By Rudizink
Now that the City Council candidates list has finally (and belatedly) been released into the public domain, our city council is faced with the daunting task of culling the herd, and narrowing the list down to five finalists by the September 27, 2006 drop-dead date, at which point a replacement councilmember will be chosen and sworn in.
Given the extemely narrow window of opportunity between now and that date, it appears that Weber County Forum may very well be the only public venue wherein a truly robust discussion of the qualifications of the 39 candidates can adequately occur. We therefore formally open the door (and the floor) for our readers' comments, recommendations and objections on this topic.
Although at least one of our gentle readers has suggested that we all keep mum on the subject, your humble blogmeister rejects that approach out of hand. As our own gentle Curmudgeon very recently commented, Weber County Forum has become a true citizen-driven community forum -- a place where issues of concern to the townfolk can be freely and thoroughly discussed. Your blogmeister agrees entirely with this assessment, and believes that the present posture of this cyber-place is almost completely in keeping with the objects set forth in our very first introductory WCF article. We thus do not intend to deviate at all from what we have done very successfully so far. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," we say.
So come one; come all. We believe it's the solemn duty of the citizens of the Land of Oz to vet these candidates; and we'd like to retain the "free-wheeling attitude" that we envisioned upon founding this blog.
The only constraints we'll impose on the conversation will be those already set forth in our Weber County Forum Posting Policy, which can be reviewed here, and is also available in our upper-right sidebar. As to these limitations on discussion, our existing policy will be strictly enforced. We want to give all these community minded candidates a fair shake, after all.
Although we've already had some limited discussion of these candidates under the previous article, we've decided to start the conversation anew, and dedicate this thread solely to a discussion of the City Council Seat A applicants and their qualifications. Although we anticipate other news stories will occupy our attention in the days to come, we nevertheless intend to keep this article and thread available on the front page up to and including the September 27, 2006 final selection date. If all goes well, and an intelligent dialogue develops, we're also toying with the idea of forwarding a copy of this article, together with our reader comments, directly to each of our city council members, in advance of the two crucial calender dates. In this connection, we're sure that we won't have to remind anyone to "mind their manners."
Just to kick-start the discussion, we link here this morning's Kristen Moulton and Scott Schwebke articles, which begin, in a rudimentary way, the process of distinguishing these candidates one from another.
Have at it, gentle readers.
This is your soapbox, not ours.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
133 comments:
What is the use of reading Scott Schwebke's article? "Article" is too big a compliment for what he has publiched in the SE. It's only the City press release which most of rec'd via email. Sheesh.
Read Kristen's article. It tells a little something identifying about some of the candidtes.
I see that the VAn mess should be cleared up in a couple weeks. I hope HPS and the other cops will post here about what they think is going to happen. (We can all hazard a guess).
I do hope Matt Jones is reinstated, and Mark DiCaria, at the very LEAST, issues a public reprimand to Godfrey and Greiner. Any bets on that?
Congratulations and Good Luck to Dian - I believe you would bring a well-researched and fair perspective to the council.
Okay, throwing my own caution to the wind, I'll post that my four for consideration are Dian, Gloria, Ken and Shalae. Proven experience and extremely thoughtful deliberations and research from Dian. Gloria has 'been there' and would be invaluable. For those reasons I go for Ken and Shalae.
I reject Geiger (duh), Gullo, Thompson, Bonyai, and Berghout.
The others I know nothing about. I'm personally acquainted with Gullo, Berghout and Bonyai. B & B are nice...Justin is very young and his mom is a close friend and champion of Patty Allen. Laine teaches at WSU..vey nice, but am not comfortably sure of his politics and qualifications.
I THINK Gullo would be be pro Godfey/Peterson because I sat next to them at a dog and pony show and they signed up for the LO yard sign and to be devotees of the project.
Ohhh ya! Dian would bring a fair perspective with her smart growth sign firmly attached to her hip, it would be just as bad as Chapman for commission or Geiger for that matter. What a freakin double standard over here. I have printed all of Dians posts off of here and we are getting all of them to the council we have all of her views and statements. We know exactly where she stands on everything. Does this sound familiar to anyone. I don't think she has a chance anyways.
OK, I guess you are going to force me to be a contrarian again....
Rudi, you wrote: "Now that the City Council candidates list has finally (and belatedly) been released into the public domain.... Hey, cut the Council staff some slack. It was released on the 12th. The closing date for submitting applications was the 11th. They got the list out and widely distributed well within 24 hours of the closing time for submissions. Seems pretty fast work to me.
Second: I wouldn't dream of recommending that people not discuss the 39. I just pointed out that IMHO I don't think that discussion now will have much impact on the Council, and that public input on the Fab Five [when announced] is more likely to have one.
Sharon: Kind of hard on Mr. Schwebke. The SE article identified some of the applicants [Gullo as Schoolboard member, and answered the question of whether he could hold both posts simultaneously, which the Trib did not address], former Councilman Alford, former City Recorder Ms. Berrett, and Mr. Hunter as Executive Director of the United Way of N. Utah. I found all of that useful information.] And it paired, as did the SLTrib, Mr. Geiger's running with Ms. Crossland's running, one as a LO associated candidate, the other as an SGO associated candidate.
The SLTrib did not identify Mr. Hunter as exec director of United Way, but did add that he had lost to Mr. Godfrey in the Mayor's first election. And the SE did not identify Ms. Shalae Larson in its piece.
I got something out of each article that was not contained in the other.
The SE's muff on this was not today's article, but its running, as a stand-alone un-sourced headlined piece yesterday's article revealing [gasp!] that Bob Geiger had nominated himself for the vacant Council spot.
It's my belief, Curmudgeon, that information on these council applicants should have been made available on an "as filed" basis, emulating the process that is legally-mandated during a regular election.
The appointment of a council replacement ought to be a wholly-transparent process, in my belief.
Whether Council Director Bill Cook exercised proper legal authority to withhold this information until yesterday is an open question that I can't answer presently, but I can tell you it is a matter that's been debated quietly but vigorously, behind the scenes.
If it did amount to a decision within the council's lawful discretion however, I believe the council erred on the side of government secrecy, which is not a healthy thing in a citizen-participatory "democracy," in my own belief.
anonymous,
I don't know whether or not I should thank you for sending all my posts off to the Council, as it might be quite a deluge for them. However, I do like the fact that I have been open with my opinions concerning the issues we face here, and i intend to continue being so.
By the way, the Smart Growth sign is not attached to my hip. It's in the front yard.
And harbinger and Sharon--thank you.
Oh my!
A council candidate who candidly reveals her own viewpoints on political matters, and STANDS BY THEM, and leaves them undeleted on the internet for all the world to read.
What a bad concept! Surely this strategy will never work in Emerald City!
Ken Alford is out for me.
He was not a particularly good school principal. Besides we don't need any re-runs by former Ogden government people who helped create the mess Ogden is presently in.
The process of mess creation has been going on ever since Steve Dirks started it when he was Mayor.
Nix on Bob Hunter. He has been at the public trough ever since I came to Ogden a very long time ago.
My vote goes to Dian Woodhouse or Sandra Crosland. They are both savy intelligent women who will have some strength and spirit for the Council.
Women just seem to do the job better because they put more into it.
PIPI,
Learn about blogger and learn that you can't delete posts that you don't post under a registered name. Reports from some folks say that Chapman had a completely good and honest reason for starting his site anew. Have any of you bothered to actually ask him why it was deleted? Didn't think so... but of course you can persist in slandering him yet claim it is honest, fair, and that your judgment is correct.
Permit me to take a wild guess.
well, now, anon...either you are chapman...or bob has returned from new york, just in time to gift us all with his erudition.
Curm, as usual you are so right and I stand corrected. Will we read something about each of the candidates?
I echo Dian's questions on the timing of the interviews of each and the time constraints. Will the Council start interviewing now and each day, or are they going to have one day or evening for all this interviewing?
Either way, that's a big block of time at 4 minutes each..bathroom breaks, entering, exiting, etc, etc.
Wonder if we'll get to cool our heels in chambers for about 2 1/2 hours again while we wait for the news? After all, look how long it took to 'interview' Chapman...oh yeah..they were EATING weren't they? But, Dustin should have been interviewed after the first vote was tabled for that very reason.
Anon...Dian has always written thoughtful, well researched posts here. Very seldom has she expressed an opinion of her own either way.
If you kids send in all her posts, she will be chosen hands down and the others can just be told, 'don't call us, we'll call you'. Riiiiight.
I think Gloria Berrett would be the best fit. She has worked as the city recorder for years and has oodles of experience dealing with city government.
It's interesting to see 39 people arise to the challenge, seeing how Ogden City needs such a change. It makes me wonder how many of those people really think that a resume will really show their "character". It really comes down to the integrity of the person and how well they represent the citizens of their district. I hope to see some young and bright person who has experience with the process of government get appointed and not someone with a piece of paper that tells you they've gone to school.
Caril, here. Who has quotations from Glasmann's campaign? Those words and intentions are the reason 56% of voters selected him. The person to replace him should reflect the view of the 56% of those voting. Otherwise, it could be called "bait and switch."
I've already written to members of the City Council suggesting that they should keep the 2005 voters' wishes in mind as they make their selection, regardless of their own personal point of view.
I realize I'm probably biased on this, but it bothers me that both the newspapers and others on this blog are referring to Lift Ogden (LO) and Smart Growth Ogden (SGO) as simple opposites, one for the Peterson proposal and the other against. The truth is much more complex, and more interesting.
LO's original stated purpose was to promote a tram or gondola to Snowbasin. That purpose then morphed into support for the Peterson proposal. Last spring, LO began signing people up as supporters (and eventual lawn sign recipients). The statements that people signed expressed support for all the major components of the Peterson proposal, including the urban gondola, the sale of public foothill property for development, and the Malan's Basin resort. There's currently a petition on the LO web site with similar language: you're with us or you're against us. In any case, LO is obviously a single-issue organization, dedicated to the completion of Peterson's interrelated projects. Anyone with a LO lawn sign, or whose name appeared in a LO ad, has presumably signed a statement in support of these specific projects.
