Once again, the time-tested axiom proves true: If you want to know what's going on in The Wonderful Land of Oz, read the Salt Lake Tribune.
Kristen Moulton scoops the Standard-Examiner as per usual, with this morning's very informative and timely story. Among other things, the article reports that the Emerald City council has propounded a few questions for wannabe-developer Chris Peterson -- 184 to be exact. Here's an excerpt from Kristen's article:
A Weber County Forum tip o' the hat to Council Director Bill Cook, and also to his very capable and hard-working staff. We understand that these people have been working feverishly for months, meeting and coordinating with the various governmental decision-makers who will be called upon to review this "project;" and we are encouraged to see some of the fruits of their efforts. And wonder of wonders, all this information has been made available to we lumpentownsfolk on Boss Godfrey's own Emerald City/Gondolist propaganda website, leaving us to ponder how ever the council may have obtained Boss Godfrey's permission to post such useful information -- and such probing questions.The Ogden City Council has come up with a plan - as well as list of 184 questions -- for handling the massive development project proposed for the city's east side.
In a document released Friday, the council details all the decisions likely to be required of it, along with decisions by the city's Planning Commission, the Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, Weber State University and other governmental entities such as Weber County and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
"This is basically our attempt to outline for the public what the public process could be, said Amy Wicks, council vice chair.
Among the long list of questions are those that have flooded into City Hall since developer Chris Peterson of Sandy began sharing, during public forums last spring, his east-bench hopes.
And what say our gentle readers?
Does it appear that our council is on the right track?
Update 8/29/06 11:33 a.m. MT: A full three days post-publication of Kristen Moulton's above-linked story, the local BDO-based fish-wrap producer which poses as our home-town newspaper breaches its recent gondola news blackout, and finally gets around to reporting on the council's 184 questions. "Better late than never," we suppose. "Yesterday's news today," we guess.
70 comments:
The Ogden City Council gets a grade of A-DOUBLE PLUS for this input.
Frankly I am amazed as I didn't think the Council had the foresight to be this thorough on any proposal.
Too bad they didn't do this on the River Project.
This is called looking for the fine print before you have been completely snookered..
Goood Job!
An absolutely exceptional job. I am so impressed by this. I'm trying to remember when the Council first passed the resolution that it was going to outline this process--it wasn't too long ago. In fact, I think we have an archived copy of that resolution on WCF somewhere. To have it completed and ready for public view now shows the Council's responsiveness to the public as well as a superlative effort to perform due diligence and, one would hope, a willingness to share answers and include the public in the process.
City Staff is really capable of some phenomenal things. Huge congratulations on this one!
You are mistaken about officer Jones. He is currently under an internal investigation being conducted by one of the Chief's henchmen, a very unfriendly to the troops officer directly under the chief. He is running a very nasty, aggresive and disingenuous investigation complete with intimidating tactics.
This is not an arms length and just inquiry. They have dug up several old charges against Jones. Every police officer has lots of old charges that have been levied against them. They are always handled by the officer's supervisors in a very timely manner. All the old charges against Jones have already been adjudicated within the normal Police Department policy. Yet in an extremely unusual set of circumstances the chief has dredged up some of these old complaints, some of which were filed by illegal aliens, and none of which were substantiated by the field officers in command at the time the complaints were made. This is business as usual for every single officer on any police force.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chief and Mayor to discredit and defame Officer Jones so that their own low class and unlawfull behavior can be excused as justified. They have to crusify Jones in order to absolve themselves of their own actions. This is an immoral witch hunt, nothing more, nothing less.
There is a very good chance that they will fire officer Jones. This is still within the police department, not at the County Attorney's office as some people assume. If and when they do that, it will precipitate a major law suit. Officer Jones is almost certain to win such a suit. The citizens of Ogden will once again have to make good on legal damages caused by these two out of control and arrogant politicians Godfrey and Greiner.
I am in law inforcement, and I can tell you that this sort of dirty dealing does go on within some departments. Fortunately I am not in the OPD, but my heart goes out to those fine officers for what they have to put up with from their leaders.
Wow,
Just a cop;
I agree with you, much more than that, Godfrey and Greiner are just an embarrassment to Ogden City Citizens, and themselves.
So, the Council has a long list of inquiries it wants answered in re: the Peterson and Godfrey real estate speculation and gondola proposals....
I think I know now why the Mayor is so antsy just now about people being urged to ask questions.
Good on the Council for devising a public process for considering the proposals, and for laying that process, and the information they expect to have provided, out for the public to see.
It is refreshing to see some signs of life eminating from the City Council Chambers. Hopefully they are waking from their new council nap, and the initial thrashing the mayor administered to them, and will now take their rightfull place at the table of city government.
This list of 184 questions is a good start. First thing needed is to weed it down to 50 or so good solid questions. There is a very large number of duplicate questions in this first 184.
I for one am thankfull that the Salt Lake Tribune and other Utah media outlets are taking an interest in Ogden affairs. If it were not for them and this forum we would be kept in the dark about what the Godfrey minions are up to. The Standard is obviously not up to the task regardless of the endless apologies offered up on their behalf by the normaly astute Mr. Curmudgeon.
The posing of these 184 questions (they weren't nailed to the Church Doors were they?) will be very good for Ogden Citizens if the council doesn't just roll over and accept a bunch of mealy mouthed and empty answers to those same questions. Seems that the LO crowd has already proffered up a bunch of nonsense that they consider to be answers to some of these very questions.
Real questions deserve real answers. I hope that the council holds out for some real answers.
Ozboy:
Not apologies. Just a recognition that Ogdenities, if they wish to be current on Ogden affairs [and on a wide range of such affairs, not just the Gondola issue], need to read the Ogden paper, whatever its failings may be [and I have posted on several of them]. Has the SL Trib trumped the SE on several stories of late? Yes. Does that mean you can learn more about Ogden affairs, consistently, day in and day out, by reading the SL Trib instead of the SE? Hell, no.
Oz, I come at this from this POV: you cannot have a healthy, functioning democratic system at any level [national, state, country, city or town] without a vigorous, independent press as the primary means of keeping people informed. Cannot happen. [The founders thought the same, by the way. ] Since Ogden has no local news channel on TV, and since the SL local news as a rule deals with Ogden only when we've had the biggest fire, goriest interstate crash, grizzliest murder or warm and fuzziest "human interest" story in that news cycle, we are left with the SE as our primary news source. Regardless of its shortcomings.
So have at 'em when they drop the ball. I have and will continue to. But also recognize that they don't drop it all the time. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The solution to the SE's problems from my POV is not to simply denounce it across the board and to urge people not read it, but to criticize what needs criticizing, praise what merits praising, and lobby those who run the thing to do a better job.
