"If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."
John Pierpont Morgan
American Financier & Banker
1837-1913
"There's a sucker born every minute...and two to take 'em."
Phineas Taylor Barnum
Godfreyesque American Showman
1810-1891
Perhaps we're a bit old-fashioned here at Weber County Forum. Springing from a generation of sensible Americans who always check the water's depth before we dive in head-first, we have always approached real property transactions in a fairly standard time-honored sequence.
If we wish to sell a parcel of property, we at least make some effort to ascertain such property's value before we put it on the market.
In those instances where we have a seemingly eager prospective buyer on hand, we don't alter our legal position in any manner until we at least have a firm offer on the table. And obtaining reliable appraisals or comparative market analyses is of course a fundamental prerequisite to entering into the bargaining process in such instances -- something that should happen early in the game. To do otherwise is imprudent and reckless, we believe. If we had a real estate broker or lawyer who might recommend that we sign any binding preliminary agreements before we had obtained reliable market data and arrived at at least a general agreement as to purchase price and and other essential performance terms, we'd also be looking into that individual's malpractice insurance coverage, or begin shopping for a new legal representative altogether.
We are therefore absolutely mystified by the conduct of some Emerald City elected officials and bureaucrats, who seem to be rushing headlong into a wholesale modification of our planning and zoning rules in connection with the Peterson Landgrab Matter. Absent at least some general and realistic idea of purchase price and terms, we fail to understand why we are doing anything at all to facilitate this factually-murky proposed transaction.
The Emerald City Planning Commission nevertheless held a work-session last night, with three troubling items on the agenda:
- Modification of the city's Sensitive Overlay Ordinance.
- Enactment of a new Multiple Use Development Ordinance.
- Modification of the now-ongoing Mt. Ogden Community Plan process.
In this connection we have plucked a concise report of last night's meeting from one of our lower comments sections. We link board-regular Curmudgeon's eyewitness narrative here, for our gentle readers' attention.
Most troubling to us is the apparent intention, on the part of some of our elected and appointed public servants, to bind the citizens of Emerald City into a murky "pre-development agreement," even prior to the presentation of any purchase offer -- and in the complete absence of any appraisal data.
We will attempt today to obtain and link the full-text versions of all proposed ordinance and planning process changes; and will hopefully publish an early update here.
In the meantime though, please regard this article as a "heads-up." We have a city administration that's notorious for backroom dealing and chicanery; and we believe we need to watch these people like hawks. But then we're "old-school," as we said.
The floor is open for discussion.
68 comments:
When I think Ogden politics can't get any nuttier then they get unbelievable.
Proper procedures have been ignored for so long that the City Fathers can't remember how to operate any other way.
So why can't this rezoning wait until January when the rules for meetings can be properly observed?
I guess Ogden City wants another lawsuit by indignant citizens.
Oh, by the way, a request is in for an itemized list of fees paid to non-city attorneys for the past year to defend Ogden in all their misdeeds.
Some one should get up a pool and take bets on how much that has cost taxpayers. In case you haven't noticed, Ogden always goes outside to hire $250.00 an hour attorneys instead of using the ones already on staff that we already pay to take care of City problems.
Do other cities use outside attorneys, or is Ogden unique in this regard?
Thanks, Curmudgeon. I too attended, and will add a bit here.
I thought it odd that we members of the public were asked to sign in, providing our names and addresses. As you remarked, there were only three members of the Commission present at this Work Session, which I also thought odd, since this is of course a very important issue.
In a cursory scan of the document under review, which is the amending of Chapter 27, Title 15, in addition to the elimination of the prohibition of building on slopes of 30 degrees, one sees also that certain formulae have been deleted. These are: a table including slope which defines minimum lot size in relation to slope, a table to determine maximum lot width and density according to slope, and a table for the "rational method" of determining runoff, which is based on rainfall intensity, a 10 year storm and a 100 year storm, among other things.
Here's an example of how this roughly 25 page double sided document goes. Title 15-27-6, Development Standards, Letter B, Item 6 currently states:
No vegetation shall (be removed) on slopes over thirty percent (30%) except as approved by the Planning Commission for trail and/or open space improvements.
The proposed amendment to this reads:
The Planning Commission shall determine based on the natural vegetation preservation report and the proposed development the areas if any where natural vegetation may (be removed.)
One sees that the major difference here is that the present ordinance limits vegetation removal on slopes over 30% to trail and open space developments. The proposed amendment has no such limitation. Favorable to Mr. Peterson? Yes, indeed.
Very interesting, too, the way this was presented. The proposed Peterson development was really not mentioned at all. The need to amend was instead said to be based on the outdatedness of the present ordinance, as Curmudgeon said. Also interesting was the, for lack of a better word, mindset of the City Planning Department.
"The intent," Mr. Montgomery stated, "is to cluster." Meaning by this that developments should be built with the houses as close together as possible in order to leave "wide corridors" of open space in between.
The proposed Mixed Use Zone, (what we have been calling the No-Zone Zone,) involves the developer presenting a plan for this designation. The new zone, called "MU" will be "a collaborative effort, Ms. Lockwood said, based on both input from the developer and the planning staff.
(Literary note from Wikipedia: Mu is the name of a lost land, or hypothetical vanished continent, that was once located in the Pacific Ocean but is now (like Atlantis and Lemuria, with which it is sometimes identified) believed to have sunk beneath the waters.)
A lost land, indeed. Appropriate.
Ms. Lockwood also emphasized that, once this "collaborative effort" is completed, it will be presented to the Ogden City Council as "a package. We are not going to do this piecemeal," she said.
A fellow attendee brought up an interesting point after the meeting. There is really no use for a MU Zone in Ogden City, he said, unless we intend to allow building up the mountainside or annex more property. The rest of Ogden City is already established, "landlocked," it has been called, and the current zoning regulations work quite well.
Perhaps somebody with an eye for detail and a knowledge of engineering and zoning needs to go through this document with a fine-toothed comb, taking every proposed amendment as I did on Title 15-27-6, Letter B, Item 6, to ascertain exactly what the differences are, perhaps condense them into readable, understandable form and publish them here. Perhaps commission members already have an understanding of the current and proposed ordinance, since, when asked by Mr. Montgomery if they wished to go through the document page by page for explanations, they declined. I believe the document is available at the Planning Office on the first floor of the municipal building. It is crucial that we have an absolutely thorough understanding of what developers are and are not allowed to do in this proposed amendment so that we can intelligently and responsibly have a say in what happens in our community. We will have a chance to do this in public hearings, and I think we should.
While it is apparantly permitted by law, how in good conscience can our Planning Commission hold a work meeting with only three members present? [OK, that question is rhetorical.] Absent members are not able to fully learn about and consider the issues being discussed, nor are they available to provide input to the discussion.