SGO has never been a single-issue organization. It was formed about a year ago, partly in reaction to Lift Ogden, partly in reaction to the then-new streetcar proposal, and partly out of other concerns related to growth in Ogden. Much of SGO's emphasis has been not on specific outcomes but rather on process, for instance, initiating the Mt. Ogden Community Plan to ensure that everyone in that neighborhood would have a voice in deciding its future. The newspapers have ignored much of this and simply described SGO as a bunch of "gondola opponents." But take a look at the SGO platform and you'll see various general principles as well as specific ideas for improving Ogden while preserving what Ogden already has. Having an SGO lawn sign, or signing on to the SGO supporters list, presumably means that you're in general agreement with SGO's platform and its slogans, "ask questions" and "get involved." But SGO has never demanded that its supporters endorse any particular plank in its platform, and SGO supporters hold a wide variety of views on specific issues such as transit improvements and the Peterson project. For instance, Curmudgeon, a self-proclaimed SGO supporter, prefers trolleys for urban mass transit and does not oppose the proposed Malan's Basin resort. Other SGO supporters prefer bus rapid-transit over trolleys. I'm an SGO supporter and I would prefer an urban gondola to no transit improvement at all, but other SGO supporters wouldn't want the urban gondola under any circumstances. So although I don't know an SGO supporter who would endorse the entire Peterson proposal at this time, I know plenty of SGO supporters who are relatively open-minded to portions of it, and who might even endorse it in the future if it were somewhat modified to address their questions and concerns.
It's interesting to think about the strategic trade-offs that LO and SGO have made. LO has the advantage of a single clear message. Also, it can go to someone like the City Council and say exactly what its supporters have endorsed. SGO potentially has much broader appeal, but has trouble getting its platform across in brief sound bites. If someone seeking public office is a LO supporter, we know exactly where that person stands on the Peterson proposal but not on any other issue. Being an SGO supporter, on the other hand, tells us that a person favors an approach of asking questions and getting involved, but doesn't really tell us how someone will ultimately vote on any specific issue.
Rudi:
I did not know about the "report as filed" requirement for the regular council elections. I agree it would have been prudent to follow the same practice for the interim appointment nominations. This is one of those cases where I'm not sure that a legal reqrirement is involved, but I agree that a more prudent descision would have been to post the applications as they came in.
And it might have saved the Council some time. I suspect that at least some of the people who applied for the post without knowing who else had filed might not have filed at all after they saw some of the names already in play. Maybe the Council would have ended up with only twenty or so to vet in short order instead of 39.
Given the decision to withold the self-nominees' names util the filing period closed, though, I think the staff did well getting the completed list out on the morning of the 12th. Not even "good enough for gummint work." Just good work, period.
Dan S:
Nicely put.
Maybe not a big deal but - I am curious as to why the name of Bob Geiger not only made its way into the SE in advance lf ALL other names but warranted a good sized article as well!
Caril:
You've made a good point. The Glassman resignation has, I think, created a serious problem for the current Council. The point of an elected council is that it speaks on all issues with the authority of having been elected by the voters. On any and all 4-3 votes between the appointment of Mr. Glassman's replacement in which his appointed replacement votes with the majority, the decision will not have been made by a majority elected by the public.
And when matters of such great import as selling off Ogden's largest urban park to finance a city-owned gondola primarily to service a private mountain resort may come to a vote, it is very important to make certain the decisions of the Council are the decisions of elected representatives.
There are two ways around this problem. One involves delaying monumental decisions until a fully elected council is in place. [The disadvantage with this is it would delay, perchance, Ogden's beginning application for federal funds to build a streetcar line from downtown to WSU for over another year. The Mayor's dragging his feat, despite the recommendations of the Wasatch Regional Council that the streetcar option was the best for Ogden, has already delayed action for a year.]
The second option, which I favor, is for the Council to commit itself to put whatever it may decide to do in re: the Peterson/gondola proposal as opposed to the streetcar development, or [as I would prefer] Mr. Jorgenson's Option B proposal, up to a public vote, a referendum. To guarantee that whatever final, irrevocable decision is made will be the voting public's choice.
Sadly, our present Mayor chose not to inform the public of his gondola scheme during his last election campaign. [I suspect I know why. ] Presumably, if the matter is still in play during the 2007 election round, it will not be possible for mayoral or council candidates to dodge the issue.
But it would be very bad to have the matter decided, either way, by the vote an an un-elected Council mamber as part of a 4-3 majority.
Armysarge,
I'd just assumed that one of the Geigers had contacted the SE and announced that Bob was in the running. I'll be genrous and assume it was a "slow news day".
With something like 12 days left for vetting candidates, the SE could provide a public service by running a short biography of 3-4 candidates each day. Bob's already had his say, so that leaves one fewer to report on.
EXCELLENT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just recieved a call telling me that there was wild speculation regarding how the SE got wind that Bob Geiger had applied for the open position in the CC.
All of the speculation that goes on drives me crazy so please allow me to clarify how the SE got the information.
Someone at the SE saw on "your" blog that they had heard that Bob Geiger had applied.
Scott S called the Descente office to see if it was true. Scott was informed that Bob Geiger was out of town on business so he asked for me.
Rather than play games or act dumb and tell Scott that I new nothing about it I answered him afirmatively. YES, Bob has submitted a resume.
It was submitted without any prompting from anyone. There is "NO" covert stategy.
Curt Geiger
Curt besides being your son and a former marine, why do you believe Bob should be allowed to serve on the city council?
Mr. Geiger [if it is you -- hard to tell with anon postings and sometimes folks post pretending to be people they are not, it seems]:
OK. Thank you for the explanation. My criticism was of the SE was for thinking that it was newsworthy the first place. A call to the Council staff might have elictied the fact that the full list was going to be made public Tuesday morning, and Mr. Geiger's throwing his hat in the ring would have appeared simply as part of the larger story, as it should have. That, or failing that, a clear sourcing of the story by the paper might have shortstopped all the speculation. In the absence of hard information, speculation will happen as sure as little green apples.
Thanks again for the clarification.
Dan S., you articulated so well the differences between LiftOgden and SGO. SGO, whatever the individual supporters are for or against, really means what the signs encourage: ASK QUESTIONS.
As you stated, some, as Curm, favor Jorgensen's idea, others want nothing to do with a gondola across town. Others are very interested in keeping our open spaces.
I have no problem with a SGO person on the Council for those reasons....not necessarily against everything, as we are characterized, but persons who do ask, and are waiting breathlessly for answers.
I'm hoping the SE will do a bio on each one with a picture as they did for the last Council race.
You know, Bob getting the full treatment was wrong. Schwebke should have done as CURM??? said, and called the City offices...not Curt. Thre WERE other stories to report. However, that big LiftOgden headline and comments will probably work against Bob.
anonymous/Curt Geiger - The point is - what made him (Robert) so special that he needed his own story??
Mr. Geiger
I'm not sure I would call it "wild speculation" about Bob and the Standard article.
I didn't make much of it one way or the other. In fact given Bob's high profile derisive actions in the past I thought it normal that the SE would write the article.
If your buddy the mayor had been straight and honest with the citizens over the past several years, their probably wouldn't be so much "wild speculation" about what he and the Gondola backers were up to.
He has created a huge aura of distrust around himself, his administration and Lift Ogden. I am guessing that you, your son, your family and most of the LO group will carry this distrust for a long time around Ogden. In my book that seems a little harsh considering I think you are all well meaning people. That well meaning of course does not include Godfrey who I consider to be the anti christ and most dishonest politician in Ogden's history.
Curt's revelation is quite remarkable. So the ultimate source that got the S-E going on that story was wcforum itself! I just looked back and found the culprit: an anonymous post made at 9:45 Monday morning. Although I share Curmudgeon's opinion of the S-E's poor judgment in running the story, I gotta admire their efficiency at monitoring wcforum for the latest gossip, getting the confirmation from a more authoritative source, and then printing the story the very next morning, without any mention of where they got the tip! Brings up some pretty obvious questions:
* Who was the anonymous contributor who posted the information on wcforum, and where did that person get the information that BG had applied?
* Why didn't the S-E credit wcforum as the source of the rumor?
* Has the S-E ever credited wcforum as a source for a news story?
* Why doesn't the S-E do a story on some of the information posted here that's actually newsworthy, such as what's happening on 23rd Street, or what Peterson's lawyer told the City Council after Schwebke left the room, etc., etc.?
However, I think that there is one person that would be quite interesting to follow, That is Trevor Hansen, son of legislator Neil Hansen, very knowledgeable, he will keep Mayor Godfrey in his place and most likely require the mayor to show some accountability from himself and his administration. Demand answers to some city council questions on decisions and where the taxpayer’s money is being spent.
Young and energetic, Who would bring balance tot he council.
It will be interesting to see if the council is going to bring Godfrey cronies back into that office.
Hope none of those others that once served the council return.
They need to step aside and let those who want a chance get a chance. The only way I would support the “has been council members”, if no one want to except the opportunity to service.
However, with 39 names to the list. I not supporting one of them, they had there chance to make a difference in the past. Let the younger guy get a shot at it now.
Awful lot of names on the list, most of whom I do not know much of anything about. Probably I could recommend against appointing one or two, but I wouldn't at this point be able to fairly isolate a Fab Five list to recommened.
So, here's an idea: this Council has shown itself perfectly capable of rendering independent judgements, sometimes at odds with what the Mayor wishes, sometimes not. In light of that, how about we begin by not presuming that the selection has been "wired" by the Mayor's office, or that "the fix is in," or any variation on that. How about we begin by presuming that the Council will approch its job of selecting a Fab Five from among the 39 applicants seriously, and intending to vet the candidates carefully and reach the best decision the members can make on the evidence they have?
Nieve? Possibly, but it does seem to me given several votes of the last few months, we can not reasonably simply dismiss this Council as an administrative rubber stamp.
As for the SE printing profiles of all 39: time is short. Some of the nominees have public records, but many do not that I know of. Compiling even brief bios of many of them would be an arduous task and probably end up producing very superficial sketches. There is an alternative. Give every candidate say 300 words to write a brief auto-profile, or a statement of why they want to serve, or an appeal for selection, etc. Whatever they like. And then print them, as is, on whatever schedule the SE finds convenient, provided all are printed before the Council decides on the Fab Five. [Yes, even Mr. Geiger, who's stand-alone story was not his statement about his qualifications.]
I think we'd probably learn more about the nominees reading their own brief statements [certainly we'd learn what each of them thought it was important for the public to know about them, which would be interesting] than reading hastily compiled mini-bios by the SE staff.
Just a suggestion....
