Searching for UTmorMAN's Vanished Blog Posts
By Rudizink
On August 9, Dian provided us detailed narratives on the previous night's regular council meeting and work session. Of particular interest to us was Dian's description of the work session "presentation," wherein Chris Peterson's attorney, Tom Ellison, outlined a series of proposed "steps," which would amount to a wholesale "scrapping" of Emerald City's existing zoning and planning scheme as it relates to Peterson's Gondola/Golf Course/Residential Development/Resort Project. Dian described it quite accurately, we think, as "...[substitution of] a development agreement that will itself constitute the regulatory process for the project."
We obtained yesterday a copy of a July 21 letter Chris Peterson letter, addressed to Mayor Godfrey, which squarely addresses the subject of Mr. Ellison's Tuesday night presentation. Having reviewed this letter ourselves, we would suggest that its text sets forth the "Approval Process" portion of the Peterson proposal with more particularity, we believe, than even the earlier oral presentation. Several readers have privately expressed to us that they would like more detail in the information provided by Mr. Peterson so far. We have therefore uploaded this document to an archive page, which can be accessed by clicking this link.
Although we've done our own review of this document, we'll resist for the moment the offering of our own micro-analysis. Instead, we thought we might throw it out for reading and discussion amongst our gentle readers.
Having said that, we will note three aspects of this proposal that we find particularly troublesome:
- Unrealisticaly "Tight" Timelines: The document sets forth a series of timeline "phases," the first of which (entry into a "pre-development agreement" by August 4, 2006) has already lapsed. It seems to us that even the series of "approvals" proposed in the proposal's "Initial Phase" were far too complex to have been reasonably expected to have been performed within the timeframe set forth in that section. We believe the anticipated timelines set forth in the other "phases" are likewise hopelessly unrealistic, and simply cannot be met, except by short-changing the public process that the citizens all expect and deserve.
- Illogical Sequence: Our initial impression is that the presentation of these proposals piecemeal, in the absence of any information about Mr. Peterson's general purchase proposal, puts the cart completely before the horse. What we believe Mr. Peterson ought to have done, is to have laid his complete and entire proposal on the table, together with the approval process proposal portions contained in his letter and oral presentation. The expectation that the city council should be expected to remodel our entire scheme of zoning and planning prior even to the presentation of a firm purchase offer, (which would set forth the respective general duties and obligations of all parties to the transaction,) goes far beyond unrealistic, into the realm of the preposterous.
- Absence of Information re Purchase Price & Terms: Although this aspect of our concern is really a sub-set of the defect described in the preceding paragraph, we find it astonishing that Mr. Peterson has yet to inform anyone how much he proposes to pay for the targeted properties, or what "financing terms" or other concessions he might expect. Price is the most important element in any purchase or development transaction; and the absence of any discussion of this fundamental contract element leaves us doubtful about Mr. Peterson's seriousness.
We're hoping here to tap "the wisdom of the crowd" on this, (and keeping our fingers crossed.)
Who will be the first to comment?
Update 8/11/06 11:07 a.m. MT: One of our gentle readers, OgdenLover, submits this Kristen Moulton tidbit via email. Our old pal UTmorMan, who for a while operated a rabidly pro-Godfreyite blog, is Boss Godfrey's selection for a Godfrey-vacated planning commission seat. No better way to ram the Peterson proposal down the throats of the townsfolk within the narrow timelines that Chris Peterson proposes, we guess, than by packing the planning commission with shameless Godfrey "brown-nosers."
Update 8/12/06 4:29 p.m. MT: Being the curious type, your ever-inquisite blogmeister travelled over to our old pal UTmorMAN's now-abandoned blogsite, The Good In Ogden, and found that not only has our pal quit posting on his blog -- he's committed the ultimate sin in the blogoshere -- deleting almost a year's worth of posts. Now that he finds himself one of Boss Godfrey's chosen ones, and has been nominated for a city planning commission seat, his slavish pro-Godfrey work product of at least ten months has now vanished into the cyber-ether. This is the cyber-equivalent of document-shredding as far as we're concerned. We believe that this devious and evasive suppression of highly-partisan prior political activity, which entirely deprives our city council of VERY relevant information, highly pertinent to his proposed planning commission appointment, can only be interpreted as an intentional act intended to deceive the council, and to mendaciously subvert the appointment process.