Considering the brouhaha involved with the most recent appointments, I'd expect that all members would feel an obligation to be there. At the very least, the meeting should have been postponed until a quorum was available.
Shoving this accelerated timeline down the throats of the Mount Ogden community is especially questionable.
In thinking about this, the elimination of the prohibition against building on slopes over 30% sends a message that Ogden City might be amenable to annexing part of the mountain and allowing building there. If let stand, that prohibition would make most of the proposed development impossible.
I agree, Ogdenlover, that this is a bit premature since the Mount Ogden Community has not yet formally released its findings. Mr. Montgomery, however, certainly should know a bit about what those findings are, and it will be interesting to see whether these proposed amendments are in response to those findings, or in spite of them.
Based on my participation on the community plan which also involves Montgomery, I do not think any of the community groups are in favor of the Peterson scheme at all. My guess is that Godfrey is forcing Montgomery to put this stuff out there and try to push it with the Planning Commission. As far as the lack of a quorum at the meeting this may be a good thing. Perhaps the rest of the commission feels this scheme is petering out and so didn't waste time attending.
Lastly, as far as trying to wrap the whole community plan process up in the next month, I suspect Godfrey is behind that too. Some emails to council members and to Montgomery might be worthwhile here, to encourage all due time is taken for the plan - no short circuits. Montgomery saying it needs to be wrapped up by 11/13 strikes me as also being something that originated with Godfrey.
Bottom line is that from what I've seen, the community plan coming from the community is hostile to Peterson. Godfrey doesn't care, and my want the process to wrap up so he has time to do an end run around it before the election is looming.
the attorney that city is using is also contracted with several other cities, so what a cash cow this guy has found in the tax dollars.
Anon:
Mr. Montgomery did not propose wrapping up the whole community plan process in the next month. That will not happen until early next year sometime, after the PC has reviewed the committee suggestions, the results of the Town Meeting [whenever it is held] and then drafts a Community Plan final document which will have to be presented at public hearings. The only thing Mr. Montgomery was asking to do was to schedule the Mt. Ogden Community town meeting in the week before Thanksgiving, since getting a large turnout in the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas might be difficult. And so he wanted to do the Town Meeting before presenting the committee results to the PC first.
I don't know how the Mt. Ogden community feels about the matter. Seems to me getting the plan done swiftly, before proposed changes in the general plan are done would be wise. I don't think delay necessarily benefits the Mt. Ogden Community in drafting its general plan. But I haven't thought the matter through or talked to many people in the neighborhood about it yet. But I will.
As it stands now, the PC authorized Mr. Montgomery to try to schedule the Town Meeting during the week of 13 November, space being available at the school etc.
I suppose if someone wanted to get picky, they might argue that a quorum not being present, the PC should not have authorized a deviation from the usual procedure. But since I doubt the "usual procedure" is set out anywhere in binding form, and given that if an objection was made on those grounds, Mr. Montgomery could simply schedule the TM "pending the PC's approval" and then come back at a subsequent meeting when a quorum was present to obtain that approval. I don't think this particular nit is worth picking, but someone better informed about PC procedures than I am [that would be, I suspect, six of the first seven people you met at random walking down 25th Street] may think differently for very sound reasons.
Dian:
Excellent suggestion about having someone knowledgeable about construction/development, etc. look over the proposed changes. I hope TOD will get a copy of both documents and have at them, and tell us what he thinks of all this.
Members of the Planning Commission present last night seemed comfortable with being unaware of the findings of the Mount Ogden neighborhood committees at the time of this slated Town Meeting. I suppose they could all attend the final meeting of all the steering committees and get briefed there. I am wondering who, if anyone, is going to present those findings at the Town Meeting---I think the best would be to have the heads of the committees present short reports. Enabling us the public to get them from the original source, so to speak.
Curmudgeon, regarding persons knowledgable about these things, Mr. Transit is indeed a good idea. Also, the more input we can get on this, the better, and I am hoping the word gets out.
We've heard anecdotal reports that the various "committees" have been unable to get down to business, due to the constant insertion of Boss Godfrey's Uncle Greg into these meetings.
One gentle (and particularly intelligent) reader has even suggested that Uncle Montgomery has "hijacked the process."
Hard to imagine, innit?
The skeptics among us are sure that the only important factor leading to the Planning Commission's new "fastrack" is the necessity of getting the gondola project signed sealed and delivered in advance of the 2007 Municipal Elections.
Hard to believe that Boss Godfrey believes he won't be tarred, feathered and ridden outta town on a rail in 2007.
Of course unfounded optimism is the hallmark of rabidly delusional psychotic people like Godfrey, NO?
If the meeting, on its face, did not have anything to do with Peterson and the proposed land grab, why was his high priced Salt Lake mouth piece in attendance?
Why is Ogden's attorney so actively pursuing this?
Why is the council's attorney sitting idly by with no questions?
Why is the council's attorney also the City RDA attorney, which puts him under the control of the RDA executive director - Mathew Godfrey?
Why is the city spending many thousands of dollars pursuing all of these changes that appear to only benifit Peterson's land grab, when he hasn't even made an official proposal and offer?
Why the big push to get everything done real fast?
Does Nov 07 have anything to do with this accelerated scheduling?
Will the voice of the people and their community councils be heard in the end?
Is this Montgomery monkey really related to Godfrey?
How much did Peterson's hired shyster make for his appearance last night, and who is really paying him?
Will all of this be worked out in private between the two city paid lawyers and Peterson's - in a back room with no public input or scrutiny?
Will Godfrey ram this obscenity down the throats of Ogden's tax payers before he is removed through the ballot box?
Will the city council sit idly by while the Mayor and Peterson systematically devours the city with a thousand little bites? (none of which will hurt individually but will in the end consume the citizens and our financial future)
Would 30 years or so change the laws of physics, chemistry and geology so that sensitive overlay zones from 1970 are no longer valid in 2006?
Questions, questions, questions,
And no honest answers to be found in Emerald City Government.
I would suggest that the JP Morgan quote does not apply here.
Peterson has not asked how much it costs, and he CANNOT afford it.
I suspect that is why he hasn't asked, or offered.
Given area real estate prices, and considering the county assesor's opinion of what property is worth around here, my guess is that the city park land and golf course is worth at least $60 million dollars.
I further guess that Godfrey will try to sell it to him for a third of that, or $20 million. More city welfare extended to friends of Matt?
Ozboy:
I wish you'd stop making me post "in all fairness" notes for Peterson/Godfrey. But, to be fair, Mr. Peterson is clearly planning a big development project for Ogden. Both the proposed revisions in the Sensitive Area Overlay ordinance and passage of a Multiple Use Development Zone ordinance would materially affect his plans. And he, or his atty [or both if they think it wise], have as much right to attend an open work session of the planning session as you or I do. So I'm hard put to criticize his atty being there to watch the proceedings. There is no public comment at work sessions, and he made none. He chatted with some folks after the meeting ended, as did I and others. This particular gripe seems like a non-starter to me.