OK Curmudgeon
We will assume for a minute that you are not the naive stranger here in the strange land of Zion.
If Mayor Godfrey did not have this council nomination "wired", why on earth would he appoint a total incompetent like Glasmann to a job in his administration?
Glasmann has certainly given every indication over the last few months that he had been taken over by the Mayor, he was blatantly and embarrassingly fawning over the Mayor in almost every public utterance he made and there was no doubt he was going to be voting for anything the Mayor wanted.
So why would the Mayor be willing to lose that kind of blind support on the council and take a chance that a competent independant thinker would be appointed in Glasmann's place?
Mayor Godfrey is not the kind of political hack that leaves such important things as a favorable vote on the council to chance. Especially with his Gondola project coming up for vote in the next few months.
Anon:
I don't know the answers to your questions. I'd have to be a mind-reader, of Mr. Glassman's thoughts and the Mayor's to say for certain what they were thinking in all this. And it is certainly possible that there was more going on behind the scenes than either you or I know about. On the other hand, I do know this Council has so far not shown itself to be a mere rubber stamp for City Hall. And I'm not willing to conclude that the fix is in purely on the basis of specualtive "probablies" and "must have beens."
Perhaps your concerns will prove out valid in the end, perhaps not. We'll all have a much better idea when the Fab Five are named.
As for the Mayor's political prowess: well, you are more impressed by it than I am. He has been, in my view, pretty stumble-footed of late, in his handling of the Peterson/gondola matter, in his handling of the police and fire negotiations, in his little escapade playing Jr. G Man following a city employee's wife around downtown, and in his handling of the Officer Jones matter, and his handling of the Chapman nomination. None of it was handled with much skill or intelligence so far as I can see.
If I were a commiteed Lift Ogden supporter, and someone told me not to worry because Mayor Godfrey was on my side, in light of his bull-in-the-china shop behavior of late, I'd probably be tempted to drink Chlorox and get it over with.
But we shall see.
Interesting Wasatch Rambler column in the SE this morning. Here are the opening grafs:
Residents of Ogden who want a mountain resort to make their homes more valuable should stroll around Ogden Valley this weekend and chat up the residents.
Learn from them.
Their home values have already gone up. Out-of-state buyers have pushed prices so high that acre lots with nothing but sagebrush and great expectations are going for a cool halfmillion.
That’s good, right?
Nope. Weber County property value notices went out a bit ago and residents of Ogden Valley found out what that high-priced sagebrush is doing to their tax bills.
Most are still in shock.
Well, that would be a 'clean' death anyway, Curm.
Omigosh, I'm agreeing with you again..(we've got to stop meeting like this). I don't think this entire 6 member Council is a rubber stamp body as of olden days not too far past.
I think your idea of having the candidates write their own bios, " Iwant to be on the Council because...", "My qualifications are...", is an excellent idea!!! Hey, are YOU one of the 39?
Good ideas, Curm. BTW, which brand of Clorox do you prefer? Most of us SAY Clorox to refer to ANY bleach..just as 'let's have a coke', could mean let's have a sandwich and coffee'. I DO prefer the Clorox brand tho. Pour it on an ant hill and you've zapped the whole colony! Or maybe the survivors just pack up and move to a new neighborhodd, either way, it works.
Sharon:
No. I am not one of the 39.
Egads, Trentleman is certainly giving the current residents and future 'Peterson Playground' buyers an eye-opener this morning.
I do hope we are all keeping this reality in mind. Not only will the Peterson homes rise in valuation, if they haven't slipped off the hill before the appraiser can get out there, but think of what will happen to the homes in the area! Some of those are very old also. Many homeowners are retirees just like in Eden.
Good for Trentleman for giving all readers a heads up.
PS Darn! Was hoping you are one of the eager 39, Curm.
lol. Only the financial unintelligent would complain about paying $400 for $75,000+ equity increase.
Curm:
In one of your post you said the council staff did a good job of getting the names out the next morning. Wrong. I know that Rep. Hansen had asked a few times that day and it wasn't till nearly 4:30 P.m. that he got the first list. and if that is the case, then that would leave a big door open for bill cook to have someone else come in and file after the deadline and no one would be the wiser for it. so why all the secretcy on the names and where is the process set up in writing so that we would know whether bill was doing his job by the council orders or that of himself. sound real fishy to me. one last thing did all the council have a say in how this process was to work?
See I told ya:
Some time ago, I asked to be put on the Council news email list. [Anyone can get on the distribution list. Just ask.] And I got the press release on the names plus another on the selection process via email sometime during the morning of the 12th. Seems like good and timely work to me, still. Though as noted earlier, I agree with Rudi that a proceedure approximating the one used for candidates who file for the regular Council elections would have been a better idea. But that was, I presume, the Council's decision to make.
Have you people ever thought of calling the Council office and asking. Some act like this is all a big secret, but it is not. There is a procedure outlined for filling vacancies. I bet you could have it faxed, emailed, or you could even stop in and get it. On top of that, the names and information the people filed for office is a matter of public record. Just because it isn't put on the web and actually might make someone leave their computer for a second, doesn't mean it isn't available.
Anonymous - Folks on fixed incomes usually consider mortgaging their homes (to cover property taxes) to be a slow form of financial suicide -- particularly in economies experiencing real estate bubbles and inflation such as are occurring now.
"I bet you could have it faxed, emailed, or you could even stop in and get it."
Wrong. Bill Cook refused to release any information until late Tuesday afternoon.
The closest we (and others) got to an explanation (from Mr. Franke) was that the council director's office wouldn't release any information until it had ALL been "verified" by the County Clerk's office -- because earlier release was not legally required.
As we said earlier, we believe this policy was an error, although we don't intend to make a federal case of it.
Nevertheless, we do believe this is just another small example of a secretive, citizen-unfriendly pack of local bureaucrats at work.
Rudi:
Exactly. If someone buys a home primarily as an investment property, the run up in value/equity is very good news indeed. If however, someone's home is primarily a residence and only secondarily [or, for the occupant, not at all] an investment... which is not unusual for older people living on fixed incomes in homes they have lived in for decades... then a rise in value/equity which results in a signficant rise in taxes can be devastating. A $700 annual rise in taxes is a "small" price to pay for a $45K rise in value/equity only if you have the money to pay the higher taxes. Every year.
Think how this will set with those 'retired, smart' buyers Peterson is aiming for. He's said these will most likely be SECOND homes for the rich play types in Peterson's Playground.
Unless they plan to sell off in a year or so to some other'smart, retired' couple...they may not like having to pay higher taxes each year on a 2nd home, especially one on a hillside ala Morgan/Peterson and the rest of them thar hills.
Ohhh, did you feel that? Was that a tremor? Nah, Peterson's geologists will give the hills and fault line a clean bill for developing. Relax.
Here's what happens in this market. Speculator buys second home or fixer upper when market is down. Market goes up, speculator uses increased valuation on fixer to draw second mortgage. Little is done to improve fixer. Speculator uses equity draw to buy another and so on. Appraisers readily appraise up to match current comps to allow equity draw... Market drops or flattens. Speculator wants out and now puts up fixers at increased value. Fixers don't sell yet he cannot lower price due to encumbrances. Market is now inflated artificially by blanket increased valuations.. Sometimes speculator is actually rewarded by such maneuvers by the next wanna-be speculator.
There is a house next to mine that fits this description and it is vacant, for sale and deteriorating daily hurting values of neighboring homes that are maintained. Real Estate speculation is Californication. Please let us make our region hostile to these out-of-state blood suckers and their inflated egos, vehicles and equity excess. They do little to improve our region but contribute to traffic and bring their disconnected, soulless, disposable lifestyles.
Appraisals use little beyond neighboring values to establish value. A 3 bedroom 2000 sq ft POS appraises comparably to another 3 bdrm 2000sq ft well maintained for 50 years beauty. So much for rewarding those who maintain neighborhoods and their homes.
If you want to be tailgated down 36th on the way to work by some second home jockey on hiatus from silicon valley on their way to starbucks, well then, lets sell them the golf course...
Tod:
A little overstated. Condition of the property will affect its selling price, which becomes its new valuation for tax purposes in most places. Badly maintained properties do sell for less than comprable well-maintained properties.
As for the Peterson proposal, I have yet to see any market study looking at whether there is in fact a market for 400 [or more?] up-market vacation properties on the west slope of the Wasatch in Ogden. Particularly in competition with the already well-established vacation properties market just up canyon in Ogden's Hole [Ooops. I meant of course "the Upper Ogden Valley."] If Peterson gets the city parklands and builds his vacation villas on spec and they do not sell, or do not sell for the prices he says he needs in order to build his Malan's Basin resort, the whole house of cards comes down, and Ogden will have lost its largest park and be stuck with a city built and owned and operated gondola with no purpose.
Ever seen a failed real estate development? I have. Not pretty, and not at all good for property values in the surrounding areas. Not good at all.
It's sad when a local economy opens themselves to second home investors to justify a supposed need for growth. How is this sustainable. There does not seem to be enough luxury spas and resorts popping up to accomodate these loafing layabouts. How will building any more solve our needs in Ogden. Local sustainability is good strategy. America's orgy with excess leisure time and disposable income is dying a slow death. Why cater our infrastructure to serve them.
Yeah, those guys whose homes stay the same or drop in value are so LUCKY! Their taxes don't go up as much as those people who live in desireable areas. Ogden's homeowners are so financially fortunate to live here. They don't have all those "home-value- increase" worries, do they?
By the way, Sharon. There are a bijillion rich, out-of-state people buying second properties in Utah. The taxes are not their first concern. Get a clue.
Actually Curm, In the hotter markets, condition is irrelevant, when buyers are lining up just to get in an offer.
Anonymous, just what else will these bajillion rich fools do to contribute to life here beyond raising property values to levels only more of them can afford.
Yes, the sky is falling.
"Folks on fixed incomes usually consider mortgaging their homes (to cover property taxes) to be a slow form of financial suicide"
Just because one thinks that way doesn't make it true. But people can continue to think that way, it is much more fashionable & ego boosting to complain rather than to look for solutions.
I'm sure if someone suddenly someone proposed cutting everyone's true home market value by 25% and lowering your property tax by $300 you'd be all for that?
Anonymous, What about the next generation of home buyers, our kids, who may never be able to afford a reasonable home in some regions. Seems the current generation of home flippers flipped them out of reach and walked with the profits. Real sustainable...ahhh greed
LOL, TOD!