See for yourselves: Here's a link to UTMO's blogsite: thegoodinogden.com.
Your humble and ever-curious blogmeister will devote some time over the weekend employing obscure search engines, to try to uncover cached copies of some of the material that UTmorMAN has deleted. Nothing ever truly vanishes from the internet. We'll let our readers know what we come up with. Sounds like a fine project, dontcha think?
29 comments:
Now I wish I'd kissed Matt Godfrey's butt for over a year just like Dustin did.
A PLANNING COMMISION JOB!
WHAT A POLITICAL PERK!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Having read the letter, I too am concerned that the cart is "way" in front of the horse on what the developer want Ogden City to commit to before we even gat to see the project. I also have several concerns with regards to all the safeguards(that our current general plan, annexing, and zoning have in place to protect our community) that are being side stepped. I can't believe that anyone would ever consider this proposal. It would be like buying and paying in advance for a used car with out even seeing the car.
Also interesting, is that in the Projects section (f) he now only describes the Malan Basin Development as ski lift, trails and other resort-related facilities. And (g) only describes Malan Basin as a new mixed-use village.
What became of the big 350 unit condo resort and without it, what kind of draw is the place going to bring to Ogden.
If all we end up with is a Nordic Valley sized ski resort for expert skiers only and a snack bar/ restaurant at the bottom, I'm wondering how Godfrey figures that Ogden will benefit, let alone create 1200 new permanent jobs?
Is any one truly surprised that Godfey would attempt to appoint a shameless psycophant like this totally inept and incompetent Dustin guy to the planning commision? Jeeeze he couldn't even run a half way decent blog site. He does fit in with the normal crew that Godfrey surrounds himself with. They are all losers one way or another. That is the only way Godfrey can operate, there is absolutely no room in his inner circle for independent thinking or integrity.
Beware of this move for stacking the Ogden Planning Commission with ogdenmormon, he is VERY active in Lift Ogden and always been outspoken for the gondola. If you had read his lame blog goodingogden when it was going you would see. Shalae Larsen WAS let go because she had a Smart Growth Ogden sign on her front yard and the Mayor knew she was questioning this project. She only got complaints from developers because she was not afraid to challenge them and ask pointed questions. It was obvious that was the reason she was not reappointed. This is truly a move to stack the decks. Call/email your city council and let them be aware of this move and the biases this new person WILL bring. After all he does work for a developer and has been quoted by the press and spoken out in City Council many times pro everything development. He has always been pro development on all moves in Ogden and he is quoted now to say he will be open is not possible. Beware!
X-Humbug Says:
Just how stupid does Das Fuher Godfrey think the people of Ogden are? When he had the city council firmly in his grip he could do what ever he wanted. We now need this City Council to put an immediate stop to this B.S.. First by calling for an outside (not from Utah) investigation by either the ACLU and/or U.S. Justice Department.
Second by getting a court ordered injuction preventing him from any further conducting of official city business until the outside investagtion is completed.
Just how long and how many other illegal acts must Godfrey commit before we put a stop to this.
I am currently visiting family in Riverside County California and his little Constitutional First Ammendment suspension is starting to make the news out here. My sister, who flew in today from Fort Collins, Colorado,
said it made the news over there.
Enough is enough! GG2G = Godferys' Got 2 Go!!!
X-Humbug...what a good idea! An injunction against doing any further business til the so-called investigation is completed.
Well, I've waded thru this letter from Chris thru his mouthpiece, Ellison.
As mind numbing to read as listening to Ellison Tuesday night.
I'm concerned about'vacation of public rights in certain existing trails to be used for private development."
I thot that wasn't going to happen. Anyone else have that understanding from CP and Godfrey?
What's a 'mountain resort' and 'mountain villiage'?
There are SEVEN "PROJECTS"...SUPPOSEDLY INTERDEPENDENT which have to come together or this ain't gonna fly...but how is that possible?
Here's an interesting item: "the City Council using full LEGISLATIVE powers"....who is he kidding?
This CC does not have full LEGISLATIVE powers because they've been handed back to the mayor by the Council we threw out...along with the ordinances that gave this Council FULL LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
And who do you think knows that? Hmmm?