There is more than enough wrong with the Peterson proposal [politely so called since no proposal has been submitted to the PC or the Council yet], with its attendant sale of Ogden's biggest park to him, with the loony downtown gondola, and the of-no-interest-to-investors up-mountain gondola and Malan's Basin development, and with Hizzonah's less than honorable use of his powers of office to push same to keep a battery of posters busy round the clock for a month. No need, I think, to find ways to complain about Mr. Peterson sending an atty to attend an open public PC work session when matters that ccould materially affect his plans are on the agenda.
Open Question,
It was mentioned that not all of the planning commissioners were in attendance. Can anyone identify which members were there and which ones were not?
Also since this was a work session, what is their next step before they vote on the revisions and will the public be able to comment on those revisions before that vote? Any time or dates given?
Sheesh, Curm!
Your sense of fairness is sometimes very galling. Ozboy's questions are pertinent and worth asking.
WHY was Ellison there? Because all this greatly enhances Peterson's land grab. None of us are too dumb to get that, are we?
Ozboy, little nibbles can devour an elephant. And, we've got a big one in the living room, haven't we?
Well Mr. Curmudgeon, your continual anal analysis does get a little boring sometimes. However, on balance you are still the leading light of truth in this darkness perpetuated by the little lord and his minions.
It occurs to me, and I am sure many others, that this whole bull shit situation with the planning commission is ONLY because of the Peterson land grab proposal. Is there any other reason that you can think of that this crap would be going on - at great expense to the city?
Peterson's high priced mouth piece doesn't spend his free evenings gallavanting off to Ogden to attend half assed and half attended planning commission meetings just for the sport of it. I am sure that somebody put at least a grand or two into his pocket for his efforts of last night.
Like most brilliant people that I have had the previlidge of knowing, you can sure be a dick head sometimes. You may very well be the least street savy rebel I have ever known, although in the strictest sense I don't really know you outside of this blog.
In spite of your continual efforts to somehow attribute dignity, fairness and respectable human qualities to the evil Godfreyites, bottom line is they are a dark force that intends to use our tax money and public assetts to further their own selfish and ill advised schemes.
Is it Geiger Senior's fawning and stroking that drives you to these inane kudos that you keep throwing to the bastards, or are you one of those guys that cannot except that some of our fellow travelers are just plain bad seeds with evil and selfish motives?
Oz,
Do not underestimate the influence of flattery. People will do more for it than almost anything, even though it is all manipulative hot air. Geiger is a master of it. It's the only thing he's a master of. It's how he got the job that he has, managing the Japanese lemonade stand.
The Geigers are not lemonade salesmen. They are rag merchants, so called "sales reps" for a fairly good sized Nipponese company. Nothing more and nothing less. They are definately not honest and intelligent business men.
Given their performance in this gondola circus it is obvious they are disingenuous about civic affairs and clueless about economics. Otherwise they would not slavishly follow the lead of the most dishonorable Godfrey.
It would be great to buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth.
Omigosh! Anon and Marvin G...
NOW I'll be blamed for Geiger bashing again!
Sharon, I do not think that you have an exclusive franchise on "Geiger Bashing".
With their incessant attempts to raid the public treasury to finance their own selfish wishes they open themselves up to wide public ridicule. Their constant lies and false "facts" make them fair game for all thinking residents of Ogden.
Anon:
You wrote: In spite of your continual efforts to somehow attribute dignity, fairness and respectable human qualities to the evil Godfreyites....
Absolutely wrong. I have not "attributed dignity and fairness" to Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey. I have repeatedly in posts here bemoaned his lack of integrity in office, his misuse of the powers of his office, and his woefully weak grasp on the ethics required of a public official. At no time have I "attributed dignity" to the wife-following street-skulker of Vangate or "fairness" to the man who keeps posted on the city website the claim that the gondola/gondola will connect Ogden with Snow Basin.
What I have done is argue that we, as voters and citizens have a right to expect that our Mayor act with dignity and fairness in office. And he also has, as do all of us, a right to expect dignity and fairness from the citizenry, whether they are praising him or criticizing him. Behaving like the Mayor in discussing his woeful performance in office does nothing to undercut him and, I think, considerable to weaken the case against him in the eyes of the undecided, of whom there are, on the gondola and Peterson matters, many.
An unwarranted attack is an unwarranted attack, whether it comes from the Mayor and his Lift Ogden Amen Chorus, or it comes from someone on WCF attacking him and them. And unwarranted attacks that cannot be sustained on the evidence are... well, unwarranted... regardless of who makes them.
And it strikes me that criticizing an attorney for attending a public meeting of a public body to look after his client's interests, or that client for sending an attorney to a public meeting of a public body which will be discussing matters that affect him, is a wholly unwarranted attack. Peterson had as much right to send a representative to that meeting as, say a citizen's group would have to send a representative to the meeting to learn what was being proposed and what the Commissioners and Planning Staff said about it. Which was the only point I made.
You are, often, right on the issues, Oz, and on most of them, we seem to be in substantial agreement. But when you go over the top and start hurling invective at Hizzonah that cannot be sustained on reasonable grounds, we part company.
In a nutshell: The Mayor, his lackeys, his Amen Chorus, Chief Grenier, Mr. Peterson et al. deserve from us the kind of fair, respectful and reasoned and reasonable treatment we have a right to expect from them, even if they fail to deliver it.
Planning Commission members present last night were Bob Herman, Cathy Blaisdale, and Ron Atencio. I apologize for spelling these names incorrectly--I suspect I have, and can't find them anywhere, although the Landmarks Commission does have a webpage.
dian:
Ah, the Chair is Blaisdel. Thanks. I got the two guys in my post, and I knew she was chair, but for the life of me I couldn't recall her name. Thanks for the update.
For the beleagered citizenry who only occasionally attend public meetings like last night's, maybe they should wear numbers and all visitors would get a scorecard with the Commissioners identified by number as they walk in. It was a truth pronounced loudly by hawkers in the far bleachers of Ebbitts Field during my mis-spent youth that "ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"
Except for Jackie Robinson of course....
It doesn't seem to me like Peterson merely sent his attorney to this meeting because it may have included discusions of interest to him.
Rather I believe that the meeting was all about Peterson and his interests even though he and they may not have been mentioned. The only purpose that I can see for this meeting was to further the interests of Peterson in aquiring our public lands on the cheap.
It is also a safe bet that there was plenty of discussion about these matters between Peterson's lawyer and those supposedly representing the public - out of sight and hearing of the public.