"Market drops or flattens. Speculator wants out and now puts up fixers at increased value. Fixers don't sell yet he cannot lower price due to encumbrances. Market is now inflated artificially by blanket increased valuations.. Sometimes speculator is actually rewarded by such maneuvers by the next wanna-be speculator."
The last "wanna-be speculator" who gets aboard the speculative "investment bubble merry-go-round" that you've so articulately described is affectionately known in investment parlance as the "bag-holder."
The now-deteriorating property in your neighborhood also illustrates what hapens when the last speculator to get onboard "walks" from his unfortunate "investment."
It even gets worse, of course, when the speculative bubble actually pops, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS in the aftermath of any investment craze.
Not only that the current generation of newfangled homes are oversized and extremely high maintenance and expensive to heat and cool 3000+ sq ft. The recent bubble allowed the home builders to cater to these buyers who could now afford the square footage so the market dictated these behemoths that now set the standard. Not only are these barns overpriced but no one will be able to afford the comfort fuel in a few short years.
Anon:
Sigh. Let's try again. The point is, rapidly rising home prices are not necessarily good for all homeowners. Exploding real estate markets have consequences, some good for some people and some unfortunate for others. When we consider what the possible consequences of a 400 plus up-market resort development on the East Bench might be, we ought to think about all the possible consequences, and their downstream effects.
Please note: possible consequences. One of the things I find distubing about he Lift Ogden Amen Chorus is the bland assumption, based on so far as I can see, no market research, that a large resort development on Ogden's east bench will succeed, or that there is exists sufficient demand for a vest-pocket mini-ski resort on the west face of the Wasatch above Ogden that its success is probable. Mr. Peterson's apparent inability to find private investors [banks, pension funds] to underwrite his Malan's Basin resort and Mountain Gondola is not reassuring. "The market" seems to have judged the probability of success of his project, and the judgement has not been favorable. So far anyway. Which is why he wants Ogden to provide its parklands for real estate development so he can get the money he needs that way. Not encouraging, as I said.
Now, beyond that, Weber County housing prices are rising, and have been rising, for a some years now. No, we have not participated in the booms of Phoenix and St. George. But given the implosion of the spec housing market in Phoenix right now, that's probably a good thing. Booms go bust. Metoric rises often lead to hard landings.
Based on the history of housing markets in the US, it might be far better for the long-term prosperity of Ogden to foster relatively slow, steady, sustainable growth that will result in a relatively moderate, steady, sustainable rise in Ogden residential property values.
Another term for that kind of growth is "smart growth." Maybe you've heard of it.
Perhaps we need to consider what the state of California (voters - not legislators) passed years ago. Basically - the property taxes do NOT increase until the property is sold. That protects those who have lived in their homes for a good long while but who are on limited or fixed incomes.
Sarge:
Yes, it does do that. But it also leads, over time, to howling inequities in tax rates which create other problems when neighbors discover that they are paying three times more in taxes on a house identical to the one next door. Which isn't right either.
No perfect solution to this tax question, or to most tax questions. Somebody's ox is going to get gored no matter how you structure things.
HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT SO MANY OF THESE K-MART HOMES ARE BEING BOT BY COUPLES WHOSE CHILDREN HAVE MARRIED AND MOVED ON? (had caps on*&^%)
They wanted a BIG home when all the kids were home, but now mom and dad can finally afford one..and by gum, they're gonna buy it. Now they have to furnish it, and buy the linens for 6 bedrooms, 7 baths, etc. The kids and g'kids MAY get home every yr or two. But, this is their dream home, and by golly, with clenched teeth, they will enjoy it!
The latest press release is in your email from Linda Fonnesbeck. I think the idea of having the candidates send a short bio/qualifications letter to the council will expedite matters. The council intends to conduct all interviews before the public...then reinterview the FIVE before the public. Seems to me that if the Council has the bio/qualifications letter in front of them, they could get the pertinent questions answered without a lot of hemming and hawing.
Perhaps it would be helpful to email that to the council? I think it was Curm's idea.
Yeah Sharon, Notice too that these homes are blessed with HUGE entrys, foyers, formal living rooms, formal dining etc as though these homeowners are doing some grand entertaining on a royal scale. All this square footage and the fuel and maintenance required to satisfy the fantasies that they will have huge parties and their guests will marvel at their palacial surroundings. Wow, what a life...
Well, Tod, if people have the means and want to build palaces to live in, I figure they can. If they guess wrong and five or ten years down the road, they cannot unload the place because its utilties bill has just topped a K a month, they'll pay the price.
However, asking the city to support the speculative construction of an entire development of such homes by surrendering its largest public park is another matter. The homebuilders and buyers you mention are doing it with their own money on their own land. They haven't asked us to sell off the public bench lands to bankroll them. Peterson has.
ok ok now lets get back to the council stuff
True, Curm, Some of my best friends are rich enough to overextend their credit for these McMansions. Some are selling right now, well, trying to. While they were part of a crowd waiting in sleeping bags to buy, they now cater to a trickle of potential "bag holders"
Don't know if this part of the process was included in your e-mails, but here is part of the letter they sent applicants outlining the process:
An orientation packet containing information for you to review prior to your interview is now available in the City Council Office...
...a list of questions will be provided to you as you arrive. The order in which the interviews will take place will be determined by lot. When your name is called, you will be asked to come to the podium and answer the questions. You will be given a total of 4 minutes to provide your response...
There you have it.
The packet isn't really a packet, but a wirebound book of about 40 pages or so, containing policy and procedure, etc.
Here's a copy of an email that circulated around a few months ago:
From: Gholloway1642@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:14:22 EDT
Subject: Utah Investments
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
I have some great news, Ogden Utah is said to be the next Vail and the real
estate values are predicted to soon take off. The city of Ogden is capitalizing on the 2002 Olympics improvements to Snow Basin, which is less than 30 minutes away, and one of the best ski resorts in the country. They are building a light-rail system from Salt Lake City to Ogden, planning to build a $50,000,000 Gondola to the ski resort from downtown, and making improvements to the airport.
I have a real estate connection and a property management company in place.
I am buying two houses as we speak for under $150,000 each and when rented,
should cash flow. They are older, 1940's, but have been remodeled.
The owners of Provident Partners, Bill Spain and Larry Beddome, have both bought land to develop and bought several single family homes to rent out. Larry who runs our Real Estate side of the business, bought a house and plans on living and working there most of the summer with his land development project while over seeing his single family home investments.
Matt Jones, who is one of our first customers when we created the property management company, and who is an annalist for Moody's and evaluates bond ratings for cities, has made Ogden his personal finance focus as well.
Let me know if you are interested and want to know more.
Thank you
Gary Holloway
Provident Partners Realty & Management
480-688-8181
I probably would have ignored this email except that at about the same time, the house two doors up from me was purchased by one of these Arizona real estate speculators. That house and the two immediately next to mine have all been converted to rentals within the last three years. I have nothing personally against the folks who are renting these houses, but let's just say that the block seems quite a bit noisier and more crowded than it used to.
Ironically, one of the objectives in Ogden's General Plan (page 7.4) is to "work towards increasing the homeownership rate." In his attempts to fuel a speculation-driven boom in property values, our mayor is working directly against this objective.
Dan, when we were fixing our house prior to moving into it, we had neighbors dropping by every time they saw the car. They were not being neighborly--that is, not until they ascertained that our intentions were not to use the house as a rental, but to live in it.
The impression made upon us was that we were very welcome, but that if we were going to use the house as a rental, they would rather we sell it to someone who would occupy it. Just their suggestion.
We welcomed this, actually. It meant that people cared about the condition of properties.
I assume by the general plan's emphasis on home ownership, what is meant is owner occupied homes. Certainly this does add to the stability of a neighborhood.
Hey, Cletus here.
We love it in SLC that you idiots want to keep the price of home cheaper in your neck of the woods because after our home prices triple it will be nice to sell and come buy homes there and live off all of the cash we made in SLC. The appreciation in my neighborhood entitled me to buy 17 prize sheep I was then able to sell at 3 times the price thus paying off your my home, rental, condo and hummer.
One of the main arguments used by political wonks against the California Prop 13 is that it creates a very unfair situation because you could have next door neighbors, with identical houses, paying drastically different taxes.
This is a bunch of hooey.
The ones that are paying the higher taxes are the ones that bought into the home at inflated prices. The tax load was part of what they bargained for.
Meanwhile the pensioners next door with the lower taxes are also paying according to what their original deal was plus small increases not to exceded inflation rates. If and when they sell their homes then the new owners will be buying into the new and higher tax structure.
There is nothing unfair about that.
Why sould people be taxed out of their homes because of an overheated real estate bubble?
Also of course the outrageous tax increases only go to support an out of control growth in local governments and taxing entitites, inspite of the so called "truth in taxation" laws that are such a joke.
WANTED
Concerned Ogden City Citizen to fill vacaant position on council replacing councilman who abandoned position. Candidates must have the following attributes:
- Can not have passion for a specific cause.
- Must have never voiced an opinion either in favor of or against teh gondola concept.
- Must be able to fall in lock step with existing council members.
- Must be required to oppose any and all projects proposed by the current administration.
- Must refrain from studying issues and taking input constitutions.
- Must be able to hold Ogden down that meets their own competence level.
- Must refrain from preparing for City Council meetings to include picking up packet 30 minutes before meeting.
- Candidate must know all the answers and what is in everyones best interest.
- Must oppose turning Ogden into an upscale, dynamic recreational town thereby drawing affluent new residents.
- Must be willing to support the continual expansion of Taco Stands adorning the front entrance to our Municipal Building.
- Must be a candidate who brings their houseguests through the garage and dirty kitchen to reach the living room.
- Must utilize constituents with ax to grind as political consultants.
- Must be willing to prostitute themselves for campaign contributions from the all the big fish in our little Ogden pond.
- Must have training as a ventriloquist or be able to talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
- Must not belong to an organized religious sect.
- Most oppose traditional community values and willing to eliminate long standing community traditions.
- Must be willing to play frisbee during lunch with administration.
- Must have never sough after or served in a elected ofice.
- Must be willing to allow the affluent to dictate direction of the community while at the same time making stubid decisions that opens the floog gates for more illegals, and recipients of government entitlement programs thereby destroying our inner city.
Superman
TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY
Dian,
What do you think of the procedure for interviewing the candidates?