Have to tell you, some of the criticism of the SE reporting that appears here occasionally seems predicated on the idea that the paper, in its news columns, should print only news advantageous to those who oppose the gondola or who support Officer Jones, etc. Well, that's not only not how it works, it's not how it should work. If I think the facts are on my side on an issue [and why would I be on that side if I didn't?], what I want is full coverage of all signficant information on both sides. Because I'm convinced if that happens, if all the relevent info gets out, my side is going to prevail. Can't help but prevail.
I want [to get spcific] the SE to provide full coverage for Lift Ogden's views, just so long as it also provides full coverage for the views of those who think differenty. If that happens, if all the relevant information is laid out for public consideration, Lift Ogden is toast. Or so I am convinced.
I write to SE editors, reporters, columnists. [They are probably tired of hearing from me. But I won't stop.] Complaining about muffs, asking questions about things I thought their coverage left unclear or confusing, congratulating them on good writing or chewy pieces that made me think.
If lots of people did that... hell, I presume lots of people [on all sides of most issues do do that]... will it end up improving the paper? I don't know. But I think going that route has a far better chance than simply issuing flaming "its junk, don't read it" denunciations does.
Oz, we both want a better SE. What I think we are disagreeing about is means, not ends.
It's nice to see a newspaper get the "little" facts right:
"the sale of the golf course to partially fund an urban gondola"
We give up the golf course, and we still need more money for the urban gondola.
South:
Very glad to see that in the SE, actually. The mayor has backed off on his claim that building the downtown gondola will not require public money, that private contributions would do the job. Since the SE's editorial [conditionally] supporting the downtown gondola was based on Godfrey's assurance [since abandoned] that it would not cost the public any money, it is nice to see the SE recognizing that in background matter in its stories.
My hope is in future gondola stories, the SE will be as aware of other Godfrey claims that have since been abandoned or refuted by his co-conspirators.... ooops. I mean his "partners in progress" like Mr. Peterson. For example, the Mayor once touted the gondola/gondola scheme, he said, because building a streetcar line would take too long... fifteen or twenty years... and the gondola/gondola Malan's Basin project was something Ogden could do "now." Now it turns out, according to Mr. Peterson, his development plans for the gondolas and Malan's Basin will take fifteen to twenty years to bring to fruition. Hope the SE keeps that in mind if the mayor tries to peddle his "street car too long to happen/ gondola happens now" sophestry again.
South:
Oooops. I meant in the SL Trib, not the SE. I would be nice to see that little factiod in future SE stories as well, of course.
SE promises "extensive coverage" of gondola issue this fall.
Just back from a presentation on WSU campus where Mr. R. Thornburg, news editor I think, of the SE, promised "extensive coverage" of the gondola and Peterson propsals this coming semester. Let's see if they deliver. And let's keep an eye on the quality of the coverage, meaning will it go beyond press-release journalism? Will the stories check facts coming from any interested parties before presenting them as facts? Will coverage go beyond simply getting one quote from the "other" side when the Mayor or LO or SGO issues a press release? It's going to be interesting to see.
Kristen,
You are first-rate! Thank you so much for managing facts and up to the minute reporting at the same time.
I thot those 184 questons were from the public who attended the LO cheerleading squad meetings?
Any idea who the independent counsel for the Council will be?
The Se had the Suicide turned to Murder story as a headline yesterday. Today, it's in the B section...SAME story...no new facts..just the same stuff. Was this a filler?
Kudos to the Council and Staff. Finally, we are seeing them come to the table ready to work, ask and answer questions as a legislative arm should. My congratulations.
Just watched a Forensics File program on TV. One of the big red flags for the detectives on the case was that the 'suspect' changed her story so many times! That's how they knew she was....LYING...and so kept a close eye on her. She finally did herself in with a few more lies.
I think we are all detectives too, cuz we figured out that little 'seems guilty to me' tell-tale (no pun intended) sign a long time ago.
Here is some food for thought. With these 184 questions that the city council raised which now is published,
Do you realized that if any of these questions of liability ever play out after the Gondola is built. And one of these Scenario’s comes into play. That means the lawsuit can increase 10 fold. Because Ogden City, can no longer plead ignorance in a sworn testimony, that they didn’t know that was a possible Scenario!!!
However, since the city have asked the question, no matter how it is answered, and goes ahead to built it anyway. Ogden City, can be liable for punitive damages long with injuries incurred.
You legal minds out there. Now think about it. Please let me know if I am right.
The questions seem to be simply a listing of questions that people have raised with councilmembers. Several are redundant. I think it significant that the questions, from whatever source, have now been published by the Council in a Council document, which implies a Council committment to having them answered before Council action on the gondola/Peterson proposals can be taken.
But they may not necessarily have much legal force if the City goes ahead with the Peterson real estate speculation and gondola/gondola plan and it goes belly up. If the Council has excercised, and can show that it has exercised, due diligence in reviewing the project, people having raised objections and questions won't matter a whole lot I suspect.
It is not, after all, illegal for a government body to, after study and deliberation, reach a conclusion that turns out to have been incorrect. [E.g. that the Conference Center will pay for itself; that the downtown mall will succeed, etc.] Cities can be successfully sued, I think, for making irresponsible decisions, but not for simply making choices that turn out, in the end, to have been unwise. However, I am not an attorney, and with burglars successfully suing business owners because the skylight they were creeping across seeking to enter the business to steal collapsed under them and they were injured in the fall, who the hell knows?
My concern is that the questions have an overwhelming focus on the urban gondola and it's feasibility. The questions tend to be asking simplistically "good or bad idea" without comparing it's utility to a streetcar and attendant TOD. I contend that the feasibility must be determined not by a stand-alone set of questions but by comparison to the alternatives. To not subject the gondola to review that includes the alternatives is again leaning to the tactics favored by LO, to bury the streetcar issue in de facto last-choice status.
We also need to know who, city/developer, or what group (and their credentials) are answering the questions and to what level of detail did they go to in order to answer the questions.
We as residents should also ask that obvious missed qustions that should be asked, be added to the list
I appreciate the effort to include the residents into the process and with time I hope that all of the questions that really need to be asked are put forward. This was a good start but just a start in the process.
That said, I also resented the wording of a lot of the questions. Several are leading questions that suggest that the deal is already done and that all we are doing is clarifying a few of the minor details pertaining to the project. I was disappointed with these types of questions and wonder who was responsible for their insertion in that form into this document, very unprofessional. Makes me wonder how many of these questions were put together by the developer as opposed to being sanitized first by our city planning department employees who I would have expected to have generated the questions in a less bias way.
Additionally, several of the leading questions actually supported the developer’s suggestions as to the project scope or as to the timing in which various steps in the development should take place. Here again, I think that was totally inappropriate and those questions should be reworded. Especially questions 149 and 156, but also 5, 19, 55, 60, 106, 107, 109 and 140 and all of the questions to Weber state were absolutely unbelievable.