I believe that the "public" meeting was just window dressing to placate the public and satisfy the legal requirements. The mayor and his circle seem to work everything out in private closed door sessions and then only meet publicly to legitamize their back room dealings.
I am with OzBoy on this one. The true public interest was way down the list of priorities in this meeting, and in all else that this group is involved in.
Lionel:
Much of what you say is true. Discussions have been held between Mr. Peterson and the Mayor and, probably, between Mr. Peterson and his representatives and the Planning Staff. I would be astonished if that were not so. And it is evident enough that Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey has made adoption of the Peterson proposals the lynchpin of his drive for the loopy downtown gondola. Can't recall that I've ever suggested otherwise, here or anywhere else.
However, I'm not so sure as you seem to be that the Planning Commission is part of the plot. Or are you upset that the Planning Staff is pushing the Mayor's policy in all this? Well, the Planning Staff works for the Mayor. Of course they're pushing the Mayor's policy. What else would you expect them to do? If I were Mayor, I would expect administrative employees to advance my agendas too. Wouldn't you?
And however true all that is, none of it precludes in the least Peterson's right to send a representative, his atty, to the PC worksession. That's any citizen's right. Or to attend in person. It was an open public meeting [as it should have been.] And I found the questions the few Commissioners who showed up asked of the Planning Staff interesting, at times, and revealing at other times. If as you seem to suggest [excuse me if I misread your post] this is all wired and the Commission is merely going through the motions for appearance's sake, then I wasted my time attending last night. And so did Mr. Peterson's Atty.
Mr. Curmudgeon:
Your points are well taken, as usual, and I will take them under advisement as they pertain to me and my opinions.
However, I must depart from this topic and go on to something more important that you have reminded me of in this thread.
The Brooklyn Dodgers and Jackie Robinson! You jogged a very old and warm memory with that one. I recall many years ago visiting a distant relative on Windsor in Brooklyn, walking some long distance through the streets and across a very large park and up a big street called Washington that wasn't like the the Washington I knew from Ogden. And then into this gigantic baseball park, at least it was gigantic compared to Ogden's John Afflect park, and there watching my first big league ball game. Names I remember were Jackie Robinson, Duke Snyder, Pee Wee Reese and Campenella.
Must of been 1950 or there abouts. Don't remember who they were playing or who won, but it was one hell of an experience for a little kid from Oz.
Especially remember the hot dogs and more people in one place than I ever imagined even existed.
When the mayor asserts that his integrity is higher than anyone else's in the room, there really isn't much point in the rest of us attempting to rise so high, is there Mr. Curm?
It appears that all dignity reposes in the great one.
I agree with Lionel, Anon, Ozboy, and the others who seem to have pegged this mayor and his cheering squad. We've seen too many slimy actions emanating from the 9th floor and beyond..(forgive me, Buzz Lightyear)....
Curm, you DO attempt to find the good in 'most everyone. Sometimes I think you'd have been a fine preacher man.
In the meantime, it behooves all of us to take all this VERY seriously. Was that suggested by Tod?
The following observation (though not the % amount, as in the article itself provided) was mentioned in the editorial section today as a small comment in an article titled “Ogden tops in taxes once again”. If you ever questioned why the city can’t provide the services that you would expect, it’s because the mayor is shelling out a large amount of your tax dollars on his pet projects. The observation was made by the Utah Taxpayer Association which states;
“Another factor contributing to high tax rates has been Ogden City's habit of using RDAs to subsidize retail and other locally-driven economic activity like office parks. Ogden is one of the few cities in Utah that has diverted more than 10% of its property tax base to RDAs and EDAs.”
It validates most people’s suspicions, quantifies the minimum percentage of our tax dollars that are being diverted and puts it into proportion to other cities. This is the out of control spending that our mayor is doing in the name of attracting business to Ogden.
If you wondered why we can’t pay our police, why the basic services that you would expect from the city are lacking, why we are being told that the city doesn’t have any money, why we are near our credit limit on our ability to issue bonds; wonder no more.
When are people of Ogden going to hold this man accountable or at a minimum stop him from further funding his pet projects with our tax dollars and at the expense of our standard of living? He is running out of funding options so now he wanting to start selling off our crown jewels, like our Mount Ogden Park open space. What will be next, the rest of our parks? If this keeps up, no one will want to live in Ogden nor will they be able to afford to live in Ogden.
Wake up Ogden!
Wayne Ogden is going to jail again.
Wonder if he needs a cellie?
P.S. to my last post,
This is the tax increments that we hear about, I don’t think this even include the unaccounted for and unknown (but I’m sure very large amounts) of bonding that we are also paying for his pet projects.
Wake up Ogden!
Wayne Ogden, you might get a new cell mate soon. Needn't worry though, he isn't very big.
Curmudgon:
I do not believe that the planning commission is "part of the plot" as you attribute to me, but rather I think they are dupes of the plotters.
I feel the same way toward the City Council. They do not seem to realize that they are being played and manipulated and drawn into approving this plan by tiny little increments as has already been suggested herein.
I agree with you, Dian, Marvin, Ozboy and others that all is not as it appears to be in Ogden city government. There certainly seems to be a lot of dishonesty going on at city headquarters these days. I also find it amusing that two brights like you and Ozboy can still find reason to shoot darts at each other!
I hope all of you keep it up, you all bring a bit of fun and humour into an other wise very tragic situation. It is also rather educational for those of us that do not follow the story line every day.
Oz:
Yup. The golden years of the Boys of Summer. That was Roy Campanella, catcher for the Brookly Dodgers. We used to catch a bus from 41st street, then the subway to Ebbitts field. Was a subway exit just outside the main entrance. Good memories. Only one's I'd have added would be Gil Hodges, first base, and an outfielder named Carl Furillo.
If there is a god, and if he is a just one, Walter O'Malley is now feeling a tad warmish....
Sharon:
It was Dan S. who advised taking this seriously.
And I challenge you to find, in what I wrote above, a single word that attributes integrity to Hizzonah. He can claim his is as high as Ben Lomand, or he can claim his is non existent. None of that has, or should have, an iota's impact on how the citizenry, which includes me, behave towards him. Can't let him, or anyone else, set our standards of behavior by theirs. That's all, really, I was arguing. I was absolutely not defending his integrity in office, such as it is.
Oh, Curm....you're such a target. But, I admire your even-handedness!
I hope we are paying attention to Morgan and the CC's new ordinance restricting development lots in known landslide areas and LANDOWNERS have to prove their lots are buildable. That applies to a developer/builder on those lots, right?
I think there are lessons to be learned from Riverdale, Farmington, Layton, Peterson, Morgan, Mtn Green...
It is disturbing that only 3 PC members were present at their meeting, yet they decided to meet anyway.
