Friday, November 03, 2006

Wednesday Night Planning Commission Press Write-ups.

Although we've already had fairly thorough discussion of last Wednesday's Emerald City Planning Commission meeting in our lower threads, we'd be remiss we think, in failing at least to draw attention to today's Scott Schwebke story, in which he reports to the general public on the happenings at this week's "marathon" commission session.

Board regulars should feel free to offer your additional comments, assuming you're not already all "talked out." And for newcomers who weren't even aware of the occurrence of Wednesday's meeting until reading about it in the Std-Ex's Top of Utah page today, your comments would be most welcome too.

Several remarkable passages and quotes in this morning's edition caught our attention, and we'll highlight a pair of them, just to get the discussion going.

Apparently some commission members remain entirely oblivious to very existence of the "Peterson Landgrab Scheme," the matter that we lumpencitizens have jokingly taken to labeling the perpetual "elephant in the room."

Check out this reportorial "doozy," including an inexplicable quote from Planning Commissioner Maw:

Planning Commission members denied there is any connection between the two items and Peterson's proposal.

"No single developer has ever been discussed among us," Planning Commission member Carlin Maw said.
We suppose we can fairly surmise from the above that Commissioner Maw doesn't get out much.

Further down the article, we stumble upon this marvellous interchange, wherein attorney Ellison neatly and cagily ducks reporter Schwebke's clear and pointed question:

Tom Ellison, a Salt Lake City attorney representing Peterson, attended Wednesday's public hearing. He didn't address the Planning Commission but appeared to take copious notes. Peterson wasn't present.

Following the meeting, Ellison said he was there to monitor the "public process."

When asked if he or Peterson had any involvement in crafting the sensitive overlay zone and mixed-use zone proposals, Ellison said when Peterson presents a formal proposal for his project, the public will be certain it's from him. Ellison declined to speculate when that might be.
Monitoring the process indeed. Mr. Ellison, it would appear, is accutely aware of the Peterson elephant, as was the long parade of articulate and public-minded citizens who kept the lights burning in the Emerald City council chambers unto the wee hours of Thursday morning. And q "little birdy" has told us that Mr. Ellison was actually heavily-involved in the drafting of the proposed planning and zoning revisions, notwithstanding his lawyerly effort to avoid the question.

The Salt Lake Tribune's Kristen Moulton also provides her short write-up this morning, in which connection we thank gentle reader Dan S., who graciously provided the link.

In other news, there was no new information on the hereotfore lively Senate 18 race in this morning's Godfrey House Propaganda Organ (the Standard-Examiner,) thus ending a long string of pieces plainly designed to promote the candidacy of Evil NeoCON Senate Candidate Stuart Reid. Candidate Reid was of course again unavailable for comment.

Talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Consider this a Friday open thread, if you like.

59 comments:

OgdenLover said...

Meanwhile, down in Salt Lake County, Voters favor recreation, protecting open space according to the SL Trib.

"Proposition 1, which would authorize a $65 million bond for Zoo, Arts and Parks projects already funded by the so-called ZAP tax, enjoys 50 percent support, while 31 percent are opposed, according to the new poll. Nineteen percent are undecided.
Proposition 2, which would authorize a $48 million bond for park space and to preserve raw land is favored by 53 percent of likely voters, while 27 percent are against and 20 percent undecided.


Here in Ogden, all I can ask is how can anyone but the most self-centered and greedy be so blind?

Anonymous said...

At the Mt. Ogden Community Plan meeting last night, the sentiments were similar to those of the residents of SLC, and were unanimous, that we want to keep open space, extend open space, and buy open space, and especially natural undeveloped open space.

There were many other good ideas, like making the golf course into a winter park with sledding, cross county skiing, and tubing and possibly some concessions at the golf building or elsewhere.

The public's wishes are clear. It is equally clear that the Mayor couldn't care less. There was the sense that city staff were feeling pulled between what they know the public wants and having to word things with enough wiggle room for Peterson to do whatever he wants.

It was interesting that people at the Planning Commission meeting quoted from the current General Plan to oppose the proposed ordinance changes being sought for Peterson. The system has worked so far. It seems that staff wishes to do the right thing and so does the Planning Commission. The devil pulling strings behind the curtain is Godfrey. We gotta, gotta lose that guy.

Anonymous said...

Danny:

In a not entirely unrelated matter, rumor has it that Mayor Godfrey has formally asked the Wasatch Front Regional Council to remove downtown Ogden to WSU as a priority transit coridor in its upcoming revision of its long range transit plan.

So, while other cities all up and downt the Wasatch front are clammoring for more streetcar transit, our Mayor wants to remove Ogden from any hope of even applying for transit funds for the street car route recommended by the WSR study, just so he can "protect" that route for his downtown gondola scheme.