I hope that all the 184 questions are answered and that those answers create additional questions that will be addressed with the ones that come up in the mean time. I have several good questions that I will be suggesting to the Planning Commission and to the City Council in the days to come that I feel were not addressed in this initial request.
Ogden City should establish the steps that must be taken by the developer before we even consider any action by Ogden City. I personally resent the developer suggesting what steps we need to take for him to do develop his project in our town. People keep in mind that if we say no, he’s got nothing and we still have everything including a bright future for the city. We don’t have to take every deal that’s presented to us especially if the risks are too great or the sacrifices are too big for what we’re going to get.
Ogden City should proceed with the investigation of and determination of the merits of this project to Ogden on its own time line and on its own terms.
Well said, Anonymous,
The more I reread them, there is a heavy predisposition to gondola as given. It is truly amazing the lack of objectivity in today's language.
Most of the WSU questions were nearly word for word from a Bob Geiger email a couple of months back.
Those are some ridiculously loaded questions...if you could call them that.
Indeed there we many "overlapping questions."
And some that were only asked tangentially.
And some pertinent quastion that were NEVER asked at all.
Such as the friggin loggeral "We live in a republic," Wright said. "In a republic, you elect your leaders and they make these decisions."Price *& Terms, etc.
Seems pretty fundamental.
That means we need to refine the discussion a little bit, dontcha think?
More intelligent critique is needed on this topic FER SHURE. Even the Std_Ex has gone into it's own gondolist propaganda news blockout, along with Little Culy-haired Bobby and the Descente Boyz from Hell.
Is there no satisfying some of you people? DISCOVERY OGDEN is more than a list of questions: it's a preliminary guide through the public process that will impact all of the decision makers, including you, the public. This document is ever changing and updated as needed. It's a start, a beginning, and it's in PROGRESS.
So far, there are the usual complainers stating that at last the Council got off it collective behind and did something. Well, the one area that seems to have drawn the most attention, the 184 questions, didn't happen over night....the Council has been working on those for a couple of months, even though there has been NOTHING formal presented by the developer. Then there's the "legal eagles," like this "Concerned Citizen," who questions liability, etc. with verbage and sentence structure that would collapse in a 9th Grade English class.
My goodness, even Curmudgeon is speculating over possible legal ramifications and some questions being redundant.
Let's tkae a breath and give this a chance before we write it off. Everything about the project is a work in process, a proposal if you will, with emotion fueled by the likes that I've never seen before.
Easy now.
Take a deep breath.
And let the process begin.
And as for this "Anonymous," who has listed a smattering of questions that are "reworded" and therefore "inappropriate," I'm curious as to his experience in "legalize" and land-use/urban planning. From the way he sets his premise, I doubt that experience is extensive.
Discovery Ogden is a start, a beginning, and it shows that there's more going on within various groups than thought. If one would take the time to read and contemplate the ENTIRE plan, one's energy could go much further in furthering its cause rather than trying to be an attorney or a Planner and doing not much more than constantly complaining and whinning.
I'll tell ya what, another view...
It would be a whole lot smarter for you gondolist PR marketers to tell us right up front how much money Chris Peterson intends to offer for the Mt. Ogden parkland properties right now.
If it's a fair price, we can begin the discussion.
If it's not...
Let the good citizens of Ogden ride ride OUR TURNCOAT MAYOR and his corporate buddies, Descente, Inc., out of town on a rail, complete with tar and feathers, olde fashioned Emerald City style.
Another View:
Perhaps I was unclear. Looking back, what I think I said was that such questions are unlikely to have much legal force.
I do think TOD's caution that the what the Council considers should not be exclusively "gondola: yes or no?" but the broader question of which of the several plans for dealing with transit in Ogden and fostering sustainable growth is the one most likely to succeed is well taken. I.e. that they should be carrying on a comparison, not a stand-alone evalutation of one particlar plan. Seems good advice to me. Whether they are engaged in that already, I couldn't say. I hope they are.
BTW, the SL Trib today has a fat, two part insert on the future of SLC and the goals the city hopes to achieve in the future and how it hopes to acheive them. If you want an example of what [I think] good and serious urban planning looks like, take a look at the SL Trib inserts today. Pretty intersting on how you foster economic growth, and a strong business climate and create a liveable urban environment for city residents all at the same time. In SLC at least, they seem to recognize that all of those are not mutually exclusive ends. Remarkably, they place a heavy emphasis on preserving greenspace in the city, on captalizing on the city's access to open spaces in the adjacent mountains, and on rail transit as the key element in creating a livable city accesible to all who live within its bounds. Imagine that.
Those guiding SLC's future seem not to have been lured into grasping at one-shot desperate speculative gambles proposed by developers tight with the mayor that involve selling off parks to build transit. And not a gondola proposal in sight. Imagine that....
Curm,
Isn't SLC having to shell out millions now for greenspace?
That's a lesson to be heeded here.
Critic, I don't think you get it. I'm not a "gondolist marketer," just a guy who read what he read and felt the responses were VERY lopsided and abit off center. For instance, you come at us with, "tell us upfront how much money CP intend to offer for the Mt. Ogden parkland." Well friend, how the hell do I know? That's a question for CP and something that will most likely be addressed within "Discovery Ogden," which AGAIN, is an ongoing process.
There's no pro and con within my posting, just a thought that instead of being so negative about the start of the City Council action, ease back on your throttle and give it a chance.
And Cur, you're most likely correct: the questions probably won't have much legal force, but I believe, and this is merely my opinion, that "legal force" at this time is a tad premature. We are in a process, not a court room.
Another View is right, sometimes we here at the WCF tend to complain a lot – we have a lot to complain about! But, to be true community leaders we should offer solutions, not just point out problems. So, here’s my proposal:
1. Bring back the Streetcars! This proven form of public transportation will serve residents and students alike. It will bring life back to the streets, and support sustainable economic development, and heritage tourism. What better place than the crossroads of the west for a historic streetcar ride?
2. City Beautiful! Let’s start by cleaning up this place. I’m talking about simple civic improvement projects like painting, trash removal, sidewalk replacement, and Street Trees (lot’s and lot’s of new street tree plantings to fill in all the gaps, and a parks department funded so that they can actually take care of them!).
3. Preserve & Enhance Trails & Open Space! Let’s all wake up and realize what a valuable resource we already have, and working on getting more of it! Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.
I’m sure there are many more fundamental things we can do to enhance our community. These are my top three!
You wrote:
And Cur, you're most likely correct: the questions probably won't have much legal force, but I believe, and this is merely my opinion, that "legal force" at this time is a tad premature. We are in a process, not a court room.
Probably so. But, on the other hand, from what I read, lots of folks, in business, particularly in the health care inudstry, and some government services, are painfully aware, long before anything ever enters a courtroom, of the possibility of their being sued, and they take steps to prevent that from happening, or to prevent their losing if it does. Some argue, for example, that a good deal of the testing that is ordered by doctors has a very low probability of being medically useful and is ordered to establish that "everything possible that could have been done was done" if the outcome [for the patient] is not good.