Lionel:
OK. Sorry I misread your post.
If there is a god and she is a just one, Mr. Godfrey will have his skinny little lyin ass singed to a crisp.
Who is this O'Malley guy anyway and what did he do to deserve Mr. C's contempt?
Bonnie Lee:
Walter O'Malley was the miserable misbegotten son of a sea snake, the bottem feeding vermin, the sorry excuse for a human being who took the Dodger organization out of Brooklyn to the barbarous wilds of Los Angeles where "fans" [politely so called] can still be seen leaving tied games in the seventh inning to get a jump on the traffic. His perfidy was taught in the schools of Brooklyn right along with that of Benedict Arnold, Hitler and Al Capone. And properly so.
That you do not know who he was is a severe judgement on the teaching of history in modern America. We have got to improve our schools.
well, you will here it first on this blog, the republican county clerks office is thowing the election to the wind! that is they are sending the wrong ballots to the wrong voters. they sent ballots meant for leg district 6 to the voters of leg district 8.
when is the corruption going to stop! I have seen on this blog that we need to vote democratic and I guess it is true more than ever this year.
I am sorry to say that all of my optimism is now gone! After the last election, I fell into the trap of hope. No more! Curm, you and others of like thinking can continue to believe as you wish. My feeling is that the Peterson thing WILL happen. I have absolutely NO FAITH whatsoever in the City Council - INCLUDING the newly elected ones! Godfrey continues to do WHATever he wishes and there is not ONE person - NOT ONE - on the Ogden City Council who has the fortitude to rein him in. I have said it before and I say it again. We may as well save time and money and abolish the council - they are absolutely WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!
The story of Chavez Ravine has some parallels to the Godfrey/Peterson proposal. Ry Cooder released a beatiful CD chronicling this largely unknown story of community destruction in the name of progress. It has all the elements we are seeing as this deal unfolds.
Chavez Ravine
Interesting editorial in this morning's SE in re: impact of transit tax vote in SLC on Hizzonah's Pie in the Sky Gondola/Malan's Basin pipe dream. Link Here
ArmySarge:
I'm curious to know what, exactly, the Council has done that leads you to so pessimistic a view? While I agree powerful forces are behind the pie in the sky gondola pipe dream, I don't think it's a done deal. Not yet. Not by a long shot.
For example, yesterday Councilwoman Wicks forwarded to all Council members a report by Craig M. Call, Utah State Property Rights Ombudsman entitled When Can Government Regulations Take Away
All Economically Viable Use of Property and Not Effect a Taking for Which Just Compensation Must Be Paid?
Councilwoman Jeske is forwarding the report around via email.
Here's the backstory: Mr. Greg Montgomery has reportedly told members of the Planning Commission that Utah Courts have declared slope building restrictions in sensitive area overlay zones to be illegal and that if Ogden does not remove the ban on construction in such zones on land with a slope of greater than 30 degrees, Ogden will be at risk of lawsuites by landowners of property in the zones. Well, turns out, as Mr. Call's report makes clear, slope-based building restrictions in sensitive overlay zones have not been declared illegal in Utah.
I take the fact that Ms. Wicks dug up the report, and sent it to other Council members, and that Ms. Jeske is forwarding it around, as evidence that your bleak pessimissm about the Council may be, at this point, misplaced.
Yes, powerful forces are arrayed against the side of reason, common sense and good judgement in this matter. Absolutely. But the resigned pessimism your post reflects is, I think, precisely the attitude Hizzonah and his Lift Ogden Amen Chorus have been trying to create in the general community for over a year now. They want people to give up. They want people to believe it's all over but the shouting. And I see nothing to suggest that it is. Not yet. Not by a long shot.
Time to keep in mind I think the words of the political philosopher and sharp observe of American culture, Mr. John Belushi: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
tod transit
RE: Chavez Ravine
Chavez Ravine is a more noted example of the Urban Renewal phenomenon. Actually, this happened routinely in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s and was widely promoted by all levels of government. Old neighborhoods were systematically wiped-out with the replacement of something new, destroying communities all over the country. Fortunately, the practice slowed down a bit over the past few decades because planners learned the lesson that it is not a viable way to do business--it ruins communities. Unfortunately, it has come back in popular practice and we are seeing examples of it in Ogden (proposed Wal-Mart north of the Union Station, River Park project, downtown mall/recreation center project, gondola, etc.). I'm not saying all of these projects don't have merit, but it's interesting to see how past projects like these have folded historically.
Looking at the numbers of jobs from Ski Companies brought to Ogden... most of which are paying considerably higher than the prevailing wage in Ogden, the city is already 20-25% of the way to achieving 1,500 jobs from the Hub/Gondola project. This...and not a single pole from the Gondola has been seen in Ogden yet. Mr. Peterson's resort hasn't even been built yet. Not even a drawing of the new golf course.
Mr. Geiger, Mr. Dowse, the Ni-Decker president, Dave Goode, etc... They've all said that the Gondola was a significant player in their decision to move their operations to Ogden.
There's certainly evidence that suggest that the Mayor and Chris Peterson's projects could be low-ball estimates rather than un-ethical, lying pipe dreams.
I have been continuing to look at the proposed amendments to Title 15, and have found some items of concern. At the risk of being premature or wrong, (in which cases I hope someone will set it right,) I am going to post a few of them here.
One of the difficulties of going over this document is that some points have been cut out only to be reinserted later. However, following are some cuts of concern that I have been unable to find reinserted elsewhere in the document.
At the very beginning, 15-27-1 [Purpose and Intent,] Letter B has been cut in its entirety. Letter B starts off by saying:
The standards, guidelines, and criteria established by this Chapter shall include, but not be limited to the following:... and then there's a list.
On this list, we see, among other things:
3. The preservation of natural features, wildlife habitat, and open space.
Can't find that anywhere else in document. Also:
4. The preservation of public access to mountain areas and natural drainage channels.
Can't find that reinserted anywhere either. Can find only, under 15-27-5, [Density, Lot Size, Width, and Characteristics, (Lot and Density Requirements,)]:
Letter F, Number 6: Development sites which are near canyon trails will provide access to those trails. Parking areas may be required by the Planning Commission at trail heads.
I would feel slightly better about that one if the word "public" were in there somewhere.
Another thing we have now under Letter B that we will not have if these amendments pass is:
6. The preservation and enhancement of visual and environmental quality by use of natural vegetation and the prohibition of excessive excavation and terracing.
What this shows is that those who originally composed Title 15 cared enough about our natural environment and our access to it to make sure that preservation of those things was included in the intent of this law.
Now, the intent of Title 15 is proposed to be changed to the following:
...The purpose of this chapter is to provide development practices and controls intended to minimize hazardous impact to life and property...through proper study, development, and limitations as needed and to respect the natural conditions of the land that are critical to the preservation of life and property in these areas.
