up to 3,800 homes at build-out - so far, about 650 have been built. However, geotechnical experts are recommending caution because the area contains a massive ancient landslide.
"The age of a landslide means nothing," said Gary Christenson, spokesperson for the Utah Geological Survey, during Tuesday's presentation. In other words, ancient doesn't mean dead.
Draper discusses slide risk
Council meeting: Spectators seek the dirt on dangers that might lurk beneath SunCrest development on Traverse Ridge
By Cathy McKitrick
Dian,
I have a friend with a very expensive 3 year old home at the top of Traverse Ridge in the SunCrest development. Sticky doors, a huge crack in the basement floor and cracking along the rock work on the front porch beams have developed in the past year or so.
Makes you wonder if it's faulty construction or something much worse.
On another note, 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty, one of the largest insurers of new and existing construction homes will require a geotechical report for all new construction enrollments along the Wasatch Front, east of I-15
effective January 2007. This is due to a large number of claims involving foothill development.
That is so sad about your friend. That damage sounds a lot like the landslide damage I saw in the pictures of houses in South Weber, I think it was. They were on the news.
That information you have about insurance now requiring geotechnical studies is Very Important! Definitely something the Ogden City Council should know.
Anyone attend the announcement of the next ski company bringing offices to Ogden?
What company?
It's on the front page of the Business section in today's Standard Examiner. Company is European snowboard maker Nidecker.
Solid Home:
Dian's right. Insurers changing the rules for insuring Wasatch Front bench properties is important and the Council members do need to be made aware of it [as do the planning commission members], if they are not already aware.
Do you have a souce for the insurance changes? A link maybe? A citeable source? If so, please post. Thanks.
Curm-
It's not available anywhere online. I have a hard copy of the letter, I'll get it to you in the next few days.
Developers of Peacock Ridge in Riverdale, a proposed development of about 29 homes on the hill below the Weber-Davis canal about half to a mile south of where the canal broke in 99, appealed their rejection by the planning commission and city council. The board of adjustments upheld the decision of the PC and CC. The developers are going to appeal in court now.
Love:
Thanks. I went to the company website and poked around but couldn't find it. Appreciate it. When folks who have their own money on the line [not just the public's] start to take matters like this seriously, it should serve as a heads up to City Councils, planning commissions, etc. that perhaps a little [or a lot] more caution would be wise policy.
Your post reminded me of a story I saw about a year ago on the business pages of, I think, the NY Times. Not a big story, but interesting. It said that banks in Switzerland had raised the minimum altitude at which they would loan money for ski-related development about 1000' feet [the number was in meters, hence the "about" 1000'] in light of global warming effects in Europe. Governments can dither and delay, but the folks who are putting up their investors' money can't afford to pretend.
Despite what some here have suggested, raising questions about whether the city would be wise to grant Mr. Peterson his "no zoning zone" is important. Would granting him that kind of blanket zoning exemption permit him to sidestep the current city restrictions on building on land with a slope in excess of 30 degrees in the "sensitive overlay" zone on the benches? These questions are not just smoke and blather thrown up by unreasonable naysayers. They questions are substantive, they matter, and ignoring them can have serious consequences for the city.
And its taxpayers.
Thanks again.
Curm- the letter should be in your mailbox.
New comments are not allowed.