This morning's SE for example has a long story about an emergency room doctor being sued for not ordering a test that, the plaintifs argue, should have been ordered and, if it had been, would have saved the life of a patient who died. [Note: I have no information about the case and am absolutely not stating an opinion on the merits of it.]
So, the question someone raised about whether the Council is acting in re: the gondola/Peterson proposals in such a way that it might be leaving itself open to successful suits is not completely off the wall.
I agree, though, that threats of legal action [or demands that such action be taken] are flung about far too often, here and elsewhere, without sufficient grounds. Again, it is not illegal [however annoying and expensive it might be] for city Councils to make decisions that turn out to have been unwise. It is risky for them to make irresponsible decisions. The difference between the two involves process... that is, did a Council diligently follow an established, and reasonable process in reaching an ultimately unwise decision.
The remedy for a Council that make irresponsible decisions may in fact be the courts. The remedy for a Council that makes unwise decisions is the ballot box.
But let's all hope that our Council, this time, will act prudently, and reach, in the end, a decision that we will all agree... or most of us anyway... five years or ten years from now, was a wise and well-informed one.
I hadn't noticed an over-critical tone here about the questions or process. Most heralded it as positive. I still think the questions reflect a foregone conclusion that the gondola plans are set and all that needs be done is iron out the details. There is only one quetion that addresses the need for a transit link to the foothill and what mode is best. This is strange when UTA declared the need for a transit corridor and the mayor has successfully buried their recommendations in favor of his plan. UTA has a proven track record, no pun intended, and their recommendations deserve some serious reconsideration. The long term infrastrucural need for local transit and the lead it creates in Transit Oriented Development is key to the health of Ogden's economy. The UTA transit recommndations are quite compatible with Peterson's desire to link his Base Village and Mountain Resort with downtown and the Frontrunner.
Ogden wins in all ways with the UTA plan as we keep the municipal course and all city open space and we get a Transit Corridor and System that will focus central city development on an intelligent path and create a wonderful Street Scene that, because of Ogden's comfortable size, would rival any urban pedestrian zone area in the west.
Again I will state that the gondola through town is simply an attempt to package a huge development project under one plan and one dream. The beneficiary of this package would hold far too many cards to Ogden's future success. It is wrong to bet so much on such a package.
It appears to me that the Council has the job of culling those 184 questions and making a list of pertinent comments and questions.
So many are redundant. Many are right out of the Geiger party line...word for word.
Too many deal with the gondola as if it's a 'done deal'. Even the SE writes about it that way. What happened to the word "proposed"? What happened to discussing the streetcar as the best transit system for Ogden?
First comes the weeding...then the answers..GOOD LUCK!!! Then a public posting, and then the public hearings.
Hey, wouldn't it be something if this process took 16 months? The mayor still hasn't answered the 22 questions submitted by SGO. Weren't they submitted over a year ago?
The mayor will most certainly understand if the Council takes a long time in this deliberative process, as he still can't answer 22 questions, and the Council has 184!!!!
Tod:
Well put. Right on point. Thanks.
I think that compiling this list of 184 questions the council is acting "responsibile" rather than "irresponsible." These questions are not, as Sharon puts it, "right out of Geiger's handbook..word for word." Nope, they come from emails, Letters to the Editor, blogs, newspaper articles, statements made by both LO and SGO, and so on. The questions are a beginning, a product of the initial "public input" that everybody is so concerned about.
To judge whther they are either liablous or redundant, and that in some way tarnishes what the question's true essence is, is rather lame at this point. And, there is much more to the council's plan for the public process, entitled "Discovery Ogden," than a mere set of questions. Read the COMPLETE details and jump aboard. Your energy will be better spent doing that instead of trying to find something to complain about.
Another View:
Just wanted to observe that taking an active part in the Discovery Ogden process [as a citizen, not officeholder] and raising concerns, and complaints, about parts of the process or goings on related to it [where appropriate] are not in any way mutually exclusive activities.
And rasing cautions about the process becoming simply a review of the gondola proposal [or an attempt to tweak it suffiently at the margins to make it marginally acceptable politically] rather than a proccess dedicated to comparing and contrasting alternative proposals [not just the gondola] seems to me a completely appropriate thing for an engaged public spirited person to do. Or, in other words, there is a great deal more to TOD's postings on this matter, IMHO, than simply nay-saying or kvetching. A great deal more.
ACTUALLY, Discovery Ogden was designed and implimented to address and cover the Public Process in regards to the gondola. As there was little or no progress for a public progress, leaving much of what was to be done in the hands of the Planning Commission, and everyone in town wondering what role and where the council was, the council came up with Discovery Ogden for that very reason. So folks, how d'ya like them apples? You got what you want and didn't even know it.
Look at Discovery Ogden's release as its "first draft," with much yet to be done. That's why I'm so taken with all of these "legal ramifications," the "irresponsibility" of the whole thing, the fact that finally the council got going on the matter when in all actuality the council HAS been working on its end for several months now, and these lists of questions that need to be reviewed and looked at before it all becomes a liability.
Things are proceeding as you want them to, only for some unknown reason, this has escaped you. Discovery Ogden is not, as Sharon claims, "right out of the party line--word for word." Cook, Franke, Zampedri and the Staff have compiled not only a "list of questions (sure, there are some that read the same but isn't it best to error on the side of TOO many rather than not enough), plus the "to share with the public the extensive review processes that may be conducted by various decision-mskinh enmtities regarding this project." The council, it reads, desires to make as much information known to the public as quickly as possible.
What you are doing is akin to what you've done with the Peterson Plan, and that is to have jumped to conclusion and torn this process apart BEFORE its be given the chance to have been implimented. This process is a verb, meaning it's "active" and therefore changeable as things chaange. It's a guide, an outline, a model that will allow for the public's input as well as the developer and other decision makers.
This is not cast in stone; instead it's a living, breathing and changeable instrument, giving us a chance to have our voices heard AND COUNT. Updating is one of Discovery Ogden's most important features.
So, give it a chance before you claim that the questions being posed will be grounds to drag someone into court, the redundancy negating the list, and so on. It's as I've said, some people absolutely CANNOT be satisfied or molified REGARDLESS of what is being, or has been, done. Bill Cook knows what he's doing; Dave Harmer knows what he's doing, although he plays not a role in this one; Mark johnson knows what he's doing, as does Lift Ogden AND Smart Growth Ogden. We absolutley need ENGAGEMENT on this proposal, and the City Council has prepared something that might be able to START that process for you, the public, if you'd only give it a chance and understand what it is this instrument REALLY is.