Brilliant. Other cities fighting like hell to save or reacquire, at huge cost, what Ogden already has in the Mt. Ogden Park benchlands, and Our PRecious Leader is scheming to sell it to his real estate developer buddy. Other cities are battling to have rail transit corridors designated for their cities, backed by the WRF long range transit plan, and Ogen's mayor is fighting to have our rail transit corridor which WFRC has already endorsed, deleted.

Such is what passes for "leadership" in the eyes of Ogden's Republican mayor.

Tis enough to gag a maggot.

Anonymous said...

Well, what you don't understand Curmudgeon is that the leaders of those "other cities" do not have the visions of granduer of our little lord.

Those poor folks just don't have the "keys". If you don't have the keys there is no way that they can know the real truth, as revealed to our own "Dear Leader" Kim IlJong - er I mean Lord Godfrey. In other words - without those God given keys they don't know squat about nothin.

Why can't you just sustain our "Dear Leader" like you're supposed to?

Mayor Matthew Godfrey Parody said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Be advised, Mayor Matty,
It's so easy to be pure when nobody wants your body.

Can one get into Heaven through no virtues of one's own, but only because of rejection?

I envision you with that little folded towel on your little elfin head and I so wish that I'D been one of those PE boys you were peeking at from the tree.

My problem is, I won't go to Heaven either...but BECAUSE I wasn't rejected.

Thank you for the civic lesson on 'how I screw my neighbor'. Wish I was your neighbor.

Your admirer,
Trey

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Matt Godfrey, does the following describe him or what?

"His primary rules are: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

Although it does describe Matt to a "T", it was actually an Office of Strategic Services description of Hitler's psychological profile!

Anonymous said...

Rudi, you ridicule the Planning Commission members who denied there is any connection between the two items and Peterson's proposal.

"No single developer has ever been discussed among us," Planning Commission member Carlin Maw said.
We suppose we can fairly surmise from the above that Commissioner Maw doesn't get out much.

Rudi, you really can't blame the Planning Commission for believing that this first step in Godfrey's plan to sell the golf course to Peterson isn't what Montgomery and the Mayor say it is when some Council members believe that it's just a simple change in the sensitive overlay zones in the WHOLE city. When one Council member asked if the changes would apply to the Mount Ogden Golf Course, she was very abruptly and rudely put in her place by the next to longest serving Council member with: "No! This doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the Mount Ogden Golf Course! This is a general and simple change that covers the whole city and doesn't specifically mention any land in particular!" (It isn't always what is said, but the tone that was used.)

What most people don't realize is that Godfrey has been slowly usurping the Council's power and authority in land sale transactions. Last December before the new Council was sworn in, he had the old Council make the final change, whereby, all he needs to be able to sell Mount Ogden Golf Course is for the General Plan to be amended that allows for multiple land use, and the zoning changed as this change that is being considered will do. Even if it doesn't specifically say the "Mt. Ogden Golf Course," that zoning from "open space" to "multiple purpose" has occurred, opening the door for Godfrey to sell it. The Council doesn't have to approve it according to that Ordinance they amended last December. Godfrey has meticulously planned for everything in order to get his "vision" fulfilled. A word to the P.C.: Realize who you are dealing with -- someone who has no scruples and is very devious. And since he can "fire at will," the Department Heads had better do is his bidding and give the P.C. and public a dazzling "snow job."

Further down the article, we stumble upon this marvellous interchange, wherein attorney Ellison neatly and cagily ducks reporter Schwebke's clear and pointed question:

Tom Ellison, a Salt Lake City attorney representing Peterson, attended Wednesday's public hearing. He didn't address the Planning Commission but appeared to take copious notes. Peterson wasn't present.

Following the meeting, Ellison said he was there to monitor the "public process."

When asked if he or Peterson had any involvement in crafting the sensitive overlay zone and mixed-use zone proposals, Ellison said when Peterson presents a formal proposal for his project, the public will be certain it's from him. Ellison declined to speculate when that might be.

As for Atty Ellison, I ask you, who else but an attorney could add 25 pages of legalese to an already 25-page document in order to muddy it and discourage anyone from digging through it and discovering that the provisions that addressed the native vegetation and wildlife that are a part of the east bench, have been elminated in this new ordinance.

I commend Commissioners Maw, Holman and Atencio for stating that they wanted more time to study the proposed changes. You truly have the best interests of the City. THANK YOU!! And I beg all of you to take into consideration the wise comments, many based on fact that were made at this hearing last Wednesday night.

These changes in land use, even though they are city-wide and general, really are the first step to "eating that elephant in the living room," and the first step in his grandiose scheme that spells disaster and ruin for Ogden. The expense of that gondola will be the financial straw that breaks Ogden's back. Ogden is so far in "RDA bond debt," that it is at the ceiling limit and cannot do another RDA project. Of course, the P.C. does not have all the facts and financial information necessary to make a wise decision -- one that is going to affect the citizens of Ogden for decades!