Will you have written your answers to the 40 questions before getting to the podium?
After listening to the others, might'nt some one or two want to improvise on the spot in order to sound 'better' to the council?
Do you think each of you should be called in individually and be 'interviewed' with the rest waiting in chairs in the lobby or in the work room?
What do you think of Curm's idea of each of you submitting your bio/qualifications beforehand? Or have y'all done that? Seems to me it would be helpful to the Council to 'know' who you each are before you get up there.
A lot of questions, but I know you are up to them!
Ps..Bob, get a dictionary and get a life.
just rec'd Fonnesbeck's new rules.
The original notice sent out asked that candidates submit a statement explaining why they wanted to serve on the council as well as a separate statement listing their qualifications for doing so. Therefore, the Council Members already have something to begin working with and they won't be going into these interviews totally cold.
Who said anything about 40 questions?
Folks, I don't think there are going to be 39 real interviews. My guess is most members of the Council have alredy skimmed the submissions and culled the 39 and come up with a short " A list", ten maybe, who they individually consider to be serious candidates. And shuffled all the rest onto a "B list". At least that's how Ive seen hiring and selection committees work in lots of different circumstances over the last 35 years when they are inundated with applicants. A quick cull into a small "serious" pile and an "all the rest" pile. All before there is a single interview.
The four minute tap dance interviews may cause some Council members to cull one or two from their personal "A lists," and a stellar and surprising performance may cause them to add one. But not much more than that will change.
Then they will all compare their short lists and see how many names come up on four or five of them. If only five do, they will probably be the Fab Five. If more do, they will argue about who to strike and vote on that. If fewer than five do, they will argue about who to add to the list to make up five, and vote on that. And then the Fab Five will be thoroughly vetted. The whole purpose of the first stage is to [as I've heard it said in other contexts] "eliminate the chaff."
Have I talked to any Council persons or staff about this? No. But long experience in recruitment/evaluating/culling huge piles of applicants for a single position has me convinced that this is what's going to happen. Real consideration [beyond what the applicants have submitted in writing] of the full 39 list is probably going on back-channel right now. Phone calls, conversations, possibly emails, between Council members and others in Ogden whose opinions they seek out, or in whose judgement they have confidence. Never been involved in a recruitment or hiring process involving many applicants for one job when something like that didn't happen. It will happen here too, dollars to donuts. Very often the most significant information --- information that is just not available on the record and for attribution --- arrives back channel. I can't imagine the Council process won't work the same way.
So I wouldn't get too wrapped up about the details and "official" proceedures involved in culling the 39 down to five. The most important things aren't going to be happening in public view. Nor would I expect them to.
You sold the sheep, Cletus?
I reckon you must be feeling a mite lonesome.
Curmudgeon
You said:
"The most important things aren't going to be happening in public view. Nor would I expect them to"
My my my Mr. integrity in government advocate, are you getting cynical or what?
This whole process was supposed to be done in the light of day with no back room shit going on. And now our very own champion of open government is saying he doesn't expect this process to happen in public view!
Our very own Curmudgeon is indorsing a continuation of back room dealing in Ogden city government?
Next thing you know he will be learning the secret handshake and running for council himself.
Glasmann is a jerk. He screwed everyone who supported and and voted for him. Who knows what we will get? I only hope it is a person who can and will think rationaly and make informed decisions based on facts, not what is shoved up their ass by the Godfrey administration.
Sharon,
You asked what I think about the procedure. If time is of the essence, which it seems to be in order for the Council to be able to conduct business with a quorum, I think this is one way to do it with the appearance of being fair. I don't think the Council even has to give applicants the opportunity of a face to face, but has decided to as a courtesy.
There aren't forty questions--there are four. And applicants will have four minutes to answer them.
They said earlier that order of appearance will be by drawing of lots, and I assumed applicants would arrive and draw them, but I received an e-mail today stating that "It has been requested of the City Council, that the applicant presentation order - selection by lot - be done in advance of the September 20, 2006 Special Council Meeting."
They went ahead and established this presentation order today, (I say "they" because this e-mail didn't say by whom, or by whom the request was made,) and it was witnessed by the City Recorder's Office.
Applicants have already sent in a letter of intent and a resume, so it's not as if the Council doesn't have any info about them.
I don't know if applicants will be in the hall--probably not, since they will be called up in a certain order. And your mention of people hearing those before them and reworking their responses--yes, that may happen. But in a situation like this, there are so many variables and so many individual differences, that I don't think they could come up with anything too different from this and still have the process be public.
Anon:
I didn't suggest, as you so colorfully put it, "back room shit" would be going on. There is a public process and the steps it requires will be adhered to. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong or unethical about a council member who sees a name on the list he wants to know more about calling a friend, a colleague, someone who has worked with the person he is curious about, and asking about him or her. Nothing. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with a council member doing a fast shuffle through what the applicants have submitted and culling out a group, an "A list," he or she thinks are candidates that should be seriously considered, and moving the rest to a "B list" he or she thinks are not in the same league. Nothing wrong with reading a candidate's nomination statement and concluding right then and there, based on the application letter, "no, this one won't do in my opinion" and moving the application to stack "B".
Nothing I wrote suggested that anything improper was going on, or would. I said nothing about "deals" or "fixes." Only described how small groups... hiring committees often [and the Council is the hiring committee in this instance]...quickly reduce large piles of applications to a small and workable list of applicants to be fully vetted
If there had been only, say, a dozen applications, I think the vetting process for all of them would have been much more thorough right out of the gate. No four minute interviews. Once I saw there were 39, it became evident, I thought, that the Members would devise a fast way [consistent with some kind of public process] to cull the list into a more workable size quickly. And that's what I was describing.
Curmy
But you did write: "The most important things aren't going to be happening in public view. Nor would I expect them to"
Didn't you?
Seems like a pretty unequivocal endorsement of "secret shit" to me.
Thank you, Dian...seems like the Council is doing their best under the circumstances.
Curm, I do agree with your assessment of the process.
That's the same thing that must occur with all the questions the public wrote on the Peterson Plan....cull and make it workable.
After waiting for the verdict on Chapman...I suggest y'all have a good supper or bring a peanut butter sandwich with you! Domino's delivers. I could bring my scrabble game.
Anon:
The most important things going on in the first screening will be the conversations among the councilmembers themselves, based on their readings of the applications files, and based on their talking to others, whose judgement they trust, about some of the applications. All of that will happen, inevitably, out of the public eye. It is not part of the public process, nor can it be. We cannot be there as each member reads an application letter and draws conclusions from it, to question him about what conclusions he draws from what he is reading. We can't be there as he chats with constituents, friends, colleagues, on the phone, in the hallways, over coffee or lunch, about some of the candidates he wants to know more about.
The public process consists, first round, of the four minute interviews [and the Council did not have to provide even that], designed to elicit more infomration about each candidate. Nothing that I see would prevent a council member from going beyond the brief, I might even say "token" interviews and the written submissions to garner more information. I hope they will.
Looks to me, anon, like you are eager to find some kind of conspiracy under way. Nothing I posted suggested there is.
Good Ink For Ogden
Today's NY Times [Friday, 15 September] has a feature article on Mr. Peterson's via feratta route in Waterfall Canyon. Long article, with pictures. Very good ink for Ogden. Definitely worth a read.
Gee, all this good ink, about recreational activities in Ogden, and in the NY Times, and not a gondola in sight. Imagine that....
Are you really that dumb? Who built the Via Ferrata? Why did that person build the via ferrata? Oh, I know- for his year round resort that would include gondolas. Come out of your shell, view the reality and quit trying to spin things.
Anon:
Sigh. Anon, because Mr. Peterson is pushing a plan that would cost Ogden its bench parklands, a bad idea in my view, it does not mean he is the anti-Christ or that he cannot and does not have other ideas that may be good ones. Being blindly against everything Mr. Peterson does merely because Mr. Peterson does it makes no sense to me. When he advocates something I think will result in smart growth for Ogden, why would I want to criticize?
The Via Ferrata Climbing Park is on land he owns. He has not asked the city to sell off parkland to finance it. He is footing the development costs. It is being done, so far as I known, consistently with existing Weber County zoning rules and ordinances. It may, and I hope will, bring visitors to Ogden who would not otherwise have come here. I suspect it will be popular with Explorer posts, etc. I know many avid rock climbers think little of it, and I can see why they would. But I can also see that it will provide a way for non-climbers, even the somewhat portly and middle aged perhaps, to get out on a rock face high up for the first time and be awed by what they see. That's not a bad thing. For them. For Ogden.
The Climbing Park does not make the proposed Peterson real estate speculation with the city parklands and the downtown gondola idea one iota more attractive or beneficial for the city. It reduces my skepticism about them not at all.
Whenever Mr. Peterson proposes something I consider a smart growth proposal, he will find me in his camp. When he doesn't, he'll find me on the other side. Seems a pragmatic and reasonable way to approach all development proposals in Ogden, from whomever they might come.
Interesting article, Curmudgeon--thanks for linking it. I was unaware that Chris Peterson had obtained the necessary use permits---last reports I read, they were tied up.
We really must be more vigilant at keeping up on things.
Curm,
I believe the Anons had a similar reaction when I mentioned a similar article in Backpaker magazine a couple of months ago... the great news here is that the New York Times has a much larger circulation and did a larger story. The bad news, it appears, is that the Anon/LOs are still unable to think rationally.
Dian:
Article says the park is scheduled to open sometime this Fall officially. Not open for business yet. So not surprising that the conditional use permits, etc are still pending.
I was just going to chime in on the fact that the New York Times today deemed Ogden's mountains (including a photo of Ben Lomond) worthy of a splendid feature article, and the absence of the G-word screams volumes ... but Curmudgeon has already supplied a link. But, three cheers to Kym Buttschardt, who's nicely pictured in front of Ben Lomond, and who has done a lion's share in reviving 25th Street through her restaurants.
Does any one know if the $40 bucks a day is for the rock climbing deal only, or does that mean every one will now have to pay through the nose to hike up Waterfall Canyon?
I agree with Curmudgeon on Peterson. When he does something good for Ogden then we should applaud and support him. When he tries to get us to pay for his mega million dollar boondoggle then we should lynch him!
I am sure if we didn't have this horrid Goondola scheme hanging over our collective heads we could find plenty to like about him and the Geigers. Nice guys all except for this one glaring flaw.