Evidently, other natural conditions do not deserve respect? Is that it?
Major, major shift in thinking here. From preservation of wildlife and guaranteed public access to our natural areas, it is proposed that we view our land in terms of protection from hazards to our property.
Am not in favor of these amendments at this point. Definitely not.
"Yes, powerful forces are arrayed against the side of reason, common sense and good judgement in this matter. Absolutely. But the resigned pessimism your post reflects is, I think, precisely the attitude Hizzonah and his Lift Ogden Amen Chorus have been trying to create in the general community for over a year now. They want people to give up. They want people to believe it's all over but the shouting. And I see nothing to suggest that it is. Not yet. Not by a long shot." -Curm
Exactly! If I haven't quoted MadEye Moody before, let me do it here. "Constant vigilence!"
Keeping up with every move the Chris&Matt Show is trying to get this project started is a lot of work, however, just think how PO'd they must be because the lumpenproletariat are asking questions and getting involved (sic). I keep imagining Hizzonah up on the ninth floor throwing a self-destructing tantrum like in an old Donald Duck cartoon. We can't be making him happy.
Interesting argument you make. Not a single gondola stanchion is yet in place. Not a single "improved" golf hole yet exists. Not a single pad for a single up-scale Vacation Villa gated development on the ruins of Ogden's biggest park has yet been poured. Not a single gondola car ascends the mountain. Not a single footing has been poured for a five-star resort hotel in Malan's Basin. Not a ski lift chair rises from the Basin to the slopes above. And yet you claim the gondola/Peterson proposals have already created a quarter of the jobs its fans predict it will create.
Wow. That's a better magic trick than Houdini ever pulled off.
Now let's look at the facts. Several sports related companies have [or soon will] come to Ogden. They have come to an Ogden that has no gondola and no ski-venue in Malan's Basin. They have, or soon will, create here a quarter of the jobs gondola advocates claim their scheme will create. From which it seems to me we can reasonably conclude that Ogden already is an attractive destination for sports-related companies right now. And it will become even more so when, in just over a year, Frontrunnner [now abuilding] will offer swift convenient rail connections between Ogden and Salt Lake City.
All of that is fact. The rest of your post is speculation resting on the dubious assumption that Mr. Peterson's Malan's Basin mini-resort is or ever can be economically viable.
Anonymous seems to be inadvertantly making the case for those opposed to the gondola! It does not appear that is his intention?
Seems like in his calculation that 20 percent of the phantom 1200 jobs have already come here before one gondola tower has been put up! That of course begs the question - why are these companies coming if we don't have a gondola? I believe that these significant companies that have announced their relocation to Ogden have done so inspite of no gondola. It is fair to guess that each of these companies is fully aware of the problematic nature of this urban gondola proposal and have come here anyway for the much more sensible and realistic reasons outlined here and elsewhere many times.
It is also rather amusing that these gondola backers continue to trot out these miniscule company names, ie: Goode, that are 2 or 3 man operations, as if they were huge in scope and potential. Other than Scott, who was already in the "Top of Utah", and this new company, all of these so called saviour companies still do not contribute to Ogden's economy as much as the average Convenience store does. That incidently includes Descente and their less than a dozen mostly low paid employees.
While this Amer company coming to Ogden is indeed good news, in the over all scope of Ogden employers they are still very insignificant. The AOL reduction seems to cancel out the Amer gains, at least in numbers of jobs not size of salaries. Yet we see no analysis that compares the two. So with these two major announcements of this week we only hear from city hall about the gains, but not the losses. I am surprised that the Mayor has not spun these AOL losses to blame them on not having a gondola yet. He does after all spin practically every thing else into the gondola efforts.
Kudos to Amy for her detective work and to Jeske for sending on the info to others.
It appears that the STATE code supercedes the municipal.
Also, what a tragedy regarding Chavez Ravine. A self-contained culture, but yet attached to an urban cnenter, taking care of it's citizens and their economic, social, cultural, religious and educational needs.
I took note of the 'back room' deals. Does sound very familiar.
A portent of our future?
BTW Mayor MGG
A most enlightening post into your manly chats with Chris. In a garage, no less. It's so MONSTER GARAGE, INKED, and TOOL MAN all in one, or two. You are soooo cool and sexy.
Curm and Billy B -
You must have missed the Amer press conference. It isn't speculation when Mike Dowse flat out said that:
More than the ecnomonomic benefits, our reason for coming was to be at the leading edge of the Mayor's High Adventure hub vision. He then immediately moved on to say that they are very supportive of the Gondola project and will help see it through.
It kind of removes the speculation when the corporate leaders keep expressing the same message from their very mouths.
To anonymous,
Now why would he support the gondola if he thought it was only going to Malan Basin? Truth is he wouldn't. He needs access to a big named real ski hill.
Get real, it's because he thinks it's going to a real ski resort, i.e. Snow Basin.
And I'm confident that you didn't tell him otherwise, in fact I'm confident that you supported the idea that it was going to Snow Basin.
Quit telling half truths/half lies.
To Anonymous # 1
What do you think he is going to say? In the context of every thing else he said, the gondola reference was an afterthought, a bone thrown to the mayor perhaps?
The real reason they choose Ogden is for all the real reasons, you know - the ones that drew Descente. Ya I know, they tell tall tales of coming here themselves because of the Gondola, but real world events puts the lie to that, like most every thing else they put out.
The real real reason they chose Ogden was because Ogden offered more cash incentive than Salt Lake. As the old saying goes, "money talks and ...."
If this Amer company came here because of a gondola, one that is as controversial as this one is, one that has enormous hurdles to overcome, one that will depend on a guy like Peterson that is unable so far to even demonstrate his financial ability to do it, one that had as much puplic opposition as this one, what would that really say about them? I do not believe they are as successfull as they are because they run around investing millions based on situations as shaky as this one is.
So I'm with Anonymous # 2, why don't you quit your bull shitting and get real?
Uh, Oz....
Amer Sports announced this week that Ogden would become its U.S. headquarters for its Salomon, Atomic and Suunto brands. The state is giving Amer Sports almost $8 million in subsidies. And Ogden reportedly will shell out $4.2 million.
Salt Lake City Councilman Carlton Christensen said his city was prepared to offer more, though he wouldn't divulge the amount, noting only that it was "slightly" higher.
Maybe it is just that they were prepared to offer more, but hadn't gotten around to it yet.
SLC had bid for ski maker
By Heather May
The Salt Lake Tribune
This article also is repeating that Ogden is coming up with $4.2 million, and so again I ask, from whence does it come?
I guess you'll have to go with Ozboy and deny the words that came out of the Amer executive's mouth.