Anonymous said...

Not only do those crazy fools in SLC want to preserve park and open space, they also want streetcars!! Will they ever take notice of and follow Mayor Godfreys progressive lead. Maybe we can sell them a lightly used gondola in a few years. Surely the deal we can give them to bail out the city will beat any silly streetcar...the idea.

Seems the potential for Transit Oriented Development is too strong to resist when a city wants an economic engine centered on a transit corridor.

SL Trib

Anonymous said...

At the Union Station recently the mayor expressed the unusual perception that the frontrunner without the gondola will only serve to provide a conduit for people to leave Ogden to spend and recreate in SLC. Odd view, though partially true. The frontrunner will provide a link that makes living in Ogden and working in downtown SLC(or anywhere along the way, Clearfield, Farmington, Bountiful) a convenient arrangement. I contend and project that the frontrunner will have more impact on Ogden than any other single project underway or in the cooker.

I can't wait to ride it to SLC and shop and dine downtown or in the aforementioned SouthSLC-Sugarhouse transit corridor. Ogden can create the same draw by moving ahead quickly on the downtown-WSU transit corridor.

Anonymous said...

Very astute observations, brett and tod.

brett....the public does not understand the implications and dangers in the proposed sensitive overlay changes. (How could they...who really does, besides Godfrey and his henchmen?) I suggest and beg you and tod transit to write a commentary that is UNDERSTANDABLE to even the least informed among us, and apprise the editorial page reading public about the mayor's latest nefarious move.

I hope that we will write and call the CC and encourage them to amend the 'give-away' ordinance the old council put in place just before most were booted out.

Godfrey is a runawy train and must be stopped in his tracks. That can only be done by an informed and honest CC willing to buck the mayor's mainuplations and wrath (he is not their boss!) and by educating and alerting the public that they hold power too.

Thank you for being on the ball. If the PC doesn't have all the information it needs to make informed decisions, and you know where it is, brett, then give it to them!

Anonymous said...

I hear from the Republican senators down at the capitol that they are sure Greiner will be 'alright' when he gets there. Some Democrats are saying the same thing.

They say that Greiner is not as bad as he's been painted. The concensus is that godfrey orchestrated the whole Jones affair only to make greiner look as dark and evil as Reid. Godfrey is many things, and honest and fair aren't two of them.

So, after thinking about what I was told, and giving it some reflection, I think there is merit in the remarks and observations of these legislators. NOONE down there, except some Godfrey lackeys, want Reid among their ranks.

We know that Greiner is a good soldier and he takes his marching orders from his commander...and that's Godfrey the Terminator.

I've decided to vote for Greiner on Tuesday and would ask the rest of you Republican and Democrats with integrity, and there are a lot of you, to do the same.

Defeat Reid.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I missed the Wednesday night meeting, but I had to work that night. If I had known it would go on till MIDNIGHT I would have come by with coffee and donuts.
Thanks to everybody for your comments and analysis, and to Brett, especially, for background info.

I do believe this is a significant crisis in Ogden City history and that's why it's so important to speak clearly and NOT let the conversation degenerate into name-calling and innuendo. Let the FACTS speak for themselves and the TRUTH will out.

My modest suggestion to Bob Geiger, during a brief meeting with him at his Descente office, was that he and the Mayor work with the City Council to organize a PLEBISCITE. A non-binding plebiscite would give the citizens an opportunity to decide their own fate.

Geiger responded, "That's why this country is a republic--not a real democracy. That's why we have elected representatives."

In case you missed it, here is a link to a short piece I wrote:
Waiting for the Gondola

I'd like to write a longer report, but until Chris Peterson makes his official presentation, all one can do is conjecture. So, blog on!

Anonymous said...

Now that the Planning Commission has given us more time to study the two proposed zoning ordinances, it looks to me like Peterson doesn't need both of them to pass--he can probably get by with just one or the other. Since the SAOZ ordinance won't come before the PC again until its January work session, let's turn our attention at the other ordinance--the "mixed use" (MU) zone--which is now scheduled for a vote on December 6.

The first thing to note about the MU zone is that it is misnamed: there's nothing in the proposed ordinance that would actually required mixed use! The "allowed uses" section reads, in its entirety: The uses allowed in a MU zone established pursuant to this Chapter shall be those uses specified in an approved development agreement for the subject project. The uses shall not necessarily be limited to those uses otherwise allowed in the Ogden City Zoning Ordinance or otherwise allowed in any other MU Zone. In other words, you can put anything you like into such a zone--a sprawling residential subdivision, a Walmart, a hog farm, etc.