Everyone in this crooked administration EXCEPT the Council, it would appear.
Rudi...please explain the annexation of property 'not within the City's boundaries'....is that any outhouses or whatever that CP decides makes Malan's a desirable 'sister mixed village' to Ogden? So that WE pick up the tab for sewer, water, electricity, roads, etc? That sounds very
scary to me!
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS...not just a 'few changes.' (which isn't acceptable either.) This is worse than Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.
I think it's going to take a whole
forest full of lumberjacks to come slay this pack of wolves.
'Oh, Grandma, what big teeth you have.' "The better to devour your whole town and any last penny I can swindle, my dear.'
What's with August FOURTH? Did these two 'gentlemen' plan on a signing party' on that date? How had they planned to accomplish that, since the Council met on the EIGHTH? Oh wait...perhaps only with Godfrey and Harmer as the signatories?
What a rush job...as nearly as I can figure, this whole rape of our lands, trails, golf course and wallets is to be in place by June 1??
AND, annex Malan's....that most desirable piece of rock? Geez...that other infamous rock, Alcatraz, could at least take society's bad boys out of circulation.
well, you gotta hand it to Matt. His fertile brain never goes on 'idle' when it comes to thinking up another legacy for himself and a 'project' designed to bankrupt our city.
So, where is the stop at WSU...that then goes EAST across the northern part of campus? Over the stadium..parking lot, where?
It makes me queasy to read this gobbleygook put together by Ellison. He appared slick at the work meeting, and he comes across as a master of say a lot and give 'em nothing.
Not one mention of Chris performing the many studies that have been brought up in all those public hearings in which he grinningly says, "I learned a lot."
Guess he didn't read the comment boards that the majority of Ogdenites and
Weber County folks think this is a
Peterson-Godfrey Gotcha!
Still no mention of WHAT fair market value is....and just who are CP's investors, and hey...just how solvent is this guy?
Show us the studies, show us the money, show us your experience as a developer, Mr Peterson.
Andlet us not forget that at the work meeting Tu nite, your magnanimous mayor piped up with, 'our engineers will do that!'....Translation: you want studies done...WE'LL foot the bill!!!
Oy vey...such a deal ve should valk avay.
Yes..Chapman and Wright we know for sure are slavish devotees of Godfrey and his visions.
You say you don't think the others on the PC are....WHO does know?
I think Wright's appointment should be rescinded.
Glassman states that 'rhetoric' is just what politicians, (or campaigners) say before they are elected and that can change once they are voted in as they learn the facts.
Well, Ms Jeske told the folks during her campaign that she would listen to the people and, as she gave the entire Council a flashlight on Swearing-In Day, said she is committed to keeping ' a light on the Council's doings.'
Pls recall that she is the ONLY member who would not meet privately with Godfrey as wahe was attempting to extract loyalty to him and support for the gondola.
I used to think that what someone said during the campaign carried over into their conduct after the election.
Keep the light on, Dorrene. Cockroaches always try to scurry back into the woodwork when the light comes on.
In looking at this planning commission situation, I am reminded of the Lift Ogden rally outside the municipal building and the highly visible presence of men wearing white T shirts with "Team R&O" across the back in green letters. At that time, there were a few posts on WCF stating that the presence of those men had been requested by their employer.
Whether or not that was the case, it does draw attention to the fact that many of those on both sides of the gondola question are motivated by private, not public concerns. And this is fine. But in my opinion, those in our local government should not be motivated by such concerns, but instead by what will be best for the city as a whole.
Ms. Wright, for instance, has been very vocal about the fact that her business has suffered from the lack of surrounding businesses downtown and that she is in favor of these projects. And Kristen Moulten states in her article:
...Chapman, 25, a project engineer for Kier Construction...
Right there, we have two people of whom it could be said that their personal livlihoods are tied to the success of these development projects. And that, to me, represents conflict of interest. Indirect, to be sure, but nonetheless, not too comfortable for those who do not want this project to have representing them.