I don't think OzBoy was denying what came out of the Amer exec's mouth, but rather the context and potential meaning. The fellow did say he thought the gondola was going to Snow Basin which it apprently is not going to do. Does the fact that this fellow said something mean it is true just because he said it? Can one part of his statement be true while another part of it isn't? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or bad information on this one. He is either misinformed, or we are, about just where the gondola is going if built.
What you seem to be ignoring is what Oz said about the logic of a successful company making such a large expensive decision based on rather or not this highly speculative venture is going to happen. If the gondola does not happen, most likely scenario, will this company not come to town?
Mr Peterson has not made official application or demonstrated his financial abilities to build anything. Does any one really believe that this company would base their decision on this uncertain of a proposition?
Geiger came back to town because the rent was cheaper than Denver. That was before he became the mayor's PR man.
From the SL Trib, where voters are being asked to tax themselves in order to acquire what Ogden already has that our Mayor is trying to sell to his developer buddy: open space for public recreation.
Tribune Editorial
10/20/2006
There was a time, not too many decades ago, when Salt Lake County was largely open space - farms, orchards, pastureland and uninhabited places filled with not much more than brush, willows, animals and a few trees.
To understate the obvious, that has since changed.
Now, green spaces not covered by asphalt, concrete, houses or businesses are nearly gone. That is why passage of Proposition 2 on Salt Lake County's Nov. 7 ballot is so important.
By approving it, county voters would authorize the sale of up to $48 million in general obligation bonds that would be used to acquire and preserve land for open space and parks. The bond would be repaid over 20 years.
It is a wise investment, for average homeowners, of less than $10 per year added to their property tax bill to help save the best of what green and open lands remain. Residential-property owners would pay $3.68 per $100,000 of their property's value per year. The increase on commercial property would be $5.22 per $100,000.
The $48 million number doesn't tell the whole story of what Proposition 2 could do. Matching funds available from private conservation groups and the state and federal governments could leverage county taxpayers' contribution to a much larger amount. Preservation projects funded by the existing county open space trust fund - which has only about $2 million remaining - have
received matching monies up to four times the amount of the county contribution.
That could mean a bunch of natural habitat, hiking and biking trails and community parks, both large and small, where residents can find a bit of quiet, a splash of greenery and places for families to run, play ball and picnic, or simply take a load off mind and body.
Half the bond money would go to acquire and preserve open space and half would buy land for parks.
Proposition 2 has strong support among city councils, mayors and Gov. Jon Huntsman. Polls show county residents both see the need to preserve natural habitats, wildlife, scenic areas, trails and parks, and to pay the cost of acquiring and conserving them.
On Nov. 7, they can vote to put a relatively small sum toward the far-reaching goal of saving open space that will otherwise soon be gone - forever.
A starting figure of 20 million and skyward for a gondola to nowhere, the rape of our greenspace and trails...
and SL County is contemplating a 48 Million bond to acquire greenspace they weren't farsighted enuf to preserve in the first place?
The folks are saddled with really really stupid politicains, methinks.
Well, we can't afford any more bonding. We're bonded for 20 plus years for the Neilson/Fat Cats underwritng. We better do all we can to preserve the natural beauties that make Ogden unique.
Once gone..irretreivable.
Sharon:
Exactly. And if the grand tosses of the dice [with our bonding revenues and RDA funds] known as the High Adventure Center/Mall Redevelopment and the River Project don't pan out, we are going to be in real financial trouble for a long long time. I hope they both pan out and are runaway successes. But if they don't... and the jury is still out on them....
To pile still more millions into a highly speculative real estate development like the Malan's Basin/gondola plans on top of the bets we've already made, when we have no idea how those bets will turn out, strikes me as fiscal irresponsibility of a high order.
Think of it this way: Hizzonah having laid down a bet [with our money] on the High Adventure Center complex, and another on the River Project, now wants to lay down a third on a Malan's Basin ski development/godnola project. Anyone bookie can explain to you how the odds against you go up... way up... when you attempt a three-game parlay. Which is, more or less, the bet the mayor wants to lay down.
Open Spaces are a Pillar of Our Economic Prosperity by Peter Metcalf.
The essay below appeared in today's SLTrib -- Sunday, 22 October. The author, Mr. Metcalf, is co-founder and president of Salt Lake City's Black Diamond Equipment. He is also vice chair of the Outdoor Industry Association. It is yet another indication of how people in other Wasatch Front Cities understand the value of what Mayor Godfrey is attempting to sell out from under us. And the role open space plays in driving and growing the economy of Wasatch front cities.
It's been nearly a decade since the Outdoor Retailers chose Salt Lake City to host their convention. That decision awarded the largest tradeshow in the state's history and its $30 million a year of investment to the capital city.
The Outdoor Retailers preferred Salt Lake not because the city had the requisite infrastructure, but because of it's god-given assets - spectacular mountains and iconic, undeveloped landscapes juxtaposed at the city's edge. Other locations vying for the business offered larger, more modern convention centers and the infrastructure required for a trade show of such magnitude, but Salt Lake won for the same reasons that inspired Brigham Young to proclaim "This is the place" more than150 years ago.
Five years before the Outdoor Retailers reached their decision, Black Diamond Equipment relocated from California to Salt Lake. Again, the deciding factor was Salt Lake's open space and its easily accessible trails and parks. Black Diamond now employs over 300 full-time Utah workers and five additional companies have grown from Black Diamond's roots.
In those 15 years, numerous ski and outdoor companies have relocated to Salt Lake, all citing quality of life issues defined in part as access to open space, parks and the surrounding mountains. The result is one of Utah's most vibrant, clean and growing economic sectors. These companies choose to locate in Salt Lake because of what is naturally
here and not because of grants, tax breaks or subsidies.
Our local parks and unrestricted access to open spaces are a unique economic advantage. These undeveloped lands allow a company like Black Diamond to successfully recruit professionals from Nike, North Face, Ford, Toyota, Hershey's and Hasbro to live and work and play in Salt Lake.
National magazines that promote the "best places to live in the USA" most often list cities with abundant access to outdoor recreation. These towns invariably become the places where businesses want to locate because open space and access to outdoor recreation allow companies to attract productive, enthusiastic workers.
Given the importance of our parks and open space, Wasatch front residents are currently at a watershed moment. Since the arrival of the pioneers we've had the luxury to treat our open space and access to the surrounding mountains as a right - a right we've taken for granted since those landscapes seemed inexhaustible.
However, in 2006, with growth accelerating at a pace we could hardly imagine 10 years ago, we're seeing these lands, this foundation to our quality of life, being lost. It's clear we can't take our open spaces for granted anymore. We must protect and preserve them now or lose them forever.