Peterson has repeatedly said that Waterfall and his land will remain open to the public for hiking...$40 is for use of the Via Ferrata only as I understand it.
It's too bad there is not more creative thinking from CP now that he has bet everything on getting the parklands. I agree with Ozboy that CP and the Geigers are basically good folks and certainly have the heart behind what they are doing. Unfortunately once they created the data in their own mind that the gondola is a great idea, not on of them has the courage to question and review their own data and campaign. My own life experience reveals that what I thought to be some great idea in the past, eventually reveals itself to have flaws as time passes. This is natural in the evolution of trial and error and refinement of plans. For them to deny that what they originally thought to be great ideas and may not have some flaws and require more careful analysis and reshaping would be to assume to idea was some how perfect??? Nowhere in history and in the industrial evolution has there been perfection of design. They should be making the most of the time we have before committing to any part of this scheme to refine it. But no, instead we have CPete being ever more reclusive and secretive and the mayor and all the LO folks like sheep not willing to ask any questions themselves. Really sad when we have our spectacular city at stake. Such an unbelievable opportunity at this moment to create a "world class" street scene right here in Ogden stretching E-W across the city following a transit line and the mayor has lost all vision of reality and this incredible opportunity. It will never be this easy to get this done yet selfishly Peterson and the mayor man-it-up and refuse top reshape their plan. Such weakness. If the mayor only realized that all his detractors would probably switch if he did just this one really bold move for the good of Ogden. Group thought can be so limiting and sometimes deadly destructive. On a local AND a national scale.
I picked up a copy of The Ogden Valley News yesterday, and I would highly recommend this particular issue--September 15th, 2006. Contains minutes of the Weber County Commission meeting, an editorial concerning the rising property taxes there, and, ( very interesting!) A front page article entitled "County Developing Ordinances To Meet Recommendations of the Ogden Valley General Plan."
From reading this article, I learned about TDRs. TDR stands for "Transfer of Development Rights," and here are some quotes from the article:
...TDR programs allow property owners to buy and sell development rights without actually exchanging land--a buyer may purchase the rights of development linked to a parcel of land without purchasing the actual property..."
...if a TDR ordinance were in place, the property owner could sell to a buyer, the legal right to develop the 100 lots to another party who owns property elsewhere...
...It's a win/win proposition. The owner of the 300 acres is economically compensated for not developing their property after selling the rights to..the buyer. They are also compensated by the annual tax break they will receive...not that a conservation easement has been placed on it to ensure that it remains in open space...
One interesting thing here is that it is stated that Weber County has hired a consulting firm, BIO-WEST, Inc., to help develop ordinances that will help Ogden Valley preserve its open space as recommended by its General Plan.
We in Ogden City, also in Weber County, also have recommendations in our General Plan to protect our open space. As we all know, talk has been going around to amend our General Plan to allow the housing development at the base of Mount Ogden. This is said to be because the money from that development is needed by Ogden City to fund the urban gondola. No matter what one's personal opinion on this, what this article is saying to me is that that housing development doesn't have to go there. It could go somewhere else, and money could be obtained by the city, and development rights could be obtained by Chris Peterson.
Part of the Peterson project involves purchase of land owned by Ogden City. Perhaps under one of these TDR ordinances, the city could sell the developmental rights to Peterson, but leave the city owned land as it now is, as open space. This is an option, and I am thinking right now that we would be fools if we did not look into it. The article says 20 states right now are looking into TDR's to protect their open space.
I wish I could link this whole article, but it doesn't seem that I can. I really urge everyone to go pick up a copy of The Ogden Valley News and read about this.
Dian:
Thinking of, looking for alternatives that might work to benefit both Ogden and Mr. Peterson? Looking for a compromise solution that might work for all parties? Who are you? You cannot possibly be "Dian" for it is well known that she is a SmartGrowthOgden supporter and thus is a naysayer who is against everything and for nothing. Come on, fess up now. Who are you, really? And why are you posting under Dian's name?
OzBoy,
Do you differentiate between the Urban Gondola proposal and the Mountainside Gondola proposal? Just wondering...
Dian,
I'm having trouble grasphing the Transfer of Development Rights idea.
If I understand it, the seller cedes his/her right to develop their land to someone else for a fee. I don't understand why the purchaser of the TDR can't then develop the property any legal way they see fit.
Wouldn't the only way to keep such property as open space be to sell the TDR to an organization or individual who was sworn to never develop it?
Ogdenlover,
I will quote the example from the article--I admit, it's hard to understand and I'm not sure I really grasp it myself yet.
...if a land owner has a 300 acre parcel of land, and the zoning on the property allows for the development of one lot per every three acres, potentially, a 100 lot subdivision could be built on the property. But if a TDR ordinance were in place, the property owner could sell to a buyer, the legal right to develop the 100 lots to another party who owns property elsewhere. This would allow the developer to increase the number of legal lots that could be built on his/her property by 100, while the seller of the development rights retains their property in open space.
And they do also mention:
...To ensure that the open space is preserved in perpetuity, a land trust or governmental entity holds in trust the development rights on the newly created open space.
There is also a paid ad in the paper for The Ogden Valley Land Trust, a non-profit organization.
Article also says that Kevin Hamilton at the Weber County Planning Office can be contacted regarding this.
So in thinking this through---would the sale of development rights from parcel A result in more lots being able to be built on parcel B, even if the zoning in place on parcel B did not allow for that?
That is the part I don't understand and that seems, if the answer is yes, to be capable of causing lots of problems.
Anyway, just read about this today and am very sketchy on it, obviously. It might be an option in dealing with the Peterson proposal. I think it should be explored to see if it could be.
(I'm not ignoring your comment, Curmudgeon--not really.)
I've just learned from two different reliable sources that no conditional use permit for the Waterfall Canyon climbing park has yet been issued. Thus, it would appear that the phrase "scheduled to open officially this fall" in the NY Times article is a bit premature.
"Thus, it would appear that the phrase "scheduled to open officially this fall" in the NY Times article is a bit premature."
LOL. That is like saying it is a bit premature to schedule anything in the future that requires permiting. Many things are "scheduled" pending permits.
I'm guessing the Olympics were scheduled prior to a single permit in place....prematurely.
Anonymous
Yes indeed I do differentiate between the Urban and Mountain gondola proposals.
I am all for the mountain gondola IF it is built with private money. I am also for Peterson's resort if HE pays for it and it is not annexed into the city. The tax payers should not have to support this scheme in any way, including paying for and maintaining the infastructure and public safety.
The Urban gondola is just simply a horrid idea that would set back the tax payers of Ogden untold millions of dollars and in my estimation would be a total failure on many fronts.
Anon,
Maybe the question is whether there has been application made for the conditional use permit and has any conditions set by the city been met. At that point I guess a timeline could be determined when an official opening would occur. Seeing as he has been operating at some capacity without a permit one has to wonder what is the intent.
I'll agree with the Ozboy. I also differentiate the mountain and urban gondola. Gondolas do one thing very well. Transport a crowded carful of eager skiers and snowboarders uphill. In the urban environment they simply do not have the capacity and riding more than 10 minutes in one at this elevation would be hell. Also capacity in the urban setting is half or less as no urban rider will be expected to pack in with 8 or 10 to a car for a ride around town. The practical capacity in this setting is ridiculously small.
Peterson has a golden opportunity to ask one of the concerned parties for a small amount of acreage to build a base that would also have attenant retail and office space. That base could be a huge money maker for him without building condos in Malan's OR homes on OUR golf course. I do not see why this is not considered a viable alternative. In fact I know a couple of property investors who deal exclusively in retail and office and industrial property and they wouldn't touch homebuilding or golf course management with a ten foot golf club. The real money is in commercial property and the smart money knows it. It's the trophy and rookie investors who always try to rewrite the game and stumble invariably. He should get a clue. I would jump at the chance to own and manage a retail village at the base of his gondola. Even if it just led to a hiking and wilderness ski center it would draw plenty and e a great place to take a mountain skyride and have dinner at his retail establishments. This would be very cool.
Add in a transit link to Ogden burgeoning streetscene along the Transit corridor and we have the makings of the things that draw people from all over.
In Re: Climbing Park
Mr. Peterson has not yet completed the permit process for it? NYT goes with a major article in its national editon travel section highlighting your climbing park, including contact information, pictures, etc. You know it's coming out And you're not ready to open because you haven't completed the permit process? Free national publicity you could not buy if you wanted to, and you muff the permit process? Incredible.
As I recall, Mr. Peterson began putting in the Via Ferrata routes about a year ago. So, he had a year more or less to get his ducks in a row and the required permits from Weber County. A year. And he didn't manage to get it done. Arranging permitting for the relatively simple Climbing Park should be a breeze compared to the permiting hurdles he will have to jump through to develop Malan's Basin and the mountain gondola much less the golf course and residential villas he's hoping to build. The difference in difficulty between the two permitting tasks strikes me as about like the difference between reading a Peanuts cartoon on the one hand and reading War and Peace on the other. He couldn't get through Peanuts but he expects us to believe War and Peace will pose no problems for him?
You have to wonder if someone who couldn't get his ducks in a row in a year to get the needed licences for the climbing park has a hope in hell of shepherding the golf course development, the gated community development, the gondola development and the Malan's Basin development through the necessary permitting processes in the remaining lifespan of the youngest reader of WC Forum.
I agree, the issue is has the permit been applied for or not. Anyone who has actually ever gotten a permit for something knows that it isn't that big of a deal and most of the time you've had discussions as to whether or not it is going to go through. Then it is just a formality to receive the paper. I've been involved in several permitting situations and often don't get the actual permit until the day before it is needed. Not having the permit isn't a big deal as long as you know there aren't going to be any surprises.
Don't make a mountain out of a probable non-issue.
Curm, I absolutely agree.
Anonymous, Interesting twist of logic.
Anon:
OK, you are clearly more familiar with the process than I am and your point may be a good one if there are no significant unresolved issues between Mr. Peterson dba Waterfall Canyon Climbing Park and the permitting agency. And if the permit is forthcoming rapidly now that the article has appeared. I don't know if that's so, though. We will have to see.
Remember, I'm not opposed to the climbing park. I think it's not a bad idea, and I hope it succeeds. But if there are significant unresolved issues holding things up and if the permit is not issued shortly, then I think the questions raised above may not be as trivial as you suggest. As I said, we'll have to see.
Yep....time always tells.