Moreover, the MU zone even allows developers to be exempted from requirements that apply throughout all zones: Development regulations and standards of general application, including all applicable requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone, shall apply to the MU Zone, unless specifically waived or varied in the development agreement. That unless clause could open the door to anything at all. It means that the MU zone is truly a no-zoning zone.

The only mitigating factor is that the City Council would still have the power to reject any particular proposal (development agreement) that would apply the MU zone to a particular piece of land. So passage of the MU zone ordinance wouldn't accomplish anything in and of itself. For this reason, it seems likely that the Planning Commission will consider the ordinance innocuous and go ahead and recommend that it be passed, and that the Council will even go ahead and pass it. But the very existence of this MU ordinance would be a constant invitation to developers to write their own rules. When those developers have the mayor on their side, and hence the city attorney as well, the Council will be under tremendous pressure to approve whatever development agreements are proposed.

Mark your calendars and plan to attend the PC meeting on December 6.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I have to congratulate Scott Schwebke for reporting that Ellison attended Wednesday's PC meeting, and for following him out of the Council chambers and asking whether he had anything to do with drafting the proposed ordinances. This is what reporters are for, and Schwebke did a great job. (I'll forgive him for not also reporting that Curt Geiger attended the meeting.)

Meanwhile, I remain bewildered by Schwebke's distorted summary of the vangate investigation report, and by his blundered attempt to make it appear that Sharon's protest was motivated by partisan politics. Sharon, I ain't no Republican, but I'm as incensed as you are!

Anonymous said...

Thanx, Dan!
Appreciate the shared 'incense'.

I always enjoy your analyses...they 're spot on, and even I can understand them!

I rely on the expertise of people like you and tod...and today, brett.

We all must take your counsel and be at the PC meeting on Dec 6. Just in case it's another marathon, I suggest we each bring a thermos and a p'nut butter sandwich.

Meanwhile, let's keep the heat on the PC and CC.

Thanx again.

Anonymous said...

Bob S., What was your response to Bobby G over his Godfrey civic lesson on 'we are not a democracy......'?

Godfrey...Geiger....Reid.

I agree with Sharon...they are the Party of Self Aggrandizement! And Power to the Few!

Anonymous said...

PLEBICITE?

The Geigers' and the mayor are PARASITES.......

Anonymous said...

In spite of what this numb skull mayor and his circle of sycophants say and think, Ogden, Weber County and the State of Utah are Representative Democracies, not Republics.

Unless these nitwits are thinking of Ogden as a republic as practiced in the time of Plato, then what they are implying about Ogden being a republic is still not correct. A modern day Republic is still based upon the consent and support of the governed.
They certainly do not have either one here in Ogden.

I think what they really would like to see is a totalitarian state. Maybe they could call it the Republic of Godfrey. The Geigers could be the court jesters!

As far as a plebicite, the very last thing that any of these twinkies want is for the people to have a voice in any of this criminal nonsense that they are promoting.

Anonymous said...

wonder if the masses will march with lighted torches through the streets of the Godfrey kingdom?

How many protesters can the jail hold?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Dan S. said: "Meanwhile, I remain bewildered by Schwebke's distorted summary of the vangate investigation report, and by his blundered attempt to make it appear that Sharon's protest was motivated by partisan politics. Sharon, I ain't no Republican, but I'm as incensed as you are!"

Of course Sharon's (and Jones' family) protest was politically motivated. It was held days before Greiner's election. She and others on this blog were demanding that the Decaria report be made public prior to Greiner's election. They absurdly assumed that Decaria (a Democrat) was delaying the report to help Greiner (a Republican)in his election. They never imagined that Decaria (a Democrat) knew that his report would exonerate Greiner (a Republican) and thus he had little motivation to announce his report before the election, and clear Greiner. Then when Decaria released his report in response to pressure from the SE and your gentle readers, you all cried foul because it did not clear Matt Jones or indict Greiner. Sharon, Tom Owens and Jones' cousins then ran out and called a press conference to "Free Matt Jones," complete with a painted van.

Matt Jones is not in jail--he's in trouble. He can free himself anytime he chooses. Indeed, it appears he has had a lot of paid free time on his hands. And, we found out that his administrative leave is not about a van, but about some wallets. But, do the protesters decry the potential of a rougue cop? No, their protest is all about how Greiner should free Matt Jones.

I looks to me like the Standard Examiner got it absolutely right when it cast the protest as politically motivated. True, it got Sharon's self-described party affiliation wrong. But, under the politically charged circumstances, that affiliation means very, very little.

The protest was all about politics, just not national politics. It's the Smart Growth Ogden (SGO) party that most of you belong too, and it taints everything you see and hear. You are always so incensed about EVERYTHING. Anything that Godfrey's Adminstration does is hated by the SGOs, even if its actions are intended to ensure that its police officers are above reproach.