Another View--
Your points, even before you made them here, resonnated in the recent letter sent out to Lift Ogden members.
"THANKS TO YOU, the Ogden City Council is now taking the first steps to seriously consider the Malan Project....
This is just the beginning, and it will fall to all of us to continue to communicate to the council the need for serious and prompt consideration...
Lift Ogden is really pleased at the overwhelming show of support...and appreciates SmartGrowth sign holders who helped bring this issue to the forefront.
...The next phase will get us all what we wanted...
...signs have served their purpose.... claimed goals are being met....
LET the beauty of Ogden and tis surrounding area shine through again...."
184 questions are now before Chris Peterson, a process is formulating, things are happening, information is before our elected representatives...etc.
As "another view" is pointing out to some of you..."Things are proceeding as you want them to, only for some unknown reason, this has escaped you."
"Things are proceeding as you want them to, only for some unknown reason, this has escaped you."
Maybe the reason why it has escaped some is because their goal was to prevent any serious consideration of this project what so ever.
Therefore, things are not proceeding as they wanted them to. ASK QUESTIONS... GET INVOLVED... FOr some this means...
"THIS PROJECT IS MUSH...YOU SHOULD DISCARD ANY CONSDIRATION OF IT...IT IS THE SMART WAY TO GROW OGDEN.
Another View:
Well, seems to me in your last post you do pretty much what you accuse others of doing: you go cherry picking for negative comments from among the many posts here, and then characterize the whole group by them. And you ignore to many many posts here that spend a lot of time discussing the matter in considerably more detail and in ways that can't simply be dismissed as "looking for" problems.
You have to factor something else in, when evaluating some posts here: the Mayor's repeated disgenuous [and I would say unethical] behavior in re: the gondola and Peterson proposals have left many, myself among them, with little or no trust in his integrity or even interest in taking part in any kind of fair, dispassionate appraisal of the various proposals. [Did you notice that the city website is still telling folks the gondola will connect downtown with Snowbasin>? Did you notice that all three of his nominees for the two open seats on the planning commission are signers of the Lift Ogden YES! ad in the Standard Examiner.... published before ANY proposal was submitted to the city and before ANY of the questions asked had been answered? Did you notice his making the City cable channel available for endless rerunning of Lift Ogden spokesmen touting the gondola? Etc. etc. etc.]
Given all that, I would find it surprising if there was not a great deal of suspicion about the City's proceedings on this matter. You shouldn't find it surprising either.
Who would have thought that Mayor Godfrey would be posting on this blog?
Check it out, "Another View" has got to be his honor! There is that unmistakable twisted logic mixed with pure nonsense that runs through both of their thinking.
This Discovery Ogden nonsense is just more pearls that the mayor and his sleep walking council are spreading in front of the masses.
This proposed project is a swindle on a grand scale and any thinking person can see it for what it is. The city does not have to run around jumping through hoops to "Discover Ogden".
It is up to Peterson to prove his case, not the city govenment. It is up to Peterson to spend the money for his own due dilligence. Why should the city government have to do this for him? He is the one that is going to make all the money if it succeeds. He should be the one jumping through hoops and spending money, not the city government.
another view:
I agree that the verbiage what concern citizen has written could have been better polished up. However there is some legitimate legal concerns here.
The legal tern is called “cope-ability”.
Or what was their knowledge about this situation?
How much was in discussion, and what was their resolve, along with the conversations in-between that?
Did they know of the issues before it was built and where they fully address to minimized the liability factors?
Or did they simple chose to ignore the issues altogether or chose to cut corners.
The only way to properly dissolve the liability factors is to make sure that all of the questions raised before construction has begin, that is to completely be resolved with plans of action according to “legal written opinions” drawn up by either the Ogden City own attorney or an attorney appointed by the City council to give full recommended details of the proper protocols. What expertises did that attorneys have to draw on, like engineers study and case laws to make recommendations.
This will ensure the lest likely hood of any of these events of scenarios from ever taking place.
However, the more you concentrate on the safety factors to eliminate the liability factors the higher the construction costs will climb. This is not an opinion just a simple fact. The bottom line is this. There will be cost over run on this project no matter how you look at it.
When it comes to liability factors...The old saying goes. “You either pay for it now, or you will pay for it later”. And if you wait to pay for it later it can be very costly.
Another View,
I find your nitpicking quite tiresome.
I said some of the questions were straight from the Geiger party line. And, did you not see the redundancy in some or a lot of the questions?
Is that something for your to get your kidneys in an uproar over?
These aren't questions or comments put together out of the Council's mouths. These came from the public. That's why there are so many almost saying the same things.
Is that a bad thing? Nooo, but the Council will have to pare them down into some workable format to address them.
Is that a negataive? Perhaps to you. You do seem to get your shorts in a knot over any posting from me.
Either you froth at the mouth over anything Sharon, or, like the boys in 2nd grade who pulled braids and chased the girls...do you have a crush on me?
I think I've been the recipient of your put downs on a more personal level, and I find you as boring as you find me irritating.
So go sleep it off, kid.
Another View:
Dave Harmer knows what he's doing, although he plays not a role in this one; Mark johnson knows what he's doing,
I guess if some one gets fired for the state like dave harmer, and then get hired to the city they really know what they are doing.
and I guess if some one buys a humvee with taxpayer money like mark johnson and said that it is a fun thing for me, really know what he is doing.
What a crock of crap.
and as for all of us geting what we want, when is the mayor going to resign? Then we will all get what we want.
Sharon
Godfrey's mindless followers don't sleep. Didn't you get the memo?
I am flabbergasted to find not one single question has been listed about security on the urban leg of the gondola. What's to keep hoods from mugging people on the gondola? Talk about ducks in a barrel. I think the in-ability to provide adequate security is a deal breaker. Even my paltry brain can conceive of several scenarios where in an inner city hood could commit a crime and make a clean get-away after mugging (or even worse) a gondola rider. And the repercussions for the gondola system after a crime would cripple the entire system for a considerable time afterwards.
Another View
Are really a dumbass want-a-be lawyer that has less brains cells than a single cell aneba?
I guess if you listen to Matt Godfrey's show on channel 17 day after day that would kill off a few brain cells, just like illegal drugs, booze, sniffing paint, however they give you a benefit in return they make you feel good for a moment in time. I sure can't imagine viewing Matt Godfrey could ever produce that type of a side effect. espically when you know he is lieing....only a dumbass wouldn't be able to see that.
True Ogden:
The question you raise --- security on the proposed gondola --- is a good example of the kind of question that, so far as I know, no one has rasied other than on this blogsite. And it's the kind of question I'd like to be confident that somebody is thinking about, researching, taking seriously. Given that people keep telling me that lack of security in the old mall parking garage was one of the things that helped kill the mall, seems to me this is not a trivial question to raise. And if it will involve an increased police presence [involving increasing police staffing], the cost of that has to come off the estimates of how much more money this whole scheme will purportedly "bring" to city coffers.