In fact, this latest planning commission appointment move, coupled with the recent Peterson presentation, points to the habit of the Godfrey administration of excluding those not in favor of the projects from the decision making process. As we will recall, the Mount Ogden Community had meetings to begin to formulate a neighborhood plan. These meetings were very well attended, names were taken for those who wished to serve on committees, and so far to my knowledge, no one has been contacted to begin that neighborhood planning process. Yet, part of the Peterson proposal reads:
...The City Council will be asked to amend the General Plan and any applicable neighborhood or other planning documents to contemplate and be consistent with the Projects...,
Can anyone say steamroller? Before residents have even been contacted to participate in the neighborhood plan process, plans are being made to amend neighborhood plans to "be consistent with the projects." Can this be any more blatant?
Other people have applied for these planning commission seats. I have no idea what the selection process entails, but here is a rejection letter received by one of those applicants:
Department of Management Services
Human Resources Division
Date
Address
Dear -----,
Thank you for your interest in the position of PLANNER II or III and for allowing us to review your qualifications.
We have, however, reduced the finalists to several individuals whose qualifications more closely match our job requirements.
We appreciate you taking an interest in this opening and encourage you to apply for other positions in the future.
Sincerely,
Ogden City Human Resources
(no signature)
One wonders just what those qualifications are.
Wow, Ogden "i!"
The individual who received that letter was told to drop a resume off at the municipal building and state interest in the seat on the planning commission by a council member. No job application form was filled out. This is very odd.
Wonder if it happened to anyone else.
Hmmm.
The ACLU? That radical, left wing gang who would make it legal to do just about anything?
The U.S. Justice Department? Plenty of time on their hands for this. Forget terrorism and the Mafia, let's get Godfrey and Greiner.
A court injunction to prevent Godfrey from doing business? Wonder how much that'll cost and who will pay the tab? Maybe x-humbug or Sharon will come up with the $$$ and put their money where their mouths are.
A strange paradox exists: many of the trails used by the Public are owned by Chris Peterson and now some are concerned by the possibility of "vacation" of Public Rights? Goodness sakes alive, Peterson is giving the Public access to his land and now some are worried he'll take his land back for his own use, which will ultimately allow for Public interaction. Gotta study up, people.
Annexation does not mean "picking up the tab" for water, sewer, electricity and roads. Most often, those costs are borne by the developer.
And the tests some are so nervous about and want to see. Those cost money, lots of money, and they are not completed until a Development Agreement is agreed to, which Agreement's execution is CONDITIONED on those tests being performed satisfactorily.
The former council did give some legislative power back to the Mayor, but not all as has been suggested. The council still has enough legislative responsibilities to ensure that any development will be completed with all propriety. Enough of the scare tactics.
The "study" that the City will pay for? Again, usual costs the City bares....it's for the sewer and infrastructure that the proposed 400 houses will utilize, if built. If the study shows the infrastructure incapable of handling the extra housing, a deal will be cut with the developer to upgrad the infrastructure to accomodate the extra load (pardon the pun). Nothing secret here, just one of the parts that happens to be the City's responsibility so a developer will know what needs to be done.
If the City is to enjoy the added tax revenue that will come as a result of a development, the City will have to put up its share of money for its end.
There's really no conspiracy. Ellison was rather eloquent, not "mind numbing," unless one was lost and didn't understand that this meeting was "process determination."
And I doubt that we'll see the gondola, if it's built, running over Wildcat Stadium. Time to get real here and look things over sensibly instead of conspiratorily.
Well, Ogden "i," I think you're right---I had glossed over the Planner 1 & 2 thing because we had heard there were two seats open on the Commission and I just thought that's what they were calling them. But now, in looking this over, I think it may very well be that a mistake has been made in this case at least, and possibly this person's interest didn't reach the mayor.
I have made this known to them.
Since we had openings in both the Planning Commission and the Planning Department at the same time, it is easy to see how this sort of thing could have occurred. I really hope it didn't happen to anyone else.
You know, in view of the comments made a couple of council meetings ago about the same people being appointed for things over and over, and then the comments that the public was not showing interest in serving on committees, I am now wondering if things showing interest in these matters on the part of the public are getting to where they should go.
I have seen notice of openings sometimes in water bills, but not recently. Was there one about these Planning Commission openings and did I just miss it? Is there any protocol that should be observed in notifying the public of these things?
This would be a good subject for a blog article, I think. (Rudi???)
Ogden ii, thanks so much for writing and shedding some light on this.
From the Salt Lake Tribune's Aug 12th article on the Ogden Planning Commission:
"Who is on the commission and what does it do?