Anonymous said...

You, Observer, aptly represent the symbol of your party.

SGO had NOTHING to do with decrying DiCaria's report.

That report was promised weekly for almost a month and only came to light after the SE's fine editorial.

DiCaria admitted on several occasions to a regular poster here, "I shouldn't have taken this on. It should have been handled by the State Att'y Gen'l".

Of course, after Godfrey usurped the Council's authority and asked DiCara's office to 'investigate' two luncheon cronies...the Council didn't slap Godfrey's tiny wrists and go to WA County and seek the appropriate long-distanced counsel.

DiCaria shouldn't have done Godfrey's bidding...and could have stepped away at any time.

Who, besides the blatantly naive, could possibly think this was a hard hitting investigation? Who, besides Godfrey supporters, would be satisfied with the 'results' of this useless investigation?

The wrong man for the job asked by the wrong man did a bad job. Matt Jones was not the only officer on duty during those alleged incidents....were those other officers put on admin leave?

How could a chief 'forget' that he 'was going to put Jones on leave this morning'...and then 'remember' when Godfrey overstepped his bounds AGAIN by insisting that the license plate of a private citizen's car be run.....right then?!

Nah...it wouldn't matter which political party any of these players belonged to....the whole sordid episode would not have occured if Godfrey's hubris wasn't higher than his legendary 'integrity'.
If Godfrey were not filled to his eyelids with his own sense of importance, he would have laughed off the van and its signage. Thus defusing its impact.
If Godfrey wasn't vindictive he wouldn't have imposed traffic quotas in the first place.

SGO had NOTHING to do with this. SGO is not a political party. It's supporters are not of one stripe. They have only asked the unanswered questions.
You, bud, are way off base here. The whole 'investigation' was political.
Did you ever consider that it was orchestrated so that Greiner would look like the evil dude and Reid would be benefitted? And DiCaria was a patsy, who should have used better judgment than to be a player too?
NO? Well, give it some thought.

Godfrey doesn't use his 'friends' very well, does he? But, so what? The ends justify his means.

Anonymous said...

Sharon:
So let me get this straight: Godfrey (a Republican) used Decaria (a Democrat patsy)to hurt Greiner(a Republican) and help Reid(a Democrat)win the election, so that Ogden could be represented by a Democrat who would be virtually powerless in the Senate. And then you (a Republican)call a press conference to fault Greiner (a Republican) for not freeing Matt Jones (a suspect).

Your imaginative insight is dizzying. You give Godfrey far too much credit in concocting a conspiracy scheme like this.

Anonymous said...

Godfrey is not a Republican any more than he is a decent human being.

He is a phony, arrogant little self possessed sociopath who only pretended to be a Republican for the political advantage. The mayors race is not partisan. Godfrey is a product of Ed Allen, former Democrat State Senator and long time Demo political operative.

And "observer" is about as astute and intelligent as the phony and recently disgraced Glass Man.

Anonymous said...

Ted: I haven't been with you long enough to fully understand you're apparently stinging rebuke likening me to the "Glass Man". No doubt it was brilliant. Thank you for the welcome to your blog.

Here's another un-astute and un-intelligent observation: Wasn't Ed Allen the Democrat that complained that he didn't have any power in the Senate? So why is it that everyone assumes machiavellian Godfrey is trying to get Reid elected.

Anonymous said...

Are you implying that NO democrat has any usefulness at the legislature?

If so, why have any? Why not cut-outs propped in the chairs?

That tired line sounds good at the cell meetings, I'm sure.

Maybe Ed didn't have any 'power' in the Senate because HE wasn't taken seriously. So, now he's the power behind the throne?

Anonymous said...

No. 1. I think you nailed it!

Anonymous said...

Godfrey is a moaning myrtel.

Anonymous said...

lets all make a differance in the senate race!!!!!!
vote for mike Bachman for your senator, you know the plumber.
would it be nice to have a plumber in the senate.
write in mike bachman for the senate.

Anonymous said...

write on!!!!!!!!
for the write in

Anonymous said...

Yea, that will make a differance [sic]. That would be good for Godfrey and Bachman's plumbing business. No one else.

Anonymous said...

Reid is being unfairly painted by Godfrey's brush. Stuart is his own man.

Anonymous said...

You got to be kidding me. Godfrey and Reid are tied at the hip.

Anonymous said...

Stu has milked only a paltry $180 Thou out of ogden City since his July 2005 resignation.

It's a mere drop in the bucket, compared to Ogden City's $100 million anual budget.

There's no way Godfrey would ever take sides in the Senate 18 race.

Remember that Stuart is a Democrat and Godfrey is a Republican.

That's what's important!

Anonymous said...