If the permit is such a non issue why hasn't Peterson got it already? And how is he operating the deal without one? Just what kind of a permit is needed for this kind of operation anyway? Surely Weber County hasn't established any Via Farrata criteria in any event.
There are all kinds of different levels of permits, some very easy to get, some take major effort and can be very time and cash consuming. Although this particular permit is probobly not one that is terribly complicated to get it is still very strange that after a year Peterson still doesn't have one.
Does any one know what County agency is the one issuing said permit? It shouldn't be to difficult to find out what the status of this particular one is, or whether he even has applied.
As far as Peterson getting through the normal rigorous permiting process that would be required for his grand scheme, welllllll duh, why do you think he hired the high priced mouth piece to game Ogden's long standing and well established permitting processes? The idea seems to be to circumvent the whole permitting game designed to protect the public and basically write his own damn permits.
Hell man he's sleeping with the billionaire's daughter and chuming it up with the Lord Mayor, Chriss don't need no stinking permits. Permits are for common folks and chumps.
See, this is where ignorance becomes disappointing. And just because one might get their checks on a bi-weekly basis, and never has to understand what the entrepenuers of the world deal with regularly, doesn't excuse them.
It is easy to spout off. It is difficult to actually know the intricacies of every project out there. And it is even more difficult to predict, imagine, etc. what a person is dealing with in a business that is new. Why the **** would anyone need a permit before they are actually ready to conduct business. If you have never started a business, then you probably don't understand that sometimes a permit, license, insurance, or whatever is the last piece to fall into place.
Show some intelligence and pick apart things that matter. Being "common" shouldn't eliminate thinking. Oh yeah, have you ever had a "mass gathering" in your backyard or had your music too loud? How did you do that without a permit? Oh wait, it was your property and you just did it? Maybe that is how he is operating. If he is "operating" at all.
I have no idea what is going on up there and am privy to no additional information than what I've read. But I am capable of thinking things through. As far as I've heard, no one is selling tickets to climb iron rungs. If they are, oh my! As far as I can tell, it would be at a level that hardly merits the husband of the third largest stake holder in Standard Oil from getting rich. Please think about that when you coast through a stop sign or speed with your "common folk" attitude.Use some "common" sense and real critical thinking.
I'm not against people speaking out against something, but geez, nit pick the important things.
I'd have more respect for someone who said, " Oh my, he's hurting the endangered rocks up there by hammering iron rungs into them," than I do for one who insults someone for who they married, who they know, or for getting a piece about the Ogden area put into the NYT prior to having a permit.
that's my 22 cents : P ...inflation, you know.
anonymous, I don't think I've heard anyone squawking about iron rungs in the rock. Granted, the climbing park has not drawn crowds, BUT, it is open to the public, has been touted in the media for a year, and there are release forms up there and a number to call. He has encouraged people to use it. That sounds like it is open for biz. He should get his permit. It may be nit picky to you when scaled against his grand proposals, but fair is fair. Besides if someone were hurt up there and there was no permit issued and yet the access was allowed with a wink, perhaps the county could be held liable. All mention of it here has been in the spirit of holding Peterson to the same rules we all have to play when operating a business. As for any comment on the NYT article, Curm was simply astounded that Peterson has actually shown little interest in wrapping up the details relating to his "park" when notice of it is now floating around the world. That kind of advertising cannot be purchased at any price and to let it slide by and not finish improving it seems to reflect a lack of enthusiasm for his own projects. Incidentally the ice climbing park and its plumbing and diversion dam and pond were quite the eyesore. I could have built that mess and obscured the pipelines and maybe used a BLACK liner in the creek so it doesn't look like a piece of trash just snagged in the watercourse. A nicely constructed rock dam would have been visually pleasing. The Search and rescue boxes up there are just dropped where they lie. How about developing a small clearing and leveling the boxes and posting a professionally made sign. It all looks so dumpish. Visual impact is always an issue in the outdoors. The Park Service never does anything like this without an eye for a finished and welcoming appeal.
As for lacking enthusiasm for his own project, I would have to say, if that was my mountain, I would have my office dedicated to it, have extensive topographic data and overlays of optional development strategies, photos from all angles, I would be up there regularly surveying, perhaps doing some initial thinning in areas of logical development, etc. With his available wealth, he could hire some architecture students to do alot of that including drawing up plans or holding a design contest. This would encourage community involvement. I would share with the community all of my ideas as this is clearly a project that involves our community. In fact, you couldn't keep me away from it. Peterson seems to be indicating that if he can't have his way, he will just let the mountain acreage sit the way it is. It seems to me that at the very least some additional signage, maybe an invitation to comment on his proposals, a sign-in guest book, etc. I would be very conscious of the communities reaction to my proposals and seek to find the best consensus. After all, who, but the most crotchety billionaire, would want to develop with a "screw the locals" attitude.
Tod Transit
You are forgetting that is not how Utah works. It works this way. You have the Idea and then you sit back and let others make you rich. In hope that those whom you helped get rich will also share the wealth.
That is why Utah is tha scam captial of the United Stated. along with Pyrimd Schemes.
However, they forget that Utah is a strong beleiver in the Reagan trickel down econimics. The rich get richer and you are a sucker for helping them.
SE Plans Three Part Gondola Series
I found this notice this morning in editor Dave Greiling's weekly column on the front page of the Top Of Utah section:
Reporter, mayor go on tour to find gondola answers
So how about that gondola? There’s no doubt public interest and debate have been intense and prolonged about proposals for an Ogden gondola that would ultimately reach a resort that developer Chris Peterson hopes to build at Malan’s Basin.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey and backers of the plan see it as a key piece of the puzzle to help put Ogden on a solid economic footing.
To take a look at the impact gondolas have had on other communities, Godfrey and the Ogden/Weber Chamber of Commerce put together a one-day trip last month to look at gondola operations in Kellogg, Idaho, and Telluride, Colo.
Reporter Scott Schwebke was one of the eight who made the trip.
The Ogden visitors found some interesting similarities — and differences — between Ogden and the gondolas operating in Kellogg and Telluride.
Schwebke has put together a three-story package exploring the gondolas in those cities and what lessons they may hold for Ogden. He also takes a look at a gondola plan in Cortez, Colo., that was ultimately scrapped.
His series starts Sunday.
As the gondola debate and decision-making unfolds here in Ogden, we will also be looking at other transit options in communities in the West.
By the way, those who went on the gondola tour, including the Standard-Examiner reporter, are paying their share of the cost.
Good post Curm.
There are significant differences in the Telluride and Kellogg systems and the one proposed for here. The greatest difference is the distance from Base(Intermodal hub) to foothill. 3+ miles. That is much greater than either of those two systems. Other differences are that the Kellogg system provides direct service to the BASE of the established ski area, Silver Mountain from I-90. The Telluride system provides both skier access to the ESTABLISHED ski area AND transit between ESTABLISHED developments in the Telluride Mountain Village and the Historical Town of Telluride. Telluride is a community DEDICATED to the service of the mountain and all community activity and employment revolves around the moountain. The Silver Mountain system was built to replace auto transport to the base of the ski area. The unique nature of these systems are quite different than the service needs of this proposed development and our CITY. The Kellogg sustem is based away from the downtown area and is not used as transit within the city. If the proposed system for Ogden were to link to Snowbasin it still would be foolish to run a gondola from downtown to the foothill base. That plan completely ignores the magnificent opportunity to develop a thriving street scene along a Transit Route across the city. The gondola would not contribute one iota to the redevelopment of the Central City. A Transit Corridor would Set the stage and focus Redevelopment along it's route and pour over into surrounding neighborhoods with renewed pride and investment and encourage those properties to be owner occupied. In fact Ogden has the opportunity to do so much more than either of those two communities as we have a population base that far exceeds to total of both those towns. We need the Transit Corridor AND we need Chris Peterson to build his appropriate sized mountain connection and facility as an asset to what we already have in Ogden. My guess is that in a few years Snowbasin may actually allow access after trialing the idea and adjusting it's operations to accomodate it.
It is not unusual that Snowbasin would frown on the idea of a connection. Alta and Snowbird have been geographically and topographically accessible for decades yet only a few years ago allowed a combined ticket. Unfortunately that extends to skiers only. Alta still lives in the stone age thinking snowboarders do not deserve the same access rights as bi-plankers. A throwback to the days when skiers thought snowboarders were unsafe or chopped up the snow. Laughable when you see how snowboarding influence has completely overhauled skiing style and introduced terrain parks to the ski crowd. Skiing has never looked back. They have elevated there air technique to levels never anticipated in the pre-snowboard days. In fact Malan's Basin with it's limited acreage and west exposure lends itself quite well to a dedicated terrain park more than a ski area. I think Earl would come around. Peterson must build first though and prove the need and the operational coexistence.
Tod:
Interesting post, and I agree with much of what's in it. I am skeptical on two points though: I'm not sure a Malan's Basin development is likely to succeed absent a connection to Snow Basin. And you wrote: My guess is that in a few years Snowbasin may actually allow access after trialing the idea and adjusting it's operations to accomodate it. Well, the Snow Basin people are adamant that such a connection is not in their short term or long term plans.
And in any case, wagering the sale of the city's bench parklands and the construction of a downtown gondola on wishin' and hopin' and dreamin' that maybe, someday, after a while, God willin' an' the creek don't rise, Snow Basin will change its mind is a gamble with city resources [the magnificant bench parklands and trails and millions to build and operate the downtown gondola]I for one am absolutely not willing to make. Though it seems to be a gamble Mayor Godfrey is not only willing but eager to make.
People who want to gamble like that with their own investors' money are free to do so. Or they can go to Vegas and do the same in air-conditioned comfort while attractive people bring them free drinks as their money disappears. People who want to gamble like that with public resources are entirely another matter.
Curm, As you know, any of what I described leaves out any proposal to sell the parklands. That is not on the table for me. No way. I was simply describing the possibilities if Peterson just focused on developing what he has. I was not suggesting we even visit the town gondola idea. It's stupid. Snowbasin connection or not.
Although this is simply speculation on my part, I wonder whether the reluctance of Sinclair Corporation to connect itself in any way with the "Peterson Plan" (so-called) may simply relate to its own past experience in dealing with Mr. Peterson. There has to be some plausible reason why the son in law of the billionaire founder never made it into the top ranks of Sinclair management after a decade or more on the payroll.