The Planning Commission considers proposed land uses and whether they fit the city's planning principles and general plan. The commission makes recommendations to the City Council, which can accept or reject them. On Ogden's commission: Ron J. Atencio, Cathy Blaisdell, Robert Herman, Richard Hyer, Carlin Maw, Bryan Schade, Ronald V. Wheelwright and Janith Wright. Dustin Chapman has been nominated to replace Carol Brockman.
A link to the Salt Lake Tribune is provided on the WCF homepage, just go there and insert "Ogden" in their search engine to find out what's happening here.
Nominating Dustin Chapman to the planning commission is the ultimate act of Godfrey hubris.
Godfrey might as well have appointed Ed or Bernie Allen.
Ya it is the ultimate in hybris. I agree that it is the same as Ed or Bernie Allen. Or better yet... one of the Geiger boys.
Yes blatant blatant BIAS! On a commission that needs to be neutral.
Ogden 'I'
Masterful. Thank you for all your information and your articulate expression.
I wrote to the Council and the mayor's office about the OPD and OFD, and the only person I rec'd a reply from (several times) was Bill Glassman.
His bias for the mayor was blatant, and his remarks belittling of me. I won't bother to repeat what he said, but the tenor of his remarks does not give me much hope that BG would vote against the mayor's wishes.
I hope I'm proven wrong, and that he and the other Council members do what is right for our public servants and will, this time, use their veto power regarding Dustin Chapman.
DC may have 'shredded' his LiftOgden articles, but he still has his silly drooling over Bob Geiger's SE letter as, the best (greatest?) letter to the editor.
That should give the Council pause.
Thank you again, for such illuminating postings.
My husband and I will try again with the mayor's office and the Council.
I received the following comments by e-mail, and with the sender's permission, I am posting them below:
"Attendee" said,
"A strange paradox exists: many of the trails used by the Public are owned by Chris Peterson and now some are concerned by the possibility of "vacation" of Public Rights? Goodness sakes alive, Peterson is giving the Public access to his land and now some are worried he'll take his land back for his own use, which will ultimately allow for Public interaction. Gotta study up, people."
It is inaccurate to say that "many" of the trails used by the public are owned by Chris Peterson. There are some privately owned sections of the Bonneville Shoreline (none of which are owned by Peterson) and Waterfall Canyon Trail (owned now by Peterson) that have been used continuously by the public for decades.
It is the position of many people and some organizations, including Weber Pathways, that there exists a "public use" or "prescriptive easement" on those trails. The public use of these trails existed long before Mr. Peterson purchased the property, in fact they probably existed before Mr. Peterson was born.
Chris Peterson surely had constructive knowledge of the long standing use of these trails before he purchased the land. The Rasmussen family who sold the land to Mr. Peterson had posted numerous no trespassing signs on the trails, which were largely ignored by the public. Mr. Peterson has not given "permission" to use the trails, rather the public has used the trails in spite of any attempt to close them off. If Mr. Peterson wants to fence off property that has not been in continuous use by the public for decades, that is his right as a private property owner.
But, there is a strong assertion that he cannot ban the public from using the long established trails. He is clearly threatening the public with closure unless he gets what he wants. The public should not be held hostage to such threats, nor should the council consider giving up this long standing public right.
No reasonable city planner or official would deny that there are costs associated with annexing property. While developers may pay for some infrastructure costs, they do not pay for emergency services, which may be quite high in an area like Malan's Basin.
Besides, has Mr. Peterson agreed to pay for all the infrastructure costs, including roads? If so, let him put those offers on the table. There may be some benefits to annexing property, but these are generally for commercial properties. It is up to Mr. Peterson to prove what those benefits might be.
As to feasibility studies, Mr. Peterson is the one making the extraordinary claims of 350 condominiums, a Swiss village and ski resort in Malan's Basin. He even has artist's renderings. He claims he can build 400 luxury homes and a new golf course in our foothills, provide 1200 new jobs, 10 million in new property taxes and a half a billion dollar investment.
Did he just make up these numbers? Has he made these promises publicly, with no evidence of the credibility of his claims? If so, Ogden residents should be extremely wary of such a developer. Fact is, he hasn't even put the cards on the table that he has, much less been willing to invest a few hundred thousand in what he believes will be a multi million dollar profit for him and his investors.