I have a big question that needs to be answered.
So now that Jon Greiner has said that he will defy the law and run anyway, who sould pay for the $210,000 that the city will lose when the feds take that money from the city? Is it the Taxpayer? is it the Mayor? is it the police Dept? is it Jon Greiner that should pay for the loose of the money because this is what he has decided to do. So where does the money come from and who will be left to hold the bag? Can any one of an authorty Answer this? How about it mayor? should you be held accountible for this money because this is your stewartship. lets get answers, before the election.

RudiZink said...

"So now that Jon Greiner has said that he will defy the law and run anyway..."

No, anonymous. Greiner isn't "defying the law." In short, the Hatch Act doesn't apply to Greiner.

Here. Read this:

Greiner Letter Brief

And this:

Board upholds Perkins ruling

We assume you CAN read, anonymous, inasmuch as it's apparent you can type.

We're tired here at Weber County Forum, of you Godfreyite Stuart Reid neoCON statist lackeys posting the same lame comment redundantly.

Read the above links and then respond... if you can enlighten us about how Weber County homeboy Jon Greiner may have in any way "defied the law," taking the case-law into account

Ball's in your court, sonny...

We await ypour anticipated intelligent reply with abated breath.

Anonymous said...

Anon...That's simple question. If Greiner falls to the Hatch Act, the City can terminate him and suffer no penalty. Or, Greiner could simply resign his Senate seat and have the Gov. appoint another Republican. It's really no risk for the City to have Greiner running because the City fully controls the outcome, even if a court does rule against Greiner.

RudiZink said...

Exactamundo, taz.

The City bears zero financial risk in Greiner's candidacy.

Even though we believe Emerald City will never have to cross that bridge, given the current state of the law...

Emerald city bears zero financial risk here, even in a worst-case scenario.

These objections are just more carpetbagger Reid mumbo-jumbo, intended to create enough doubt in Greiner's candidacy, to eke out a deceitful Reid/Godfrey/NeoCON victory in Senate 18.

Anonymous said...

are you one anon conversing with yourself?

all these anony musses
are just godfrey wusses

Anonymous said...

found two anons who made sense and don't appear to be godfreyites!

Anonymous said...

TAZ...So for those of us who like neither Greiner or Reid and are looking for a strategic vote--its looks like Greiner is the lesser evil. First, he's not Reid. Second, he may resign anyway and allow the Gov. to appoint another Republican (maybe even Dave Thomas).

Anonymous said...

Observer:

I never claimed that Sharon's protest wasn't politically motivated. "Political" is a pretty broad term--broad enough to cover any public protest at all. But Schwebke took the further step of bringing party affiliations into his article. This would have been completely gratuituous even if he had gotten Sharon's party affiliation right.

Meanwhile, I have to laugh at your broad-brush description of contributors to Weber County Forum. All cried foul at the DeCaria report? Smart Growth Ogden Party? Hates everything the Godfrey Administration does?

Answering only for myself:

(1) I never cried foul at the DeCaria report, which I thought was quite fair and informative, as far as it went. It says that Greiner "probably" didn't violate any law or policy in putting Jones on administrative leave, but it also makes Greiner look petty and foolish for doing so immediately after Godfrey's phone call, and for refusing to listen to his Lieutenant's concerns about Jones's civil rights. The report does not completely exonerate Greiner, and it certainly doesn't conclude that he was "justified" (as the Standard-Examiner claims) in putting Jones on administrative leave--merely that it was "probably" within his authority to do so under the circumstances.

(2) As a SGO supporter I can assure you that SGO is not a political party. It has never endorsed candidates for any office. If the contributors to Weber County Forum tend to agree with the SGO platform, perhaps it's because most of that platform is a reflection of what's already written in Ogden's general plan--a document that grew out of a fully inclusive process involving two city administrations, the City Council, and the general public.

(3) I have supported many of Mayor Godfrey's initiatives and I've said so publicly on numerous occasions. He was an early champion of bringing commuter rail to Ogden, which I also supported. (I was there when he gave a great speech encouraging the City Council to endorse the increased UTA sales tax in 2000.) I support his vision of downtown as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. I've supported tearing down the mall and revitalizing the Ogden River area, although I share the concerns of others on this list about fiscal responsibility and trying to do too much at once. I'm encouraged by the improvements that we've already seen downtown during the Godfrey administration: amphitheater, IRS, River Parkway extension, etc.

One more thought: Unlike you, Observer, I post here under my real name, because I am willing to stand by my personal record and reputation. Attack my views all you like, but at least make sure that you first know what those views are.

Anonymous said...

Dan: Methinks the SGO doth protest too much. The SGO is a local party, though informal it may be.