Rudi wrote:
Update 8/29/06 11:33 a.m. MT: A full three days post-publication of Kristen Moulton's above-linked story, the local BDO-based fish-wrap producer which poses as our home-town newspaper breaches its recent gondola news blackout, and finally gets around to reporting on the council's 184 questions.
Well, let's think about this a little. First, the "news" was made public in a City Council press release. Not exactly a reporting "scoop" for the SLTrib. Second, the information contained in the press release was not particularly time-sensitive. Nothing covered by the press release was going to happen as a result in the next few days that the public needed to know about instantly. [Some stories clearly are time-sensitive. The Mayor's escapade as Junior G-Man following a city employee's wife around downtown for exampe. This one was not.]
And so, I wonder if it didn't turn out better for those of us interested in the gondola/real estate speculation scheme and in incresing public awareness about what's going on, that the SE carried the story 3 days after the SL Trib. Had it appeared in the SE on the same day it appeared in the SLTrib, it would have gotten space and public attention in only one news cycle.
As it turns out, it got coverage via the SLTrib and this blog in one news cycle, then it became a news item in Ogden again three days later. Second bite at the apple [so to speak], publicity wise.
Something to think about at least, que no?
Sharon, I've seen you and BELIEVE me....there's NO crush there. As an added little something, I've already mentioned that these questions came from a myriad of sources, including the Public, so you've tosssed out the baby with the bath water. I guess what gets me, about you, is your CONSTNAT and irratating nagging about everything, with no alternative offered. Now lady, that's B-O-R-I-N-G ! And I only used you ONCE for my examples.
Red Foreman thinks I'm a lawyer; I don't know where this "Mother, Baseball" guy's coming from as his writing skills need some re-honing ("get fired for the state like dave harmer," and "then get hired to the city") before his message resonates and reads logically; Concerned Cit2 already has us in court over liability factors that, in his view, should be all wrapped-up NOW before they cost us millions later (remember Concit2, THIS is a preliminary work);Pearls thinks I'm Mayor Godfrey and still fails to grasp the fact that ANY development between ANY two parties obligates EACH party to do its due diligence and spend a little money to prepare its side should the development go through; and good old Curmudgeon has me "cherry picking," when, in fact, I'm merely using a few items of his (and others) as examples and to support my premise.
Quite a spread, isn't it....a very BROAD viewpoint of what Discovery Ogden is and what it means. Again, for the final time now, it is THE COUNCIL'S beginning of what it thinks the PROCESS should be. It is a fact finding mission, in work, CHANGEABLE, put out to gather knowledge and attitude about a PROPOSAL....nothing more. It wasn't written by the Mayor, the college administration, Lift Ogden, Smart Growth Ogden, Bob Geiger, Jock Glidden, or Mary Hall. It is a compilation of questions (now READ and UNDERSTAND, Sharon) from a multitude of sectors that pertain to the Peterson Proposal that will serve as a process starting point. To go so "upside down" (emotion, speculation, wannabe attorneys, etc.) over this tells me that most of you don't understand PROCESS and that something like this, along with many other similar works and plans, are drastically needed, in order to make the right decision on this particular proposal. People, they are just questions, some redundant, that need to be answered in order to begin the begine.
A parting thought: If I can fire you up so with a simple posting or two on a blog, what do you suppose will Tom Ellison, Peterson's high priced counsel, be able to do, once he gets up to speed?
"...what do you suppose will Tom Ellison, Peterson's high priced counsel, be able to do, once he gets up to speed?"
Generate hundreds of billable hours and accomplish virtually nothing?
monotreme-
No City Council meetings scheduled for the 5th tuesday of the month.
I remember mention that the Planning Commission appointment will be addressed on September 5th.
Sounds like you're a bit envious of those "billable" hours, Ernie old chap. Whatever, it's Peterson's tab. I'm curious, how do you come up with the assumption that he'll "accomplish virtually nothing,"? Ellison is a very respected land use attorney who has put together many developmental processes throughout our state. He's generally considered to be the person to go to, by either side, that a land development process should take when it begins followed by a clear and sequential direction as it moves onward.
This guy's worth the high price of admission.
There seems to be an escalation of fanatisism in the posts of "another view". Some one pointed out it sounded like Mayor Godfrey. Some one else that it demonstrated confused thinking, etc.
Well I went back and read the several posts by this person, and I am quite convinced it is someone on the inside of the Godfrey and Peterson express. Some one with a definate vested interest. Some one that is, or is desperate to be, on the inside with the Mayor and Mr. Peterson. The latest fawning over the Peterson Lawyer is especially revealing.
Also the constant posturing of superior knowledge and "process" and other insider kind of stuff is a strong element in the whole Mayor Godfrey administration. It is once again that old "shut up and stay in your place commoner because we are the priest class with the secret knowledge and only we know what is best for you".
You can certainly bet that "another view" is one of these lemmings in the Godfrey circle if not the Mayor hisself.
"another view" said
"Sounds like you're a bit envious of those "billable" hours, Ernie old chap. Whatever, it's Peterson's tab."
Chris Peterson pay for something up front?
Be still, my beating heart.
Another View,
Shouldn't you be selling some mittens, a ski cap or something?
How do you earn a paycheck when you're expounding here? Or do you still get an allowance?
Before you take umbrage again...look up irony.
L'il Lisa,
I agree with your 3 proposals for Ogden.
Instead of the mayor shelling out another $6,250 or so bucks to advertise our 'ski' city in European mags....every downtown shop owner could be given some paint to clean up their storefronts. I think awnings on the stores on WA Blvd would be charming and give continuity.
Streetcars...YES! An inviting boulevard with cops walking, biking or on horseback would give security, and also be charming.
We DO have an inner city and wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to help those homeowners with a hand to clean up, and repair their places?
An elderly friend of mine was the recipient of some lovely help from some very young teens who came here from OR and painted her house!! They were a youth group from several nearby states, just out doing 'good'. Not from Ogden however.
There is a need in our city, that I'm sure our youth could be organized to address. I know that several churches already do wonderful things like cleaning up parks and cemeteries.
BTW...perhaps some of those 1200 jobs could be security officers patrolling the gondolas?
Maybe riding in the cars, like air marshals? Except they'd take up space.
Did y'all see that Hooper officials have completed A FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN before amending to provide developers (real ones) with incentives for preserving open space in predetermined areas.
"One of our most important goals is preserving the rural aesthetics of Hooper,..."said Mayor Glenn Barrow.
Wow...FIVE YEARS!!!! Now that's a mayor, planning commission, and city council working together for the good of the city and all citizens.
Kudos.
Sharon:
On Hizzonah's hiring PR firm to pitch Ogden as ski biz venue: well, that's fine with me. One of his jobs is to promote the city as a good place to do business, and if it works and picks up some good ink for Ogden along the way, ok by me. Good going, Mr. Mayor.