"Added tax revenue?" Show us. Study after study indicates that residential property tax revenue does not pay for the cost of services. It's call "sprawl" and it never pays for itself. The "cheapest" property for cities to own is open space. And now, cities across the Wasatch front and across the nation are recognizing the economic benefit of open space. Salt Lake County is asking residents to approve a 40 million dollar bond to buy open space. Salt Lake City is proposing a tax increase to buy open space.
Yet Ogden already has in its foothills some of the most beautiful and unique open space and trails in any urban setting. The onus is on the developer to show why we should sell such a valuable asset and at what cost.
DIAN FOR MAYOR!!!
We Agree!!!!
I am overwhelmed.
But if you are basing your endorsement on the last post on this thread with my name on it, that particular piece is not mine, but by a friend of mine who is new to blogging, as I said earlier, who e-mailed it to me. Am trying to get this person to participate on the blog.
Not to say I don't agree with that post--I do, absolutely.
A prescriptive easment requirers 20 years of Non-Permissive use by the public. This means that if the public, uses a trail or road across someone's private property for at least 20 years, without permission from the owner, then the right to use that trail or road cannot be revoked.
This is clearly the case with virtually all the trails on the Peterson property. Dian is correct when she says that these easments have existed since before Peterson was born.
There has been many generations of Ogden residents that have used these trails for over a hundred and fifty years. Any threats that Peterson makes to withdraw the public's right to use these trails is a complete bluff. He does not have that right under the law.
Well, those trails I think have been in use by the public for over fifty years.
But Sam, in your opinion, (or in anyone else's who wishes to chime in,) although the prescriptive easement states that the property owner cannot bar the public from access, what is the ruling on the property owner obliterating the access entirely?
Which is what I think is planned, and when new trails are built, they will then not be covered by the easement because they are new? Or will they?
Just to keep the constantly moving Peterson "proposal" up to day, latest I've heard is that Mr. Peterson now plans to build "up to 650" houses on the city and Weber state lands he wants to buy, not 400. Not confirmed yet, so passing it on only as unsubstantiated rumor at this point. But for what it's worth... 650 not 400.
Now just think, if he shifted just a few of the "home sites" to "high-rise condominiums" just imagine how many more units he'd have to sell.
Still curious to know if anyone has done any kind of market study to see if the Ogden market could absorb 400 or 650 [or whatever the number is] upscale vacation villas/family homes --- Peterson says they will be used for both purposes, and no one can be sure what proportion of each will use will prevail. Or what they would do to resale value of existing homes along the bench. Seems to me a matter of some significance.
"It is the position of many people...."
then
"they probably existed before Mr. Peterson was born."
Alot of assumptions here, meaningless really, as per the so-called "prescriptive easement" situation.
Here's the deal: "When the claimant had made use of another's land for a certain period of time as defined by State Law, an easement by presricption or a prescriptive easement MAY be acquired. The prescriptive period may be from 10 to 21 years. The claimant's use MUST have been CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, and WITHOY THE OWNER's APPROVAL. The use must be visible, open amd notorious, that is, the owner must have been able to learn of it."
A term called "tacking" also applies, which goes to owner to owner, etc. In this case the Malans, the Rasmussens and now Peterson had and have APPROVED of the Public's use of the trails that criss-cross their land, MANY trails, Dian. All of those families KNEW of the Public's use and APPROVED of the Public use.
So much for "prescriptive easement" that so many feel is the way to stop the proposed development. "I think" and "probably" won't quite cut it in the legal system, if it comes to that.
Possibly 650 homes, eh?
Well, many of those Mr. Peterson has said will be SECOND homes. That implies that they could stand empty a good part of the year.
Won't our police be overburdened patrolling that gated community, which will be adjacent to the trails, and all sorts of townie riff? This will take the cops off our Ogden streets and leave other neighborhoods vulnerale to crime.
Will we have to hire MORE cops to keep us safe? Who will want to join the OPD if the Council doesn't make it possible for the police to have a decent and competitive wage?
Will the city be liable when/if the mountainside slides and so many homes will be crumbled, covered in mud, tossed about?
So many questions.