Over the past year we Ogdenites have witnessed and withstood an array of unfulfilled grand promises, public relations blunders, outright deceitful statements and half-assed follow-through which have made many of us very suspicious about the fundamental capacity of Mr. Peterson to carry out such an ambitious project as is presently contemplated. The disclosure that he is apparently operating his Via Ferrata course semi-commercially without having yet obtained the necessary permits is but the latest example of this troubling behavior.
Sinclair insiders, being very familiar with Mr. Peterson over the past decade or so, may merely recognize that Mr. Peterson is "over his head" with this project, and that any connection with him would cause inevitable problems. Whereas a west-side gondola link to Snowbasin would seem (on the surface, at least) to be an amenity which would be logically beneficial to the Snow Basin operation, Sinclair executives have nevertheless rejected it out of hand.
Perhaps they simply perceive him as some of we townsfolk are coming to see him -- a major "screw-up" incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Tod:
Oh, I know that. The only two points I disagreed on were (a) probability of Malan's Basin resort to succeed absent Snow Basin connection and (b) likelihood of SB changing its mind. Wasn't for a moment suggesting you supported the land sale or the downtown gondola. Perfectly lear from your excellent post that you do not. My comments were aimed at those who are willing to gamble Ogden's bench lands and its resources on a downtown gondola and risky Malan's development. And we both know who they are.
Yo Althepal, You sure seem to have Peterson pegged!
And Anonymous, you have a semi serious logic problem going. Your post, apparently in answer to Ozboy, was rather illogical and confusing. There is hardly a sentence in it that make any sense at all! If you are not a charter member of Lift Ogden I strongly urge you to join up ASAP. You will fit right in with that group. Oh, and by the way it is Sinclair not Standard Oil that Peterson's wife is an heir to. Pretty major difference in the number of zeros, although Sinclair is no midget itself. And your take on permits is quite laughable. It is obvious that you don't have a clue about what you are "spouting off" about.
A good guess as to "Anonymous's" Permit experience would be maybe a permit to burn weeds, a learner's permit for driving or perhaps a fishing permit.
It is totally illogical for a significant business operation to not get a permit to operate very early in the game and way before big money was spent.
I agree with Fred, this guy doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about.
Does he think for a moment that Sincair would spend millions opening a refinery and then get a permit at the last minute to operate it? Logic like this fella has is one reason guys like Holding are rich and guys like him aren't.
And no, Anonymous, I am not comparing Perterson's rock climbing place to Sinclair oil, only reacting to your nonsense about permits being pretty much an after thought in business.
It is clear that Peterson has simply gravitated to those who will listen. The mayor and the LO folk unfortunately fail to catch the drift that they are the only ones listening. If this had merit, investors or Earl himself would be involved. Not a single ski area operator, ski company, etc. Peterson has either locked them out or is tiring of questions about feasibility which, investors, pesky as they are, tend to ask. The singlehandedness of his pursuit is worrisome and telling.
Notice the mayor is out researching gondola systems only. It isn't research if you are not broadening the scenarios and exploring all methods of transit. He is still beating the drum for the town gondola which requires selling the golf course. Unbelievable. It would seem he would be excited to explore all the alternatives if he sensed that selling the golf course is extremely distasteful to so many. They act like they can change someones mind. It's not as though the parties were wrestling over selling or developing some remote piece of swampland or converting another hayfield to housing. This is magnificent city parkland at the foot of a mountain. The idea is absurd in todays urban planning.
I forgot to mention the greatest difference between the Silver Mountain Gondola and the urban gondola idea. Obviously some parallels are drawn as it serves the ski area base from a dedicated parking area and small commercial development adjacent to I-90 and Kellogg. That resembles the desire to connect the downtown intermodal hub to Peterson's proposed base. The parallels end right there. The rest of the story is that The Silver Mountain traverses mostly forest land except for passing above the small village of Woodruff. The Urban Gondola proposed for Ogden will pass above the central city, where population density demands transit. There has been NO definitive commitment to stops in this area. In fact stops are so prohibitively expensive as to prevent more than two or three along it ENTIRE 3 mile+ route. If you can't get on conveniently and it doesn't go anywhere you need to go it is useless. Sure it can move boatloads of people from downtown to Peterson's place but consider this. Not even snowbasin's gondolas run at anywhere near capacity for a ski area 15 TIMES the size of Malan's basin. There will never be the skier load and demand for this capacity. This makes the whole CAPACITY justification a non issue. Cities many times the size of Ogden use Transit in select corridors and the capacity is just fine.
I have wriiten before, The issue is not really about transit but the development that transit brings to it's corridor. It is very positive human scale development and we NEED it in Ogden. A transit corridor will act as an EXTENSION of downtown bringing the life and activity that is now confined to a few blocks downtown and encourage it up the corridor to Weber State. This is Smart Urban Planning. Dare I say SGO. I'm not even a member.
Wow, quite a discussion going on this damp Saturday. Where to begin...
Via ferrata permit: Peterson applied to the county for a business license late last fall. The county told him he first needed a conditional use permit, and that to obtain this he would have to submit a site plan and other information. He submitted the CUP application in May, and had a hearing before the Planning Commission in late June. The Commission voted to table the matter, pending resolution of several issues including parking, toilet facilities, motorized access across National Forest lands, and possible disturbance of two species of rare plants known to inhabit the area near the waterfall. My current understanding is that one or two of these issues may have since been resolved, at least in part. I wouldn't want to predict how long it might take to resolve the remaining issues, or whether the Planning Commission might grant the permit even if some issues remain unresolved.
Telluride and Kellogg gondolas: It's pretty easy to Google around for basic information on these systems--not sure why Schwebke needed to actually visit them, other than to rub elbows with the mayor and CC folks. The Kellogg gondola is a single straight shot, 3.1 miles long (longest single-stage gondola in the world). Rates and times of operation are comparable to other ski resorts, for instance, $15 for an adult round trip ride in the summer, with no early morning or night service, no weekday service during most of September, and (as far as I can tell) no service at all for a time during the spring and fall. The Telluride gondola has three segments (with two intermediate stations) but is only 2.5 miles long in total. It functions much more as a transit system, with long hours of operation (7 am until midnight) but still no service in the spring and fall. It's free to foot passengers, presumably subsidized by the resort interests. Neither the Kellogg nor Telluride gondola goes over much urban territory; they ascend steep mountain slopes where ground-based transportation would have been impractical. I think it's safe to assume that virtually everyone who rides these gondolas is either a visitor to, or employee of, the associated resorts.
For comparison, the proposed Ogden urban gondola would be 4.5 miles long with three intermediate stations. It would have to operate essentially 365 days a year, for long hours, to function both as a transit system and for resort access. The proposed fare for in-town use would be the same as a UTA bus fare, so it would have to be subsidized like the Telluride system. It would operate almost entirely over city streets, where faster, more flexible transit options are quite feasible. The two angle stations of the Ogden gondola would be on a major arterial road, Harrison Blvd. Lack of air conditioning would be a bigger issue here due to the longer ride and much higher summer temperatures. The Ogden gondola is being proposed as a multiple-use transit system to serve not just resort visitors but also students and commuters.
Thanks for adding the details Dan, I forgot that the Kellogg Gondola is so long. It was a natural for it's installation as it replaced a windy road that went to a single destination. It displaced hundreds of vehicle trips perday on that road which was apparently quite a challenge in the winter.
The Telluride Gondola's intermediate stations are one at the top of the mountain that seperates the town and the mountain village and the other one is at the mountain village mid ski base. The Village terminus is at the Village Parking Lot. This gondola system was also a natural for it's installation as it eliminated a six or seven mile commute around the mountain. This commute was extremely treacherous during storms at Telluride's 9000' elevation. Roughly Equal to the elevation of Mt Ogden peak.
It was the automobile commutes on mountain roads that necessitated the construction of these gondolas.
Thanks, tod.
Here are some fun statistics on skiable acres at the three resorts (two actual, one proposed):
Silver Mtn., ID: 2500
Telluride, CO: 1700
Malan's Basin, UT: 180
(Peterson owns 1440 acres, but 180 is all that would be served by his proposed gondola and chairlift, unless he tries to develop runs on south-facing slopes where snow quality would be lousy. Both Silver Mountain and Telluride are on north-facing slopes.)
The maximum capacity of a 180-acre ski area would be about 500 skiers per day. If on a good day each of the 350 condos in Malan's Basin supplies one skier, this doesn't leave much room for the predicted 1000 ski bum WSU students, let alone for locals.
In response to althepal's comments on the proposed Snowbasin connection, I have it on good authority that it's more than a matter of personalities. There are excellent physical reasons not to try to connect Snowbasin to the west side of the mountain. For one thing, Snowbasin would have to invest millions in a new lift going up from their side. Avalanche control and strong winds would present additional challenges. They considered this idea years ago and rejected it for these reasons, long before Peterson purchased the Malan's Basin property.
Appreciate that everyone is such a permit expert.
Evidently, according to some posters, Peterson is just an idiot who doesn't understand them and started spending money up there with no clue as to whether or not he would get them? I don't buy it.
My point was that when you apply for a permit, you have a pretty good notion as to whether or not it will be granted.
But evidently you folks know eveything.
Ans yes, it was late and I mistyped, Sinclair Oil not Standard Oil. Thanks for your diligent correcting.
As for the join Lift Ogden comment-just because I disagree with a poster who uses who someone is married to condem them and because I think one can attempt to utilize their land in a manner they see fit, doesn't mean I agree with the grand scheme involving WSU, Mt. Ogden, etc. That is a pretty big leap to make. But again, I forget I dealing with the all-seeing, all-knowing portion of the community here.
To bad the rest of the world isn't so black and white.
I don't think anyone is saying Peterson is an idiot, but he did apparently spend some small sum on his via ferrata and in a year he still hasn't got a permit and perhaps isn't close to getting one.
And by the way anonymous, you are the one that represented yourself as the expert on permits, it was the other posters that exposed you as a nincompoop on the subject.
Anon:
My point was that when you apply for a permit, you have a pretty good notion as to whether or not it will be granted.
I wish you would explain how this comment is relevant to Peterson's pending application for the via ferrata. Again, look at the facts so far: He announced that the facility was open for business last November, and applied for a business license at about the same time. Now, ten months later, he still has no business license.
I hasten to add that I don't think Peterson is an idiot. Even the most intelligent people sometimes turn out to be wrong.
New comments are not allowed.