What I found interesting in the SE piece this morning is the absence of the word "gondola." Every other time Hizzonah has done a press release or interview on pitching Ogden as a ski biz "hub," he's turned it into a pitch for the Peterson real estate specualtion/gondola-gondola project. Usually he insists these companies are coming here only because of the promise of a gondola, or that veritable legions of other companies are waiting in the wings to come to Ogden once Mt. Ogden parklands are sold off and the gondola is abuilding.
But this time... nary a mention. And I am curious why. I can think of a couple of possible explanations, purely as speculations.
(a) It is known that some business leaders who favor the gondola gamble, have become concerned at Hizzonah's assuring prospective ski industry company movers, that the gondola is a "done deal." Since it is not "a done deal," no proposal having been even made at the time Godfrey was making such assurances [months ago], and no action on it having been yet taken, and concerns about its wisdom rising steadily, said business leaders warned Hizzonah to cool it on the guarantees, fearing that the City's credibility when it [or they] pitched new businesses to come here could be irretrievably damaged. And so this time, no mention of the gondola, just of what a nifty place Ogden is for ski companies to do business, right now.
(b) The reporter has caught on to the mayor's penchant for using every press conference, every telephone chat, every press release to push his buddy's real estate development scheme and the gondola gamble, and refused, this time, to make that pitch part of a straighforward story on how the Mayor is trying to sell Ogden as a ski biz hub.
What do you think? Other scenarios? But I did find the complete absence of Hizzonah's usual "gondola/gondola pitch" interersting.
I don't think the European ad campaign was $6250....I believe that is the total dollars expended by the City toward the gondola concept....not bad, especially when one considers that Ogden now has EIGHT (8) ski companies located within our boundaries. One step at a time, the Godfrey concept of creating a "ski hub" seems to be working.
Street cars are cool. Beat cops are cool. Cops on horses could pose a problem, unless the horses had bags attached under their tails.
I'd be interested to know what group of people would be next in line for the propery clean & fix up, after we take care of the Inner City. Might run into a problem there because if you do one you should do them all....TAX DOLLARS, remember?
How does one preserve the rural aesthetics of Hooper? And how does that apply to Ogden?
"Mercy," I play Texas Hold-em, and I'm pretty good. The games are at night so I can blog during the day.
"Pearls," the fantasy is coming from you who post, trying their best to decide whether I'm the mayor or the ski guy.
And to give me all that credit, because I am able to expound somewhat on "process," is very flattering, but undeserving to say the least. This is simple stuff, merely the way things are, which I've tried to point out.
As for my so-called "fawning" over Ellison being "revealing?" Hell man, this ain't Hollywood Squares. I'm just giving credit where credit's due....nothing more, nothing less.
This is fun, isn't it?
"Another View" seem to be waging this parallel argument with several people here. He doesn't seem to be getting what is really being said so he supposes what is being said and then argues against it!
Definately some one who thinks of them self as an insider.
Definately some one who is clueless as to what the real discussion is. Definately someone who is buying into more slogans (Discovery Ogden) instead of looking at what is really going on. Definately some one who is totally in the dark about how Peterson and his attorney are molding the city and our council into the obedient servants that they need them to be.
What is fun is how some people are so stupid that they don't know they are stupid. They think they have some knowledge or understanding of some complex issue when they don't have a clue. They then set themselves up in this elevated position of knowledge and lecture those they have discussions with, usually in a condensending manner. Most often the person they are talking down to is actually much more knowledgeable on the subject than the stupid one is. The net result is proof positive that the stupid one is in fact more stupid than people at first thought he was.
Congratulations Another View, keep them post coming, you are amusing a lot of us with your pompous ignorance. Fun indeed.
Another View:
The mayor's office has spent considerably more than 6K on gondola promotion. That's all he reported to the Council when it asked. Since then documented expenditures totaling over 65K have been uncovered. Just another example of the Mayor's failure to grasp the concept of ethical conduct in office.
I'm with the mayor all the way as he tries to convince other ski companies to bring their opeations to Ogden, because of the much lower rents they will pay, because of the fabulous access to hiking and biking trails on this side of the Wasatch Crest and to world class skiing venue at Snow Basin and other ski venues at Poweder Mt. and at Wolf Mt., because of the outdoor labs for their products practically at their front doors, and because the outdoor lifestyle so available to all right now their empoloyees will find attractive. I sign off only when he tries to twist this promotion of Ogden into support for the gondola/gondola real estate speculation scheme.
And, to repeat, the SE article was not about promoting the gondola scheme. Gondola, again, unmentioned in the article. I find it interesting that you seem to assume any promotion of Ogden is, automatically, promotion of the gondola and Peterson real estate speculation scheme. Permit me to note yet again that all of the companies listed in the article have agreed to move to Ogden, and some did some time ago... without any gondola in place. Seems we're drawing them with what we have now. Withou selling off the public park lands on the bench. Without sinking millions into a downtown gondola that will not, UTA says, work as a mass transit system, and that will not connect downtown with Snow Basin. Imagine that.
Curm,
I too happily noted that the gondola was not mentioned as the bait for the ski companies. None have committed, but are talking.
It's interesting that after telling one and all what a dump Ogden is and only the sexy cool gondola can save her....we now have companies at least talking about coming here.
As you say, Curm, 'imagine that!'.
However sexy and cool another ski clothing distributor would be, I'd like to see a company that hires more than 15 people settle here.
Whatever happened to West Liberty Foods?
I agree with you Curm, that maybe some of our more astute business leaders told the boy mayor to 'ixnay on the ondolagay'.
Ogden offers soooo much to the discerning investor, homeowner, businessman, etc.
I'm not sure the reporter figured out that he's always a mouthpiece for the gondola crowd, so much as the SE may have been given the word at a Rotary or Exchange luncheon. Just boys talking.
AV: what's wrong with a 'Neighbor to Neighbor' project that pairs the skilled with the neediest among us? And Curm, if the mayor is going to spend over $6000. for magazine ads to tout Ogden...why not target other companies besides ski clothiers?
Before he goes off half-cocked again on the wonders of winter here, let him pay attention to our infrastructure, and fix up those 'blighted' areas he's been so ready to point out.
If we don't have a strong infrastructure, how could this city support a light manufacturing company or one that hires several hundred employees?
I see that the road crews have been working on Country Hills Dr again..across from Forest Green Park and the Dee Event Center. I hope that's not this year's snow removal monies?
AV: since y'all are sure that 1200 people need jobs...a horse patrol could hire several as 'pooper scoopers.'