Sharon:
You raise an issue that has not been much discussed yet, and IMHO should be. Talk with police in any seasonal resort community in which vacation homes remain vacant for many months a year, and you will discover that break-ins are a significant problem. Mr. Peterson is aware of this. This is why, he has explained, his development must be a gated community so buyers will be confident that they won't have moving trucks run by thieves emptying out their properties in their absence.
But with the "trails" [largely apparently sidewalks or paved pathways] open to all, as he assures us they will be, I suspect break-ins not requiring moving vans to haul off the loot will still be a problem.
The only place I've seen this mentioned so far was at the two planning commission run meetings for the Mt. Ogden Community designed to begin the process of drafting a Mt. Ogden Community Plan. The topic was "taken down" as a "matter of interest to the community." And the planning staff --- whose director reports to the mayor --- now seems to be stalling like mad on the Mt. Ogden Community plan process. Seven weeks after those meetings, and after something close to sixty people volunteered to serve on focus group committees, no committees have met. (We are now another week out, and I haven't check yet whether the committees have started meeting.)
Not exactly moving with all deliberate speed, are they....
Most anyone living in Ogden will be "wrecked" if the earthquake comes. Especially those living on the East Bench, where Sharon lives, will be buried and destroyed. Guess we need to hire those "Heavy Mover" we see on the Discovery Channel and move every house out to Roy.
And now the 650 houses that the police will have to patrol. Com'on, the rest of the town won't be left vulnerable to criminal sneak attacks.
The Peterson proposal hasn't even come to the desk yet, and here people are, gripping, imagining, inuendoizing (is there such a word), all over nothing but the fact they don't want something like this to be looked at because it just might get through.
Let this run its course without these wild assertions that are founded on pure assininity.
Smolo Watcher:
Well, to make your "it doesn't matter, we're all going to collapse in a quake" approach to zoning work, you'd have to explain why the City of Ogden has already established an earthquake sensitive overlay zone on much of the land Mr. Peterson wants to buy and build on, deeming it unfit for construction because of its excessive slopes [30 degrees plus]in a fault zone. And the zoning was established long long before Mr. Peterson made the first version of his proposal.
And you might want to chat with the Town Council members who approved subdivision construction in the town just up Weber Canyon, where houses have now had to be abandoned because of the land beneath them sliding downhill. And the pending law suits against the city, etc. I wonder if they will think all this planning ahead is as silly as you do.
As for crime: well, you may not live close to the land Mr. Peterson wants to fill with vacation villas, but I do. And my neighborhood is, at the moment, a relatively low crime one. I'd kind of like to keep it that way for my family. If building (a) 400 (b) 650 [pick one] vacation villas that will be occupied only intermittently during the year will increase crime in the neighborhood [as it seems to have done in resort communities with lots of only intermittently occupied vacation homes], then that's something I think needs some thinking about. Sorry you don't.
Mr. Peterson has proposed two things so far to the city: that a "no zoning zone" be specially created for the land he wants to buy and build on so existing zoning regulations can be bypassed by him, and secondly, a that "fast track" approval process be set up, especially for him, so that he can gain approval for his plans as "concepts" [rather than presenting specifics about construction, etc to the city as is required of all others seeking zoning changes or approvals].
Given that, it seems to me that folks had better start anticipating problems and thinking about them and their possible resolutions now or the horse will be long gone from the barn before the questions are addressed.
Well professor, you apparently didn't catch my drift about earthquakes. Those phenomena don't pay much attention to a city passed "earthquake overlay zone." The collateral damage is extremely severe, and any house on the East Becn is likely do disappear with the onset of the "Big One." And, considering the "whiplash" effect, wherein the land rolls and cracks like a whip from the fault line out, Roy would likely disappear too. One only has to look at San Francisco in 1906 and the Northridge quake a few years ago to see that. These things ain't confined to "overlay zones." The whole Wasatch Front is vulnerable, Curm, regardless of how many city passed "Eathquake Overlay Zones" you have.
As for the crime issue, my position was that, due to the police patrolling this new community, which by your words is right next to where you live so you'll more than likely be able to enjoy the benefits of these "extra" patrols, I doubt that the "rest" fo the city will be left as vulnerable as some might think. Give the cops some credit here, Curm, they'll figure out how to keep ya safe.
Man, are some people sensitive or what?
New comments are not allowed.