You make a good case for your own reasonableness and thoughtfulness, and how your concerns are just based on the issues, not personalities. I want to believe you. But look at the postings of your fellow SGOs on this blog:

"godfreyites!"
"Godfrey's hubris wasn't higher than his legendary 'integrity'"
"numb skull mayor and his circle of sycophants"
"The devil pulling strings behind the curtain is Godfrey"
"totalitarian state...the Republic of Godfrey. The Geigers could be the court jesters!
"describe Matt to a "T"...Hitler's psychological profile!"
"“Come by after school Matty,” she’d say. “Your so little and cherubic.”"

I'd say your fellow SGOs are not so diligent as you in focusing on the issues, rather than personalities. And, these examples came from a relatively tame set of comments.

As to the challenge that my comments are to be discarded unless I make my identity public--my words should stand or fall on their own, without being propped up with a doctorate desgination after my name, professor. Besides, who would publically express a pro-godfrey opinion to this SGO crowd, especially without tenure. Each such commentator has been badgered and berated until they quit the blog, returning the SGOs to blissful blog unanimity.

I'm next...

Anonymous said...

Oh, give it up, Observer!
What a whiny post.
Methinks you're insecure. State your opinion...and then stand by it. If people disagree with you...so what?

I haven't seen many ph.d's on the blog.

I do see a lot of typos (mine, the most) and misspellings..but, again...so what?
I've noticed that you Godfrey supporters are very touchy.

Guess what? Not everyone, as you imply, is a SGO supporter!! Are you equating SGO and intelligence, perhaps?

I can see why you'd be confused.

RudiZink said...

Observer obviously needs to read WCForum's founding article, which loosely sets forth our original mission statement.

Our mission remains the same today as at the time of this forum's original founding. (Weber County forum was originally founded as a Yahoo Group in 2004, BTW.)

Weber County Forum is not an SGO blog, nor the blog of any other identifiable organization.

It's simply an open citizen forum, where readers can discuss whatever they want to discuss.

We address matters of concern to a wide audience; and SGO readers comprise only one segment of our cyber-community -- which numbers in the many thousands.

And at pain of having to tediously spell out what ought to be patently obvious to any reasonably well-educated and intelligent adult, individual comments are attributable to each individual commentor alone, and not to the blog or its readership as a whole.

SHEESH!

SOME PEOPLE'S CHILDREN!

Anonymous said...

Troll flame deleted by adminstrator.

RudiZink said...

Yup!

Anonymous said...

Observer and Sharon:

Observer: as an active supporter of [but not spokesman for] SGO and participant in several of the events it sponsored, like the initial Mt. Ogden Community meeting, I can tell you that representatives of all political persuasions --- Republian, Democratic, Independent and more --- can be found among the ranks of its supporters. It may be convenient for some, such as LO propagandits and Godfrey hangers-on, to pretend otherwise for tactical purposes, but facts are facts. It is no more a "political party" or affiliated with any particular political party on the local scene than it is "only against things, and for nothing," another bit of misinformation LO advocates once spent a lot of time trying to peddle.

Sharon: You wrote to Observer: Are you equating SGO and intelligence, perhaps? Hey, Sharon, if Godfrey and LO advocates want to argue that SGO just naturally draws intelligent people as its supporters, I say let them go right ahead. It's free country, and as a supporter of the Bill of Rights and advocate of free speech, I say if they want to argue that, they have every right to do so! And personally, I would encourage them to exercise that right in this case as often as they would like to.

Anonymous said...

Right on....if SGO supporters (but not spokespeople) equate with intelligence....then what do LO's equate with?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Well now "Observer", I am the one that posted the comparison between the Hitler psycological profile (by the OSS) and Godfrey's Modus Operandi.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of SGO. In fact I have only met two people in passing that are members.

It is interesting that you did not take exception to the actual comparison of the two profiles, you did not try to deny that Godfrey fits this profile. Any one who has "observed" Godfrey even a little bit can make the connection with that OSS description of Das Fuhrer and the mayor.

Anonymous said...

Observer,

Thanks for distinguishing between me and some of the more shrill voices on this blog. I think there's a place for all sorts of discussion, though I don't think name-calling accomplishes much besides entertainment, and Hitler comparisons are even less productive. Welcome to America, land of free speech!

I never said your comments should be dismissed because of your anonymity--only that my non-anonymity gives you an opportunity to judge me by my record and not lump me together with everyone else. There are many excellent reasons for people to remain anonymous, and I freely admit that we tenured professors have it easy in this regard. I wish we had more laws that protected others from retaliation in the workplace for exercising their free speech rights. Meanwhile, those who need to remain anonymous will have to live with the fact that their comments inevitably carry less credibility.

Anonymous said...

I think that Hitler is the gold standard when comparing aberrent and psychotic personalities.

In reading Frank's OSS personality profile on Hitler, it also occured to me that for the most part it fit Godfrey pretty close.

Is it any more "less productive" to use a Hitler comparison than any other famous villian? Would it be more productive to use a lesser known but equally bad villian?