One public safety item not addressed in the Council Questions was how long would it take to evacuate the Mayor's Gondola in the event of an emergency. 8 miles of gondola (4 each way from Wall Ave. to WSU), with several hundred cars suspended in the air. If you've ever had to be evacuated from a ski lift, you'll know it can take hours for a 1 mile long lift. Taking several (or more) hours in the heat of summer, in a fishbowl is unreasonable and foolish.
Running towers down Harrison? It's not if, but when a major accident occurs and puts everything out of commission.
Overall, let's see if Mayor Matt can actually formulate answers to the 184 questions, then everybody can see the stupidity of this idea.
Curm, you just have to point out where I've tied EVERY Ogden promotion to the promotion of the gondola proposal. Betcha can't cause it didn't happen. I'm probably not far off in regards to the ski companies, however, which was who I was talking about in the above post. No other companies, just those 8 ski companies. I could even be wrong here and if so, then God forgive me.
Sharon, nothing is wrong with pairing those who have with those who have not....but do it and try to draw a line in the sand and I'll bet that the guy next to the cut-off line will be offended. Again, could be wrong, but when you start to seperate people into "classes," even though you mean well and I know what you're doing here, you have to be very careful. Some group is going to take exception to this, from the ones who ask, "who is she to tell us we're poor and in need of help" to those who ask "who is she to tell us we don't qualify for this help." Just throwing out a yellow flag, not throwing water on your project.
And PBS, isn't a blog designed to share opposing ideas and dialogue on a subject? Why is it that you feel I'm condescending and am trying to set others up? Goodness, man, I'm just responding to questions and comments that you guys have thrown at me....it's ONLY opinion, PBS, and it appears I've struck some nerves, like in your case. I guess what they say is right: the truth hurts. Relax and don't take this thing so personal.
And, once more Sharon....you gotta show me where I wrote that I'm "sure that 1200 people need jobs." Wasn't that your line as you were regailing LO for it's suppositions on what the gondola would bring to town? Think so.
Out of curiosity, I went to the Freestyle magazine website to look for the article touting Ogden.
How many "shadings of the truth" can you find in the following sentence?
"The town has proposed a gondola from the downtown area that would traverse the backside of Snowbasin and provide easy access to the ski area...."
"Million dollar tax breaks" offered in exchange for 50 part time jobs? Did we know about those? What kind of concessions are offered for fewer employees? I realize that offering concessions is an accepted business practice, but part time means no health insurance or other benefits. A fine way to help our local economy, Mr. Mayor! Or perhaps this part of the article is innacurate as well. (BTW, Freestyle could use a good editor or grammar teacher.)
MAYOR UNDERGOES SHOCKING CONVERSION?
On the last page of this morning's "Weber Plus" section of the Standard Examiner, there is a full page ad by the City of Ogden touting [among other things] an "open house" to be held at Union Station on 28 September from 6 pm to 9 pm. [Headline reads "Gondola or Streetcar?] Presentations will be made by, it says, representatives of the Wasatch Front Regional Council and by Ogden City Administration personel. And the mayor will make a "brief presentation."
The purpose of all this, the ad said, is to provide citizens with "accurate information regarding the proposed transit systems, including the gondola." Further along, the ad says "The Ogden City Administration understands that a lot is happening in connection with the future of Ogden City. It is hoped that this open house will become an opportunity to distribute correct information and answer residents' questions. We invite all to attend and become informed about our city's future transportation plans."
Two observations:
If the Mayor has now, suddenly become commited to providing accurate information about the gondola to Ogden citizens, it would mark a conversion on his part of stunning proportions. So I decided to check the Ogden City Website to see if it was still, at the Mayor's behest, claiming the gondola will connect downtown with Snow Basin. Yup. Still is. Still claiming "It provides the ability for Snow Basin patrons to use the gondola and not drive to the resort." So much for the Mayor's conversion to providing "accurate information."
Second: So, the Mayor's ad reads, "we invite all to attend and become informed about our city's future transportation plans." Gee, is the Mayor now enouraging people to "get involved" and "ask question?" Hasn't Smart Growth Ogden been doing that for some months now? Can we then expect an SGO lawn sign to go up at the Mayor's place soon?
Curious how the Mayor's cronies over at LO have been criticizing SGO for months on end for asking people to "get involved" and "ask questions," and now suddenly, Hizzonah is doing the same.
Imagine that.
omigosh!!! stunning news. 'get involved..ask questions????'...but we have been! Where are the answers?
AV..you silly kid....Geiger et al, came up with the 1200 jobs!
Eat your lunch like a good boy and take a nap.
Just noticed that the "streetcar" in the city ad this morning is in fact a San Fran cable car. Odd that the Mayor's new committment to accurate information didn't lead him to have included instead a picture of, say, the modern Portland Streetcar, which is the design WTC studied for use in Ogden.
Curmudgeon, the Mayor's ad didn't say anything about asking questions! It said: "we invite all to attend and become informed about our city's future transportation plans."
In essence - "come on down and hear what I have decided is best for ya'll".
Zed:
Maybe you got a different ad than I did. The one in my SE mentioned questions twice. (1) "Ogden City Administration will be present to answer residents' questions...." and (b)"...an opportunity to distribute correct information and answer residents' questions...."
Curmudgeon
I didn't see the Mayor's ad directly. I only saw your quote from it which read:
"Second: So, the Mayor's ad reads, "we invite all to attend and become informed about our city's future transportation plans."
By the way, I think this Glassman resignation is the best possible thing for Ogden. The position really should have a competent person in it. It has been apparent for some time that he was not up to the task.
Zed:
In Re: Glassman resignation. Possibly. Depends, I guess, on his replacement. But whoever that turns out to be, he or she will not have been chosen by the voters to the office. Which can, and I suspect will, create some problems on votes that fall 4-3, if the appointee is in the majority. Such votes will have been decided by someone not elected to the office. Strikes me as no small matter, particularly on large and controversial questions like, for example, the proposed sale of the Mt. Ogden parklands to Mr. Peterson for development as vacation villas.
The more I think about that, especially now that a potential swing vote [either way, pro or con] may be cast by an un-elected council member, the more I am coming to think the matter should be decided by public referendum. Tending that way, anyhow.
BTW, I hold no particular brief for Mt. Glassman. I didn't vote for him. And as far as I was concerned, his performance on the Council to date was mixed. Some of his stands I approved of, some I didn't, and his [in my view] awkward fawning over the Mayor of late had me concerned. I just don't like character asassination as a form of political debate.
You know, I think I've thought more about city government, and how it operates, and how it ought to operate, and various forms of city government, and the proper role of a Council in the mayor/council form, etc. etc. in the last 18 months than I have over the previous two decades. For which thanks to Rudi for hosting WC Forum, and to everyone who's been willing to mix it up here, now and then, on a variety of issues. Been interesting. Or has been for me, at least. But then, I'm a political junkie.
what do you think of a mayor/city administrator form of gov't? Can still have a council.
New comments are not allowed.