The citizens of Salt Lake County have an opportunity on Election Day to help preserve one of our most important economic advantages. We can vote yes for an Open Space Bond on Nov. 7. After all, it's far less expensive to preserve that which makes us attractive to businesses around the world than to pay later with grants or tax breaks once our advantages have been lost.
Stuart Brand, the 1960's author of the Whole Earth Catalog and more recently a Pentagon-employed "future scenario strategist," wrote, "Natural systems are priceless in value and nearly impossible to replace, but they're cheap to maintain. All you have to do is defend them."
Or, as is the case with Salt Lake County voters, pay a little now to preserve one of the benefits that makes living along the Wasatch Front so unique. Vote "yes" on Open Space to keep this place "the place."
Link is Here
---
Dang, Curmudgeon!
I'd been sving THAT one for tomorrow's feature!
You guys are just TOO GOOD!
Hard to stay a step ahead of our sharp-eyed gentle readers :-)
Curm,
What an endorsement for the natural beauties of our state and our CITY!!!
Now, let's give numnutz and his sycophants a copy of this great article, eh?
Remember how LBJ had his bar-b-q's? Our city should host a blow out, bang up bar-b-q...picnic at Mount Ogden Park, and let the vistors we are wooing here to open shop, SEE and enjoy the wonders of our area. Enjoy a golf tournament that day too. Better than sitting in a salon at the Eccles Center eating chicken breast and broccoli.
Breathe the clean air, hike the trails, SELL the city!!
No back room dealings, no 'financial enticements',just enjoy what Ogden can offer.
If you can't beat Ogden, Join'm! Article in S.L.C. njust days ago!
Plan would link Wasatch ski resorts
Tunnels, snow sheds'25 most influential people' will meet in the governor's office
By Patty Henetz
and Mike Gorrell
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/17/2006 12:32:08 AM MDT
If Utah's ski resorts ever tripled the number of skiers they see each year, they'd tie Colorado's 2005-2006 record - and likely be suffering the same kind of transportation gridlock resort-bound motorists regularly endure on Interstate 70's Rocky Mountain traverse.
That's according to a memo circulated to the "25 most influential people in government, tourism and the ski industry," who will meet Nov. 3 with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. at the Capitol.
The meeting was arranged at the request of Sen. Carlene Walker to brainstorm the latest proposal to link Big and Little Cottonwood canyons with Park City: tunnels and roads with snow sheds to connect Snowbird, Alta, Solitude, Brighton, Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley.
Such a scheme would allow skiers to drive between mountaintop resorts instead of up and down canyon roads or Interstate 80, already subject to heavy traffic.
Walker, a Cottonwood Heights Republican, member of the Senate transportation committee and proponent of private investment in toll roads, was on vacation Monday and unavailable for an interview. But Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower said the governor had nothing to do with creating the talking points and said it was "premature to have this agenda that said the governor is open to reviewing this proposal."
The memo came from the office of Jeff Holt, vice president of Goldman Sachs' San Francisco office and a frequent contributor to Utah transportation and project finance discussions. It says the projects, dubbed the AltaBright Tunnel and CottonPark Interconnect, would tie the seven resorts in the tri-canyon area "into one 7-resort Megaplex."
"It will be possible to drive from any one resort to any other in less than 20 minutes," the memo says, adding the project would allow Utah "to seriously challenge Colorado for total resort experience . . .. This type of grouping and packaging mimics Swiss/Italian Alps models."
Ski Utah President Nathan Rafferty said the ski industry didn't propose the meeting, but welcomed it as a way to plan ahead to avoid the kind of problems Colorado is having getting skiers to Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and other resorts along the serpentine I-70.
"They're saying, 'Are we going to widen the freeway or build a monorail or some kind of train?' They're already way behind," Rafferty said. "We cannot afford to pretend our population isn't growing and the number of visitors to our resorts isn't increasing. Those canyons [Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood] can hold only a finite amount of traffic."
Ski Utah reported 4 million "skier days" for this past winter, an all-time record. A recent University of Utah study said the ski industry contributes $811 million a year in direct spending annually to the state's economy.
A memo sent to those invited to the meeting says Utah could see 6 million skier days. The memo doesn't identify a source for the estimate; Rafferty said it wasn't Ski Utah.
But based on that estimate, the memo goes on to say the tunnels are the preferred method of adding skier capacity and reducing diesel emissions by 40 percent - another unsourced number.
The single-bore tunnel between Alta and Brighton would cost $250 million or less, according to the memo. The Guardsman Pass seasonal road could be protected by snow sheds or a tunnel could be bored under it for $50 million to $150 million. Tolls, special finance districts and federal dollars would be the revenue and funding sources.
Utah Department of Transportation spokeswoman Bethany Eller said the agency's deputy director, Carlos Braceras, will attend the Nov. 3 meeting. However, UDOT hasn't been asked to do any engineering and has no money to offer the project. "It's just an idea right now," Eller said.
But not a new one. The idea is "nothing that hasn't happened lots of times before in the last 20 or 30 or 40 years, said Alta General Manager Onno Wieringa.
Save Our Canyons board member, historian and author Alexis Kelner said the proposal as presented in the memo was another in a list of resort-interconnect schemes "that would destroy the character of each individual little resort."
In 1945, Kelner said, there was a road planned between Alta and Brighton over Catherine Pass. In the 1960s, when he worked for the Salt Lake City water department, there was a proposal to dig a tunnel between Alta and Brighton.
The tunnel idea resurfaced during the mid-1980s when Kelner served on the Olympics feasibility committee. He recalled crashing a meeting called by then-Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson to review a proposal to dig a tunnel that would connect to the ski areas via vertical elevators.
Lisa Smith, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Save Our Canyons, says the group would rather not increase canyon capacity.
"The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is one of the most heavily used in the country," she said. Boring tunnels and building roads would put pressure on the critical watershed. Besides, she said, "the last thing we would want the Wasatch to be identified with is a 'megaplex.' "
Rafferty agreed. "We don't feel that terminology is good. That's not advantageous to us. We have seven resorts that want to maintain distinct personalities. One big resort is not the aim."
Why don't they just call in the big brains Godfrey and Peterson in to figure it out?
I'm sure that if they just gave Peterson Liberty Park that he could build condo's there and use the money to dig a whole damn city under them mountains.
Salt Lake would be the first and only place in the whole world to have an underground alpine resort! Guests would never have to worry about what the weather was doing outside. They could have a high tech rec center with virtual skiing and nobody would even have to get cold!
Ozboy,
Frustrating isn't it. Why can't S.L.C. just keep their mouth shut and stay the course with one article about preserving open space? Why do they have to go off and come up with some tunnel plan to counter the Ogden scheme that is diverting resources that they think should be theirs?
Let us have our argument! Don't muddy the waters with economic counter offerings to the Ogden Gondola plan?
Darn its frustrating!
New comments are not allowed.