There seems to be an effete movement in the blogosphere that looks down their long patrician noses at Hitler references, as if only the low class or ignorant would do so.

Are such comparison's in bad taste if they are true?

RudiZink said...

"Are such comparison's in bad taste if they are true?"

Good point, anonymous.

Part of the problem with the Hitler comparisons, at least on the internet, is this:

Godwin's Law

Despite 60 years of WWII newsreels, and the very popular History Channel ( I call it the Hitler re-run channel) there are still some people who don't understand the obvious History lesson.

In our view Hitler comparisons are completely appropriate in the Boss Godfrey case. Imagine this "Napoleon-complexed" sociopath if he were to ever occupy higher office.

Godfrey is Aggressive Big-Government/Corporo Monopolist friendly, Individual Liberty Hostile, and just the kinda political sicko that G. Santayana warned us about.

His political philosophy is similar to German politicians from Bismark to Adolph Hitler. He's clearly a right wing socialist.

"We must not forget," sez nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal."There is no denying that Hitler and Stalin are alive today... they are waiting for us to forget, because this is what makes possible the resurrection of these two monsters," say Simon Wiesenthal

"I agree," says the Ghost of the prophet Joseph Smith."

Anonymous said...

Frank:

Well, the problem with Hitler/Nazi analogies is that they are almost always over the top. You can't mention Hitler without calling to mind all the rest of his deeds: the death camps, the SS, the Gestapo, etc. And no, none of that has shown up in Ogden. [And before anyone starts, yes, the Mayor demeaned himself and his office following officer Jones' wife around downtown, and yes he acted unethically in asking Chief Greiner to track down a license number for political reasons, and yes, he is arrogant beyond belief and does not play well with others in City government, but none of the comes within screaming distance of "Nazi" behavior. I don't much like the job the man's doing in office either, but Hitler analogies seem way way over the top to me.]

The other problem with Hitler/Nazi analogies is that they virtually stop all discussion of the substantive issues involved, and everyone goes off debating [as we all are now] whether the analogy is appropriate or not. Charges of "racism" or "antisemitism" that are way over the top and are made all too often in American public discussion, do the same thing. The underlying issue recedes and the discussion shifts to how appropriate [or not] the analogy is.

It's almost impossible to keep our eyes on the prize [the issue involved, whatever it might be... gondolas, or street cars or park sales to developers or Mall redevelopments or parking garages wanting public funds or new expensive seats for the amphitheater or what-have-you] once someone is accused of being "like Hitler" or "a Nazi" or "a racist" or "anti-semitic" and so on.

So on this, I'd have to side with those who think such charges have little to no place in a discussion over RDA funds or the Mall project or Ogden parking garages.

RudiZink said...

"Well, the problem with Hitler/Nazi analogies is that they are almost always over the top. You can't mention Hitler without calling to mind all the rest of his deeds: the death camps, the SS, the Gestapo, etc. "

"The other problem with Hitler/Nazi analogies is that they virtually stop all discussion of the substantive issues involved, and everyone goes off debating [as we all are now] whether the analogy is appropriate or not."

So are you saying that Hitler references are illegitimate in principle (appeals to emotion or reduction ad absurdem?)... or merely bad argumentative strategy?

We believe extreme case references (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.) are quite legimate, useful AND instructive in testing the logical conseqences of stated or observed political principles and/or actions, provided they aren't merely used to close an argument.

Anonymous said...

Rudi:

You asked So are you saying that Hitler references are illegitimate in principle (appeals to emotion or reduction ad absurdem?)... or merely bad argumentative strategy?

The first, definitely [often the references are appeals to emotion, attempting to associate a person or policy one does not like with some horrific character or crime out of history in order to discredit, however tenuous and strained that connection might be]. As to whether calling Hizzonah [or anyone one else local] a Nazi is "bad argumentative strategy," that would depend entirely on whether someone's purpose in making the claim was to end the discussion of the substantive point and lead it off down a barren bypath instead. If that was someone's purpose, then flinging around charges of "Nazi" or "Hitler" would be very good strategy indeed.

Anonymous said...

Any way you cut it the Mayor has Nazi style "leanings". He's not a Nazi, he just acts like one!

Does that make you feel any better Curm?

There is very little doubt in a lot of people's minds that Godfrey would take it just as far as Her H_____ did if only he had the power to do so.

Hope I didn't inflame any pointy little professorial heads here!

RudiZink said...

Perhaps "right wing socialist" would be a term more palatable for use in public discourse, to avoid offending delicate sensibilities.

We of course favor reality-based terminology, and in this connection provide this link, wherein B.K. Marcus makes a danged good case, we think, for not meekly shying away from Hitler references.

In Defense of Referencing Hitler

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved