Updated 12/5/06
Ogden Sierra Club December 4, 2006 Press Release:
Records recently obtained from Ogden City show that Tom Ellison, a Salt Lake Attorney representing Chris Peterson, drafted a proposed new zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission will consider this Wednesday.
The city provided the records to the Ogden Sierra Club in response to a request pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Most of the relevant records consist of email messages between Ellison, Ogden City Attorney Andrea Lockwood, and Ogden City Planner Greg Montgomery, with successive drafts of the proposed ordinance attached. The earliest draft came to the city from Ellison on August 16. Subsequent revisions by Lockwood and Ellison consisted of minor clarifications that did not alter the essential features of the ordinance (see below for an example). Roughly 90% of the language in Ellison's August 16 draft remains in the version of the ordinance now being considered by the Planning Commission.
The ordinance is titled "Mixed Use Zone (MU)", but it is actually a general-purpose zoning ordinance that could accommodate virtually any type of use. In a letter to Mayor Godfrey dated July 21, Peterson asked the city to adopt such an ordinance, referring to it then as a "Planned Community Development Zone." Much of the language in the ordinance was borrowed from a similar "Specially Planned Areas" ordinance adopted last year in Iron County to facilitate large resort developments. Ellison was also involved in drafting the Iron County ordinance, on behalf of a client who is now developing a resort near Brian Head.
In his November 1 staff report recommending approval of the new ordinance, Montgomery makes no mention of how the ordinance was drafted, or of Peterson, Ellison, or Iron County. Rather, the report claims that the ordinance is intended to allow the development of high-density urban mixed use centers and villages, as identified in Ogden's General Plan. The ordinance itself, however, does not seem to require mixed use, and could potentially be applied to any parcel of land in the city. The ordinance simply states that the allowed uses in an MU zone "shall be those uses specified in an approved development agreement . . ."
Ordinarily, a "mixed use" zone would be applied only in areas where high-density development is desired. It would include minimum density requirements and other elements to encourage an urban, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Many cities have used such ordinances successfully in recent years to promote redevelopment and economic growth. An example would be Ogden's existing Central Business District (CBD) zone, which was recently expanded to include the River Project.
The records recently obtained from Ogden City also show that Ellison's office played a role in drafting an extensive revision to Ogden's Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance. The revision would remove the current prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% within the overlay zone. After a lengthy public hearing on November 1, the Planning Commission tabled that proposal until February.
Another email exchange between Ellison and Lockwood discusses how they should respond to press inquiries about his involvement in drafting the proposed ordinances.
---------------
We invite our gentle readers to read the full press release here. It's chock full of details, documents and links, and paints a picture that isn't very pretty, in the face of assurances from certain of our Emerald City public servants, that the two zoning and planning ordinances which are suddenly and feverishly being rammed down the townsfolks' throats "have nothing at all to do with Chris Peterson, or the Mt. Ogden Park land-grab."
Comments are invited, of course, once you've taken the time to read this blockbuster article, and to fully digest the revealing evidence which is meticulously embedded therein.
Have at it, folks; and don't forget to get back to us with your own 2¢.
Update 12/04/06 11:45 a.m. MT: Don't forget Tom Ellison's Iron County crafted, rurally-designed MU ordinance will be coming up for consideration, discussion and/or approval by the Planning Commission, in the Emerald City council chambers, @ 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December Six (6).
And we dutifully provide a handy Planning Commission contact link, just in case some of the folks would like to contact our appointed Emerald City Planning Commissioners, and register our gentle readers' views re this pending idiocy, in advance of Wednesday's commission meeting. (This updated link is also available in out WCF upper-left sidebar.)
Update 12/4/06 1:34 p.m. MT: The danged best reporter in northern Utah is now onto this story. We link Kristen Moulton's afternoon article here. We also thank one of our 'anonymous" readers for the heads-up.
Update 12/5/06 8:14 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner's Jordan Muhlestein picks up on the Ellision Ordinance (Mixed Use Zone) story this morning, in classic Std-Ex he said/she said style. The Sierra Club's Dan Shroeder continues to press the argument that the proposed ordinance, drafted and submitted by Peterson's "mouthpiece, is specific to the Mt. Ogden Parklands Landgrab, while Andrea Lockwood, Boss Godfrey, and the usual pack of Godfreyite suspects contend that Lockwood's "revised" version is designed to implement improved general planning/zoning policy only.
Mr. Schroeder argues that the two versions are substantially (and substantively) identical, whereas Lockwood claims her version is new work product.
Adding surreal frosting to the cake, Boss Godfrey's minions now contend that the adoption of the obviously project-specific Ellsion Ordinance is perfectly OK, and grounded upon "standard practice" -- i.e., that it's perfectly normal for a city to completely up-end its existing planning/zoning scheme, in order to accomodate a yet uncommitted developer-suitor.
As an added bonus, the Std-Ex has uploaded both document versions to their website, inviting diligent readers to make their own comparisons between another 18 pages of turgid legalese. You can be the judge of whether the proposed MU ordinance is a brand-new approach, or merely a Tom Ellison knock-off.
WCF Compliments also go out to the Standard-Examiner for its fresh new website design (which is unveiled this very morning,) and to Curmudgeon, for coming up with the brilliant "Ellison Ordinance" moniker.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
59 comments:
Caril here,
I find it interested that our Planning Commission was unaware of this information. Especially since we (the audience at that Planning Commission meeting) were berated by two of the gentlemen who said that these zoning changes had NOTHING to do with the Peterson Proposal.
One said he was insulted that anyone would suggest it. I'll bet he now feels very sheepish about being so deceived by the behind the scenes process which was intentionally hidden from him.
I hope he and others are incensed enough to reject the plan out of hand and let Peterson's Proposals go through the process that has been designed for everyone.
One item that was particularly aggravating about the zoning changes proposal was that on the very first page all the "community plan" requirements decided by the community in 2001 dealing with open space, protection of mountain side flora and fauna and all the other beauties of our local enviroment were stricken from the intended new ordinance. This suggests that suddenly Ogden didn't want the things we all said we wanted only 5 years ago.
Dear Planning Commission: Please don't be the dupes of a high paid lawyer who wants to help a man/plan change our nature open space mountainside to exclude the community and only provide for a few.
It's not only the high paid Lawyer, but the Godfrey minions that are deceiving the taxpayers who pay the wages for Gregg Montgomery, and Andrea Lockwood and who knows else is involved in this Dog and Pony show carefully orchestrated by the little lord.
WANTED: An Honest person to run for Mayor of Ogden City, someone who will bring the community back together, and who is honest and provided truthful information, someone who will not waste Tax dollars on private sleazy developers, someone who will get the City Government back to the basics of what government is supposed to provide. Clean water, good streets, sewer, police and fire protection. Apply here on the Weber County Forum for serious consideration and support of those who want to take back control of our City.
These moves are putting the proverbial "CONTAINER SHIP before the horse".
All of these broad strokes of unzoning overlay that can be applied to any component of Peterson's project are only necessary if we NEED the urban gondola. Little of this would apply to development on Peterson's land. If it can be demonstrated (has it not been already) that we do not need the urban gondola, then we do not need to sell the golf course.
Have we reached a turning point that selling the golf course for home development is now some stand-alone, defacto-accepted option???
This is insanity. This is mission creep, so demonstrated by our moves in Iraq. This is the way neocons operate. If you push enough on some hot button, like WMD's, Gondolas, Home development, building democracy in foreign countries, etc, people accept it as given and worthy of continued consideration.
There is not any independent , objective study that can either confirm or reject our need for an urban gondola yet we are being pushed ahead to consider a plan that the bulk of the data will be provided by the developer.
The kind of zoning releases that Peterson is seeking is only necessary in the context of the building of gondola towers, stations, homes on slopes, extreme retaining structures, etc. If he were only building a gondola base station at the foothill his project could be handled by the current zoning and been subjected to extreme engineering requirements. If WSU does not sell and we do not need the urban gondola in favor of a transit corridor and streetcar or BRT, then all of this is completely unnecessary.
What the hell is going on here.
The council must immediately address the need for an urban gondola and pare down the Peterson proposal to just his mountain development.
Yeah, what the hell is going on here? This is insane. Thank you Sierra Club for exposing our city leaders and staff for what they really are. It's nice to see that not only are our elected officials working behind our (the public's) back, but our city's supposed professional staff as well. The more I think about this, the more outraged I become. I can't wait to hear what the city's excuses, I mean explanations, will be for this--an out of town developer's attorney rewriting public ordinances.
Thanks Ogden City, I've finally lost all confidence in you!
R. Crumb's Histroy of America
In Re: the Sierra Club Press Release
Several things disturbing about what it reveals [and documents]. For example mixed use zoning is, I think, a very good idea if properly done. It has proven itself an effective means of encouraging mixed-use re-development in urban environments. Ogden might well benefit from a well-designed mixed-use zoning ordinance. Given that, it would seem to me that the logical place to begin would be to survey mid-sized cities which have passed successful mixed-use ordinances [i.e. ones that have in fact encouraged the kind of mixed-use urban redevelopment they were designed to encourage.]
Did the Ogden planning staff do this? Did it conduct a search for model mixed-use ordinances that have worked in other cities like Ogden? From what we know so far, it seems that it did not. Instead, apparently, it took an ordinance designed by the attorney for a ski resort developer in a predominantly rural area, and passed it on with only minor revisions, with its recommendation to the Planning Commission. At the behest, we now know as documented fact, of Mr. Peterson, who wants this special type of mixed-use ordinance adopted to accommodate the development he hopes to build on the city's parklands if the Mayor manages to transfer that property to him.
Of course, Mr. Peterson has not yet actually sent a proposal to the city. [Waiting for Peterson is beginning to seem a little like waiting for Godot.] Whether Ogden should adopt a significant alteration to its zoning laws specifically to accommodate a single developer who has not yet actually submitted a proposal to the city seems to me a question easily answered: it should not.
Others have posted at length on the fact that the proposed alleged "mixed use" zoning ordinance does not in fact require mixed-use within the special "no zoning zones" it will create. The danger is the special zones it will authorize [to be set up by development agreement between a developer and the City] can be, and will be, used as simply a convenient way for developers to go around most, if not all existing zoning ordinances.
I hope the PC will take a good long look at this, and consider its potential consequences down the line. It seems to me to be overly broad, to have been developed in the first place to accommodate a ski development in a rural location, and so, perhaps, is an entirely inappropriate model for a mixed-use ordinance intended to promote urban mixed use development in Ogden.
Thanks very much, Rudi, for bringing this matter to readers' attention.
Perhaps I should emphasize that the title of the press release ("Peterson's Attorney Wrote...") refers only to the proposed MU ordinance that is coming before the Planning Commission this week. There is no evidence that Peterson's attorney actually wrote the proposed revisions to the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance; he merely received a copy of a draft of the revisions as soon as it was ready (October 11) and a coworker of his responded to the city with detailed comments and recommendations the next day. (There may, of course, also have been nonwritten communications between Ellison and the city regarding the SAOZ.) At its November meeting the Planning Commission considered and heard comments only on the SAOZ ordinance, not the MU ordinance (which was simply tabled due to the late hour). So when Planning Commissioners asked us not to associate the ordinance with Peterson's project specifically, they were talking about the SAOZ, not the MU zone.
I'd also like to publicly thank the city recorder (Cindi Mansell) and everyone else at the city who provided records to her (especially Greg Montgomery and Andrea Lockwood) for handling my GRAMA request professionally and efficiently. Greg also responded to my follow-up questions directly and (I believe) honestly. Say what you will about his deceptive staff report to the Planning Commission; when confronted directly on this matter, he was extremely cooperative.
Can you post the e-mail addresses of all planning commission members for those of us who cannot get to the 5:00 p.m. meeting Wednesday?
I have asked the City office to send me the list but it hasn't appeared.
SE Heads Up
Tomorrow [Tuesday] might be a good day to pony up the half buck [if you are non-subscriber] and pick up a copy of the Standard Examiner. Today's front page has a teaser in the left hand column: "Coming Tuesday: Streetcars have revitalized struggling cities. Count they reinvigorate Ogden as well?"
Funny you should ask, "grateful."
Serendipitously, we were just in the process of doing that very thing, clearing up one invalid Planning Commision email address, just as your missive was posted.
Just more evidence that great minds move in similar directions.
Your wish is our command:
Emerald City Planning Commission contact list
Our gentle readers will also find the same updated link at the top of our WCF left sidebar, under "Government Toolkit."
WE say we let these people know what the lumpentownsfolke think.
And what say our gentle readers?
I've noticed that the SL Trib has already picked up on the Peterson-Lawyer-Writing-Ogden-Codes story.
On the SLTrib Story:
Hey, Rudi, I like K. Moulton's work too, as a rule, but "now onto the story" is a bit much. She got the Sierra Club press release and wrote it up, after a few comment calls to those mentioned in it. I commend the SLTrib for its quick reaction on news from N. Utah. It beats the SE as a rule by 24 hours publishing breaking news out of Ogden City and [presuming the SE runs something tomorrow], it beat it again by the same margin this time.
What would have been really impressive is if a SL Trib reporter or an SE reporter had done the digging, filed the GRAMA requests, and unearthed the same documents Dan. S. did and broke the story. After all, rumors of Mr. Ellison's close involvement in drafting the proposed MU Ordinance were circulating about town for some time now. I did like Ms. Moulton's including in her story Mr. Ellison's previous claim that he merely had a watching brief at best in this matter: Ellison could not immediately be reached for comment. He previously described his involvement as "monitoring" the city's ordinance-approval process. The documents Dan. S. uncovered and Moulton reported pretty much nail that bit of creative prose by Ellison as... well, let me be charitable... exccessively vague. [OK, OK, lay off. I said I was going to be charitable. It's Christmas.]
If there is some follow up by the SL Trib now, if having been handed the first story on a platter by Dan. S., the Trib now takes the story and runs with it to new revalations, then it will be time for talking about Ms. Moulton being "on the story." At this point, it's just a tad premature.
I have a feeling that Kristen Moulton and/or other staff will now do some investigating of this sorry mess perpetrated by Godfrey/Peterson/ Ellison and minions.
Since Ellison had already had changes made in Price...he didn't have to much to do for Peterson on this, did he?
Emailing the PC AND showing up on Wednesday is the least we citizens can do for Ogden.
I was interested in the emails between Ellison and OUR city att'y Lockwood on what to tell the media if asked about Ellison's involvement. Such chicanery.
Were you all impressed as heck with Farmington? As reported in the SE today, the Farmington Mayor is ENCOURAGING residents to tell what they don't like, do like, and wanted changes, if any, to be made in their fair city. What a contrast to Ogden where we can't even find out which retailers, if any, have signed on to open in the Junction!
And, we have some sneaky doings going on with Ms Lockwood and Ellison.
We MUST have a good person who understands the proper role of government step forth to run as mayor! His/her name needs to get out to the public NOW....Whoever it is, hope this new mayor comes equipped with a strong bristled broom to clean house from top to bottom. A CLEAN SWEEP is needed. There's his/her campaign slogan.
Thank you sooo much, Dan. Excellent work.
I thought one of the most interesting comments in one of the e-mails that the Sierra Club found was the comment on the bottom of the note dated Nov 2, 2006 from Ellison to Lockwood. That comment by Ellison was;
"I also thought the Planning Commission was impressive in its on the record efforts to separate general policy-making from a project-specific approval"
This sentence is awfully suggestive that some of the Commissioners, contrary to what they told us the audience, knew this ordinance amendment was project-specific.
And, how about the Commissioners looking at one another in disbeleif and murmuring, "Peterson? I don't remember that any one developer was named....".
Anyone buy a bridge?
Anyone WANT to buy a bridge???
(It's late)
Mercy:
I believe at that point that a commissioner said Peterson's name had not come up in discussions about the ordinance, the members were discussing the proposal to alter the Sensitive Overaly Zone ordinance, as Dan S. pointed out above, not the MU ordinance. The documents revealed under the GRAMA request demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the MU ordinance was largely drafted by Mr. Ellison, not the Ogden City Planning Staff. But the documents do not demonstrate the same about the Sensitive Overlay Ordinance proposal. It's not fair to conflate the two or to attribute statements of PC members regarding the Sensitive Overlay Zone proposal to the MU proposal. It's important I think to stick in this matter --- in fact, on all matters involving the Council, the Planning Commission and the Administration --- strictly to what can be supported by the evidence.
Truth In Labelling and the MU Ordinance
As a firm believer in "truth in labeling," and as someone who has a professional interest in authors getting proper credit for what they write, I suggest that henceforth we all, and the press, should refer to the proposed Multiple Use Ordinance that the Planning Commission will consider Wednesday night by its proper name: The Ellison Ordinance. Seems proper to me that the author of it should get full credit for his creation. Fair's fair after all.
The Standard Examiner coverage of the Sierra Club press release, detailing Mr. Peterson's attorney's involvement in writing the proposed MU zoning ordinance is here. Some interesting things in it. One is this: Ron Atencio, a member of the city Planning Commission, said it is hard to know if there is a conflict of interest in Ellison’s participation because there has been no proposal for a gondola/resort development.
He said he would like to see the actual draft submitted by Ellison and the final proposal from the city.
Atencio said he will look at the suggested zoning changes and try to learn what the end result would be for the city.
“I don’t think it’s a problem if we benefit this developer or any other developer if this makes sense,” he said.
I think Mr. Artencio has it right. Mr. Ellison's drafting of the proposed ordinance raises questions about conflict of interest, but, absent the long-promised but still-unproduced "Peterson Proposal," it is difficult to judge what conflict of interest, if any, is presented in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Artencio's asking to see the original draft by Mr. Ellison and the final draft before the PC is, again, wise. As is Mr. Artencio's final point: nothing wrong with an ordinance providing a benefit to a developer provided the ordinance is, on the merits, good for Ogden.
Ah, there's the rub. Is it the best MU ordinance for Ogden? The text of the SE story makes clear again what the Sierra Club press release also suggested: that the city planning staff did not search for MU ordinances that had worked for mid-sized cities. Instead, it apparently accepted a "model" ordinance, crafted originally by Mr. Ellison to accommodate a ski resort development in a largely rural setting, as the "model" for an ordinance to foster MU develpment in an urban area in Ogden. A model that, apparently does not even require that mixed use development occur in specially designated mixed-use zones.
So, Mr. Artencio has asked the right questions, I think. What remains to be seen is if the PC will do the necessary digging, will ask if the Planning Staff looked at MU ordinances that have been successful in other urban settings, and if need be, ask to see examples of those ordinances as well, before accepting an ordinance drafted to accommodate a ski development in a rural area, and one that does not require mixed use in mixed use zones, as the best one to foster mixed-use development in Ogden.
What's frustrated me most about all of this is that the City has contended that the new ordinance that is being proposed is not tied to Peterson. They can't claim that anymore since his attorney has written at least a large portion of it. They also claim this practice (lawyer, developer, etc. helping write ordinances) is common. That's fine and dandy to me and does make sense in some instances, but can't Ogden be upfront about it? Why does Ogden only come out w/ these important tidbits of info when they are pressured by Ogden Sierra Club, WC Forum, Smart Growth Ogden, Standard Examiner (well maybe not), etc. What happened to transperency in government? I'm sick of the disingenuousness. It's amazing all that has moved forward all because some out-of-town developer has made an informal proposal to grab land in Ogden (some good-the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, some bad-the proposed ordinace being looked at tonight by the PC). Nice planning Ogden City. I thought planning was supposed to solve these issues before they became an issue.
By way of background, we had several conversations with Greg Montgomery last week, in preparation for an upcoming WCF article. Among other things, we asked Mr. Montgomery directly about Mr. Ellison's role in the preparation of the two ordinances. While Mr. Montgomery did readily admit that Mr. Ellison had been in communication with MR. Montgomery's office and the office of the city attorney, and that he had indeed submitted "suggestions," Mr. Montgomery was careful in characterizing Mr. Ellison's contributions as "typical" of contributions being submitted by other parties interested in these ordinances, and indistinguishable from the contributions being made by other parties. Significantly, Mr. Montgomery failed to mention at all that Mr. Ellison had submitted language for one entire new ordinance, language which appears to have been adopted by Planning Department staff, at least. In this connection, yesterday's Sierra Club revelations were particularly disappointing.
Rudi:
It would be nice to know who these "other parties" contributing were, according to Mr. Montgomery. What I'm wondering is these "other parties" were parties (a) not connected in any way to the long-promised and still-undelivered "Peterson Proposal" (b) not connected to or likely to profit significantly from the sale of, and residential development of, the City's Mt. Ogden parklands [presumed not unreasonably to be a parcel likely to fall under a "special MU zoning" as envisioned by the Ellison Ordinance or (c) not employed by and answering to Mayor Godfrey and his administration. To put it briefly, were any of these "other parties" parties who do not have some direct and substantial personal interest in the adoption of the Ellison Ordinance? [Either a financial interest, or simply an interest in keeping their jobs?]
Absent input from people who do not stand to gain personally from passage of the Ellison Ordinance, how sure can we be that it is being crafted for the long-range benefit of Ogden, and not the short-range interests of Mr. Ellison and his client? We need to remember, the Ellison Ordinance, if adopted, will be in place for a long time, and will be available to be used [or mis-used] down the line by others. Since the Ellison Ordinance provides for MU zones which seem to be, in reality, "no zoning-zones," this is something we need to consider long and hard and think verycarefully about before we adopt it.
Here's a thought experiment the members of the PC might try: think of the absolute sleaziest municipal politico you know or have every known, the absolutely most unethical, bottom of the barrel urban politician it has ever been your misfortune to meet. Now imagine him [or her] as Mayor of Ogden. Would you be comfortable with the Ellison Ordinance in place under that Mayor [since development agreements between the Mayor's office and a developer will be virtually all that is necessary to trigger a "special MU zone" under it]? If your answer to that question is "no," then it seems to me the Ellison Ordinance needs to be sent back for further consideration.
[NB: the paragraph above is most emphatically not an invitation to offer names in nomination for "sleaziest municipal politico etc. etc." It's a thought experiment, people. That's all.]
I was certainly wondering how the city administration would respond. Thanks to Jordan Muhlestein for a good article, and thanks to the Standard-Examiner for conveniently posting the two drafts so anyone can compare them. Here are my replies to the administration's position:
Ogden Chief Deputy City Attorney Andrea Lockwood said when she was preparing for the zone proposal, Ellison said he had a draft of a similar ordinance and would be willing to share it.
It's important to realize that the reason she was preparing for the proposal to begin with was in response to Peterson's July 21 letter asking the city to create such a zone. My GRAMA request asked for all relevant documents since 1 January 2004, yet the city produced no relevant documents dating from before July 21. (GRAMA requests are often as useful for what they don't turn up as for what they do!)
“I added a lot of things, deleted a lot of things and changed a lot of things.”
True enough: the number of words that have been changed is actually pretty large. But I'm hard pressed to find even a single change that appears to be substantive. Perhaps the most substantive is the addition of a preliminary step in the process where the Planning Commission would get to comment on the initial application.
“I consider it my product,” she said.
If one of my students were to say this about a similarly altered term paper, I would give the student a zero score and a strong warning against further instances of plagiarism. If I were to publish an article that was similarly altered from someone else's work, I could easily be sued for copyright infringement. I don't mean to imply that the same ethical and legal obligations should apply to the drafting of city ordinances, but I still find this quote rather startling. If Lockwood simply means that she is willing to take responsibility for the final ordinance being legally unambiguous, then fine; she did clarify a lot of details.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said the city routinely seeks input from people who could be potentially applying for specific zoning, and Peterson is not the only developer interested in mixed-use zoning. “I’ve talked to other developers about it,” he said. “They are all very supportive of the proposed zoning.”
Apparently the city has no records of any of these alleged discussions, because such records would clearly have fallen within the scope of my GRAMA request, and no such records were provided.
It's easy to understand why any developer would want such an ordinance in place for his/her own piece of property. But imagine the uncertainty this would create if you knew that it might be applied, at any time, to your neighbor's property. For instance, suppose that you're ready to invest in a mixed-use building with a sidewalk cafe on the ground floor and offices or apartments above, with the understanding that similar pedestrian-friendly developments will be going in around you. Then someone buys a neighboring parcel and persuades the city, under the MU ordinance, to allow half of it to be developed into a car wash and the other half into a muffler shop ("mixed use!"). Because the proposed MU zone includes no restrictions whatsoever on the uses or designs of the development, it would create tremendous uncertainty for developers. It also creates uncertainly in that there are no criteria provided for the Planning Commission or the City Council to use in deciding whether to approve development agreements.
Godfrey specifically mentioned redevelopment along the Ogden River that would be facilitated by the mixed use zoning. “We really don’t have a zoning that is well-suited for that development project,” he said.
The city has a special CBD zone for the central business district. Godfrey has repeatedly stated that he considers the River Project to be part of downtown. So if he doesn't like the standards of the current CBD zone, he should simply amend those standards--not create a new zone that has no standards at all.
The city has been looking into a mixed-use zone for several years, Godfrey said.
Again, there seems to be no record of any such "looking into" during the two and a half years that preceded Peterson's July 21 letter. If we go back further in time, we have the city's General Plan which does talk a lot about mixed use centers, and specifically recommends the creation of an overlay zone for neighborhood villages. What's now being proposed is not an overlay zone and certainly not specific to neighborhood villages.
Mr. Montgomery was careful in characterizing Mr. Ellison's contributions as "typical" of contributions being submitted by other parties interested in these ordinances, and indistinguishable from the contributions being made by other parties.
No such records of communication with other parties were provided by the city in response to my GRAMA request.
To Curmudgeon,
The comments made by Ellison,
"I also thought the Planning Commission was impressive in its on the record efforts to separate general policy-making from a project-specific approval",
was in regards to the sensitive overlay ordinance. Also even though we don’t have the evidence yet to prove it, the language and the point of view in which the sensitive overlay ordinance was written is a strong enough link for me to convince me that he also had a major role in this ordinance as well.
It’s really disappointing to me that here we have all of these people on the city payroll who are supposed to be looking after our best interests. They should have been looking at examples from other communities and then drawing up the best ordinances that they could from what they learned from their research. Instead they simple took what was handed to them by a developer that has a vested interest in what they (the City) may be requiring of the developer. Do you really think that the developer is going to beat himself up with what he’s going to require of himself? If that’s not a conflict of interest I don’t know what one is. Does the old adage of putting the fox in charge of watching the chicken coop come into mind?
Equally disappointing is that the administration is fine with this lack of effort on the part of our city employees to search out the best ordinance for the City. The administration is actually trying to convince us, the residents, that this is an acceptable practice. In other words, the hell with any best practices as long as we get what we want (i.e. the end justifies the means). If we are willing to compromise the City’s checks and balance with regards to long term zoning ordinances just to ensure that an ordinance is going to quickly be put into place that is friendly to the Peterson development, then we have some real problems in this City.
Also disappointing was how hard the Standard Examiner paper made it for their readers to actually see the amazing (almost plagiarized) similarity that Dan Schroader identified between the two ordinances. But if you were a print reader of the paper you couldn’t see that because it was only available on the papers web page. And if you do own a computer, the paper still added challenges to getting to the truth. Once you got to the article on the computer you couldn’t line up the two comparative drafts side by side because of the way the paper presented the copies, as two separate pages that had to be open independent of one another. You would have to also have a printer and print about 20 pieces of paper to do the comparison.
Thanks Ogden Standard Examiner for trying to suppress the facts so as to not conflict with you articles general assumption that its much ado about nothing; thanks Ogden City employees for looking out for the best interests of us residents with your lack of effort and thanks City Administration for being so single minded that you’re willing to sell our city down the river so you can get your loser of a project, that somehow you think will immortalize you, the urban gondola and the sale of our open space.
"True enough: the number of words that have been changed is actually pretty large. But I'm hard pressed to find even a single change that appears to be substantive. Perhaps the most substantive is the addition of a preliminary step in the process where the Planning Commission would get to comment on the initial application."
Exactly right, Dan S. I've just completed my second focused reading of the proposed MU ordinance, and did indeed print out all 19 pages for comparison purposes.
And you're correct. Ms. Lockwood has added lots of verbiage aimed mainly at dovetailing Mr. Ellision's main "no zoning zone" concept with existing planning/approval procedures. And her other efforts in that regard amount to merely proof-reading, and style prefernce editing. For instance, she didn't appear to like the series of prefacatory prepositional phrases in Mr. Ellison's proposed paragraph 15-39-2.
In truth, the original Ellison concept of "No Zoning Zones" remains entirely unaltered from the original Ellison submission -- to the version that Ms. Lockwood now claims as her own work product.
And an aside to Curmudgeon: We took Mr. Montgomery's reference to "other paties" broadly, to include the not only the regular lumpentownsfolk but also other parties with crass personal interests. We did not press at that time for additional information, as we knew the Sierra Club's GRAMA request response data would be soon forthcoming.
Adding to our disappointment now, is Dan S.'s most recent additional revelation above -- that there WERE NO OTHER APPARENT CITIZEN/INTERESTED PARTY INPUTS, other than those of the suede-shoe Mr. Ellison.
Our bullshit detection meter is registering off-scale now, heheh.
I'm wondering. Does anytbody know whether Andrea Lockwood ever availed herself of the Ogden City free Gold's Gym Membership benefit?
She looks to me like a heart-attack waiting to happen.
I cringe every time I see her teetering around on any kind of high-heeled footwear.
One thing the Standard-Examiner could do is abandon its feeble attempt to extort money from people who'd ordinaruly access its archives.
Smart web operators know that the only reliable income to any website comes from contracted display ad revenue.
The Standard-Examiner should emphasize this, and quit creating an information bottleneck, by hiding its chronicles of history from everyone except well-heeled researchers.
To Anon Just Above and Hiding is Wrong:
First, to anon: I am in substantial agreement with what you wrote until you got to slamming the SE for posting the various versions of the Ellison Ordinance. First, the SE did post them. They get some kudos for that. As for the form in which they posted them, and your complaint: well, they're kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't there. If they did not post the full versions without alteration, they'd get slammed for "editing/slanting" the material. If they post it all, they get slammed for not making it easy enough to draw comparisons, etc.
They interpret, shorten, summarize and explain in their articles and editorial content. I suspect their goal in posting the two versions of the Ellison Ordinance was to serve as a kind of on line archive, offering the whole magilla, unedited, un-massaged, for such as are interested to go through on their own so they might draw their own conclusions. That works for me.
So, while we are in substantial agreement about much of what you posted, I think your complaints about the SE making the two versions available on line verbatim was over the top. And I see no design on their part to "hide" anything in doing so.
Now, to "Hiding is Wrong." I notice that the SE made the documents available on its free [without subscription] website. So I'm hard put to see how this creates an "information bottleneck" or limits access to only "well-heeled researchers." The Weber County Library offers public access computers [only one of its many invaluable services] to those without computer access.
If you are talking about it's "paid" archive access for SE matter more than seven days old: well, most newspapers I know of charge some kind of access fee for their on-line non-current archives. It seems to be the industry standard. And selling access to information a paper has generated and archived hardly merits the term "extortion." The SE is not a charitable institution. I know of no general circulation newspaper that is [with the possible exception of the Christian Science Monitor]. The SE is in the business for profit, and charging access fees for archived material it has generated seems not at all unreasonable to me.
Finally, it's one-document retrieval fee is $2.95 per article. A tad high it seems to me, but not by a great deal and not at all out of line with what other papers charge. In any case, it hardly seems to limit access to even old items to "well-heeled researchers."
I have thumped the SE fairly often here when it falls short of what a good hometown papers should be [which, sadly, it too often does]. But it seems to me some are now reflexively criticizing the SE, even when it does something good, as it did today by posting both versions of the Ellison Ordinance on its free access site so people who want to can compare the original text for themselves.
Charging a fee of $2.50 per article creates a significant bottleneck for the average reader.
As I said before, the Standard-Examiner website should be funded solely by Contracted Ad Revenue, the same way it supports its print edition. That's how real websites support themselves, BTW.
Their archived articles should be freely available to any Std-Ex subscriber.
Of course there are cheaper paid services like this, which can dredge up American newspaper articles up to "The Founding," for a fairly minimal fee.
Hiding:
First, thanks for the tip on www.newspaperarchives.com I was unaware of it.
Second, its files on the Standard Examiner seem to go only up to the 1950s so I doubt it would be much use for current matters in the modern SE archives [just as I doubt the sE on line archives go back as far as the 1950s.]
As for financing free access to the archives by contracted on-screen ads: well, first you'd have to establish that that is a viable means of funding the costs of archiving and providing access for papers in mid-sized markets. I suspect ad revenue wouldn't come close to breaking even [much less turning a profit] for the SE archived matter. [Then again, perhaps the pay-per-item fee does not either.]
But my thanks again for the tip on the archive and search service. In your debt for that.
I pull up current Standard articles daily via newspaperarchives.com
I'm not sure where you got the impression that this service doesn't keep current.
hiding:
I went to their site, and clicked on the various listings for Standard-Examiner they have after I clicked on Utah on the map. The latest edition on offer I found was mid-1950s. I'll go play again and see if I can find the current stuff.
I would point out that if you are after only one particular article, the SE price beats the other site's weekly charge of $7.95. It seems that up to three articles, the SE site is cheaper [but not by much] via their bundled "three pack" price. Beyond that, if it does keep current, the site you offered is by far the least expensive way to go. And it's offering a free trial period right now I see.
Have already passed the site on to colleagues who did not know of it. For which, yet again, thank you.
I wonder if the site pays some kind of royalty fee to the modern papers [whose content is still under copyright and not in the public domain]? Be interesting to know that.
To Curmudgeon,
I have no problem slamming the SE for their "rest of the story on the internet" in that a very large percentage of their readers are seniors that are not adept with computers or don't even own one. So as such they're left with the papers article that I think washes over the reality of how much of this ordinance was written by the Developers lawyer, Ellison. As for your protection of the SE, I disagree with you. The fact is that they could have pointed out to their print readers the amount of verbatum language and they didn't. They wanted to present a different story then the facts of the matter are. Had they published the more detailed info, they wouldn't have been able to white wash this situation as much as they did. They withheld information to support the position that they took as to the importance of this latest news.
Anon:
OK, we disagree. I don't think they whitewashed much. The story was the Sierra Club press release and related matter, and it seems to me they summarized it reasonably well, and made the docs available on line [which the SL Trib did not do]. As for geezer readership [I qualify] not having access to computers: sorry, but the web and on line publishing makes it possible for the SE to make available on line far more content than it could ever make available in print [since print pages have to be supported by print ad-copy]. I'd hate to abandon the possibilities of web-content because some older readers either cannot or choose not to access it.
My real criticism of the SE on this story was the same one I had of the SLTrib: the SE should have dug up the documents and broken the story. It should not have had to rely on the Sierra Club to do the digging for it on an important Ogden-based story.
I agree, however, that sometimes SE decisions about what goes on-line only and what goes into print I find either annoying or not-defensible or both. [Usually involving letters policy and op-ed pieces.] But if you are suggesting that SE should have printed the approximately twenty pages of content involved in the two versions of the Ellison Ordinance... well, I can see why they did not do that. If I were an editor, I would probably not have done that either.
So we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, mostly.
If Ms. Lockwood thinks that is her own work, what to her constitutes plagiarism?
Cutting and pasting that much identical text? C'mon...this person went to law school?
Dear Anon,
Obviously you've never been to law school. They have a class your first year on cutting and pasting -- has some Latin name like stare decisis. Ctrl-c and ctrl-v are the most worn out keys on a lawyer's keyboard. If you've ever read a legal thriller or dealt with the law in any manner you would know that originality is not tested for on the LSAT.
As for plagarism, it reminds me of a quote about poets -- "good poets borrow, great poets steal." It has absolutely no bearing whatsover to the discussion, but I like the quote.
Yours Truly,
Scott Turow
Did anyone catch to X96 radio show this morning? They talked about Ogden and this whole story. Just funnier than hell, I here.
Of course it would be funny. Sorry I missed it.
Our mayor and his antics make Ogden the laughing stock of northern UT.
Crime is rampant here, and we make the news almost daily, it seems, for one crooked act after another. Unfortunately, the greater crimes are hatched on the 9th floor.
I just re-read the Standard-Examiner article and noticed a couple of things that I missed this morning.
First, the article gives no hint of how this information suddenly came to light: no mention of the GRAMA request or of the Sierra Club's role in learning that Ellison's August 16 draft of the ordinance even exists. I normally don't care who gets credit, but in this case I think it's unfortunate that readers aren't learning what effort it took to get this information.
Nor does the article mention Greg Montgomery's staff report to the Planning Commission, in which he tries to pretend that it's all about urban redevelopment, with no mention of Peterson or Ellison. The attempted deception itself is newsworthy, in my opinion.
Finally, one little word in the sub-head is bothering me: "Sierra Club says part of draft ordinance was written by Chris Peterson's lawyer." That's actually not what we said. We said that about 90% of Ellison's draft is unchanged in the version that the Planning Commission is now considering. (Ms. Lockwood added a lot more than she removed, so I'd estimate that only about 80% of the words in the final draft are Ellison's.) The Standard-Examiner should have said "most", not "part".
Dan S:
Thanks for the last. Problem with reading a news story about which you already know something is that you sometimes read into it more than is in fact there, which I think I did in saying it more or less accurately summarized the Sierra Club press release. Clearly, it did not. Thanks for the clarification.
Steve:
Well, first of all, you need to learn the concept of ironic exaggeration for effect. The "hog farm" matter was simply a way to illustrate, by taking to an extreme, just how "flexible" the Ellison Ordinance would make Ogden zoning --- "flexible" to the point of potentially eliminating all zoning restrictions project by project. Naturally developers would like a "zoning" ordinance that offered the potential for them avoiding nearly all existing zoning restrictions on whatever property they want to develop.
Now, if you want to argue that zoning per se is a bad idea, and that cities are better served by having no zoing requirements of all, have at it. Some do, and some cities [e.g. Houston] have gone that route. I don't think that's the way Ogden should go, but those who do should have the honesty to argue that point straight up, without hiding behind the Ellison Ordinance's "no-zoning zone" approach.
For those who like multiple use zoning [properly done], as I do, the question I've asked above seems to me to still stand: is the Ellison Ordinance, which was originally designed to serve the needs of a ski development in a rural area, one that will promote the kind of MU development we want to encourage in urban Ogden? Or is it a one-off ordinance, aimed to serve the needs of one particular developer and one particular project primarily? Those are the questions.
Finally, not all disagreement and argument constitutes "stoning." Not even rhetorical stoning.
Hiya, Steve! We (the editorial "we") are happy to have you chiming in on this issue this morning; and we'll add our own $.02, just to round out the discussion.
Ordinarily, we'd be delighted at any government attempt to reduce governmental restrictions upon private property ownwership rights; and generally we would applaud any movement toward adopting a mixed use ordinance, or any other ordinance tending to promote "natural" property rights concepts, and to at least emulate free-market forces.
In the instant case, however the problem is a little more complax, we believe, than a mere standoff between "liberty" and "socialist central planning."
First, the property in question (Mt. Ogden Park) IS NOT privately owned, but is in fact publicly-owned property, property that has been dedicated as a public parkland -- property that is being held in trust for the benefit of the equitable owners -- the taxpayers of Emerald City.
In point of fact, Boss Godfrey intends to dispose of our park property and convert the (trust) proceeds of sale to the construction of a giant publicly owned and operated gondola system, a project which finds no support in genuine market forces, but rather is a creature of his right-wing socialist ambition.
He's made it very clear time and time again that he intends to proceed with this project without regard to the sentiment of the general public. He refuses to put the question to a public vote. We believe his proposed plan is not only outright reckless from a public trust point of view, but un-democratic as well.
The underlying problem, as we see it, is that the adoption of the Ellison ordinance at this juncture, prior to the submission by Mr. Peterson of any palpable "Development Proposal," will allow Boss Godfrey to immediately transfer the property to Mr. Peterson, whereby Mr. Peterson would be able to argue your property rights legal points from an ownership position, a position which would strengthen Godfrey's hand in ramming his centrally-planned gondola project down the taxpayers' throats.
In this connection, the previous City Council has already delegated near absolute property-transfer power to the mayor; and we have no reason to believe that Godfrey would not immediately exercise that power, and transfer the Mt. Ogden Park property, in the event the Planning Commission were to remove the current zoning impediment, and recommend the adoption of the Ellison Ordinance.
And historically, Boss Godfrey has demonstrated over and over again that he is certainly NO CHAMPION of individual "natural" rights, but rather an advocate of central planning -- on a truly Stalinesque scale.
Additionally, we believe any action on the part of Emerald City authorities to act cooperatively with Mr. Peterson prior to the presentation of a firm offer could be argued at some point in the future to have evidenced consent to proceed with the project, under quasi-contractual legal principles. Indeed, we believe any action which would alter the legal status quo, during the pendency of the presentation of a firm Peterson Plan, would effectively impair Emerald City's legal interests, and would be highly imprudent.
As to the park property itself, you and we could argue til the cows come home whether public park ownership is a legitimate function of local government. In point of fact, however, we now own the park; and we believe the conversion of the park property to a giant publicly owned amusement park ride would be a far worse alternative, not only from a public trust point of view, but from a fundamentalist "natural rights" perspective.
Good to hear from you again, Steve.
Steve:
You wrote: The [Ellision] MU zone [ordinance] is one star of hope for Ogden to rebound from the endless sea of crime and immigration now facing it.
Wow. The Ellison Ordinance is the answer to both crime and [presumably illegal] immigration here in Junction City? Will it cure the heartbreak of acne too?
I can see I was wrong to suggest that you needed to learn about exaggeration as a debate tactic. You do know how it works....
FOR THOSE PLANNING ON ATTENDING TONIGHT'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
While the Ogden City website says that Planning Commission meetings are held at 5PM the first Wednesday of each month.
HOWEVER, the notice published in today's Std Examiner, gives the starting time as 4:00 PM. There are two items on the agenda before consideration of the Ellison Ordinance, but they may go by quickly.
Or, was this a simple typo?
Thanks, Ogdenlover.
We just got off the phone with "Jeanette," of the Emerald City Planning Department. She advises that the planning commissioners will be taking a short "field trip" at 4:00 p.m., and confirms that the regular planning commission session remains on calendar for 5:00 p.m.
We provide the phone number here, for those who might wish to independently verify this information:
Ogden Planning Department: (801) 629-8930
Rudi-
The city finally posted the agenda on the website as well. It was not here yesterday.
December 6, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda
Steve,
You raise some excellent points about how zoning has actually been bad for America's cities (not just Ogden) over the last 50 years. Indeed, zoning has often merely been used as a tool for the rich to exclude the poor from their neighborhoods, and to exclude all forms of commerce as well. Whether the result would have been any better without zoning, however, isn't clear to me. It seems to me that the rich usually get their way, one way or another. Widespread car ownership makes extreme segregation of uses more or less feasible, and once it became feasible, people found a way to implement it.
The question before us now, though, isn't whether we should do away with zoning; it's whether the Ellison ordinance would be an improvement. The Ellison ordinance would most certainly not do away with zoning. Instead, it would throw a wildcard into the process. If I don't like the way my property is currently zoned, and if I have the resources to hire a lawyer to draw up a development agreement, and if the city administration is willing to entertain my proposal, and if I have the stamina to haggle out the details with the administration, and if the Planning Commission and City Council eventually go along with what I propose, then under this ordinance I can put whatever I want on my property.
The first thing to notice is that only the larger developers are going to have the resources to go through all this red tape, so it actually enhances the advantage of the rich over everyone else.
The second thing to notice is that it's going to soak up a lot of city staff time; that's one reason why Summit County abandoned a similar process a couple of years ago.
The third, and most important, thing to notice is that the outcome is unpredictable. The City Council could, ultimately, still turn down my proposal. In that case I'll probably sue the city for leading me through this long, expensive process, only to say no at the last stage. Worse, there's no way for me to predict what my neighbor might someday build on the next lot. There's no provision in the ordinance to ensure that I and my neighbor are treated fairly. This lack of predictability is going to make me think twice before investing a dime in Ogden, and it's the other reason why Summit County no longer uses development agreements. This problem will be much worse in Ogden than in Summit County, because nearly all of Ogden is already divided up into small parcels where everyone has lots of close neighbors.
Let's also remember that Ogden already has a process in place for rezoning a piece of property, as well as a Conditional Use Overlay Zone that allows development agreements to be used along with a re-zone when none of the city's existing zones give a suitable fit. The difference with the Ellison ordinance is that it allows a development agreement to replace all other standards, even those that apply to all zones; and it invites developers to submit general plan amendments for simultaneous consideration. I'm not familiar with any city that has tried something this open-ended, so in many ways we simply don't know what the ultimate result would be. I do know that planners nationwide are well aware of the problems with zoning that you described, and that their proposed solutions (traditional neighborhood zones, form based codes, etc.) don't seem to include anything like the Ellison ordinance.
Mr. Huntsman, freedom and property rights we do have! However, there have always been limits to what we can and cannot do w/ our property dating back hundreds of years to old British law (ie nuisances and trespassing), which much of our laws are molded after. I do agree that poor Ogden planning has created some undesirable places within Ogden, shame on past planners. However, good planning will lead to good results. The fact of the matter here, for me, is that I do not want prime publicly owned land to be turned into something that only an out-of-town developer will profit from, nor do I want any zone implemented that will further a gondola that I will never use.
Two points:
The fact of the matter is that Chris Peterson has purchased a tract of land to which there is limited access. Providing access to Chris Peterson's property is not the concern nor is it the the responsibility of Ogden City.
Two, Mount Ogden Golf Course and surrounding environs are not the property of Mayor Matthew Godfrey. This is currently a publicly owned tract of land to which we, as members of the public, all have access.
Conclusion: Our system has broken down. There is no one officially present, in the melange of Peterson's legal team, or in our elected or appointed officials who will officially speak for those of us who do not wish to give up our publicly owned property.
That is evidently the purview of The Sierra Club and the many, many concerned citizens who have been dealing with this issue for over a year now. Thank heavens for all of you.
I am thinking that it is very odd and quite tragic that such a large segment of the population in Ogden City is officially voiceless concerning this issue. Those attending the meeting tonight go in as "the public," and without the tireless efforts of Dan Schroeder, would probably have gone in pretty much without a clue. But because of Dan's efforts, we now know that a land developer's attorney is intimately involved in crafting laws for our city.
That, in my opinion, is cronyism at its very worst, and one would think that even the city administration would be able to see this, but evidently that is not the case. One would think, that in looking back over the variety of "projects" we have been subjected to for over five years now, the phenomenon of favoritism--regarding who gets to lease what, who gets contracts to perform what, who gets to have the Mayor tell Wasatch Transit that streetcars are not necessary because of proposed gondolas--would rear its ugly head and perhaps cause some shamefacedness or embarrassment.
Sadly, this does not seem to be the case, and even more sadly, the behaviors we have witnessed seem to be accepted as the status quo, business as usual, the way things are.
To all of you "members of the public" who are attending this meeting tonight, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Not unusual for Ellison to write ordinances, etc., when it comes to zoning and City Planning. He's a specialist and has crafted many of these for many towns throughout the state. Just because he wrote this, however, most likely does not mean that the CC, or whomever, will adopt it in its entirety. Every documnet EVER written goes through the "tweaking" process and there's nothing wrong with having a place to start. No different than a real estate offer....which is usually followed by inspections, evaluations, counters, the works....the old back and forth until the two parties come to a "mirroring of the minds."
Easy does it, people, and get into the "process." To date the CC has presented a 184 question list, many being redundant, have developed their "Discovery Ogden," which was the last rabbit out of the hat and probably only done because everyone else had presented something, and now here we are again, criticizing an expert who has at least begun a process that can be bent and shaped if the CC gets off their collective behinds, comes home from their LCT trips, and goes to work.
As for the "Public:" we have a responsibility to have our voices heard. If we do not excercize that, it's our fault, not someone who got the jump on us. The assertion by some that the Mayor and others in the Administration, are getting their way through "cronyism" (sp?) is absurd, as the rules and regulations that a City must follow in appointing and selecting individuals and projects, et al, is safe guarded by a myriad of State and Federal Reulations that are in place to prevent this sort of runaway.
I think Steve Huntsman hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that most of these posts revile this proposal just for the sake of reviling. If you don't want the gondola, fine, but this same old song and dance, that seems to permeate most of the comments and are basically written by those who probably are not at all familiar with the macinations of State, Federal and Local Government, are all reading the same and not quite getting any new message across. It seems like it's the same old song and dance and pouring through this verbosity is tedious. It offers no new insight or proposals or alternatives.
It would be nice to read something with substance and stop relying on Dian's reporting and Dan S's negative thoughts, which are fine, but they offer nothing new.
What the hell would be wrong with a gondola anyway, if you think about it? Like a TV....if you don't like what you're watching, turn the channel; as for the gondola, if you don't want to ride it, DON'T. But others probably will. Let the process work and enough of the quips and whinning. Go to a meeting, become part of the Public, and let your voices be heard someplace else rather than on these WCF pages.
A neutral observer? Ha!ha!ha!
All right, look at it this way. If you were a suspected criminal and had been arrested, and the state was instituting proceedings to extract money and perhaps property from you, you would have an official advocate. You would have someone officially present in those proceedings to protect your right to retain what you own,
Part of what we are talking about is public land. We own it.
And we are not even involved in criminal proceedings.
And so I ask you, where is our advocate?
Neutral:
Oh, lord... still on that old saw about people opposed to the gondola only being negative and not offering anything "new."
OK, let's try again... for about the fiftieth time, it seems now: www.smartgrowthogden.org has up several alterantive suggestions for encouraging growth in Ogden and dealing with its coming transit needs. And of course there is Mercy Livermore & Kent Jorgensen's "Option B" involving the city selling Mr. Peterson five acres or so at the head of 36th street so he can build his up mountain gondola and develop Malan's Basin as he pleases with his own funds or funds he raises without carving up the Mt. Ogden parklands into vacation villas behind gated walls.
As for telling us to not ride the gondola if we don't like it, others will: that's fine with me, provided letting others ride it doesn't mean selling off the city's largest public park in the Benchlands for private development, and provided it doesn't mean sinking thirty million plus or more of public funds into a city-built downtown flatland goncola to be operated at city expense without UTA subsidies because it is not a transit system. Of course, your post gives no idication that you are even aware that "the gondola" is in fact two gondola systems, one city-built and city-operated over the flatlands between downtown and WSU and a second gondola, privately built and operated from WSU to Malan's Basin.
As for cronyism... well, if you want to claim none of that is going on, you can start by explaining why, on the Ogden City Website, the Mayor still has up FAQs telling people that "the gondola" [meaning the gondola/gondola] will bring people from downtown Ogden to Snow Basin. Not even Mr. Peterson or Lift Ogden makes that claim any more after Snow Basin management has repeatedly written to the Mayor explaining that the gondola/gondola system will not connect with Snow Basin. But oddly, the statements still appear on the city website in aid of the Mayor's real estate developer crony, Mr. Peterson's development schemes. Imagine that....
Talk about hearing the same old thing over and over again.... Just log onto the City website for a good example of that. By the way, I haven't noticed gondola/gondola advocates offering anything "new" of late. Have you?
Neutral shifted out of that gear..didn't he?''No 'cronyism' in Ellison's Ordinance, is there?
No 'cronyism' in using the peoples' money to push Peterson's visions, is there?
No 'cronyism' in Godfrey's dog and pony shows for the BENEFIT of his pal, Peterson, is there?
Nope....that's because the gondola advocates want the gondola. Why should they offer up any alternatives. They feel it will increas the money coming into town and maybe it will. What's wrong with analyzing that? I realize that the golf course and the trails system is the sticking point, but really, how muc do they make. And what if Peterson closed down his property, as he has a right to do? No trail system. All this jibberish about common law, etc. is just that, jibberish. Without Peterson's approval, you tree huggers would be wandering around one of the city parks instead of using the trail system.
As for the downtown leg....lets look at its reality. BACKED by stat etc, not opinion. I've yet to see much of anything that has been supported with anything other than "we don't want it and the other side keeps on pushing it to the point that we really don't want it. Gotta have more than that in your arsenal, or this thing has the chance to fly.
I'll bet $1000 to $1.00 that none of you, who claim that Snow Basin is against the idea, have NEVER met Earl Holding or talked with him about business. Remember, he's the guy who guaranteed that he'd pay for the new road to Snow Basin, but by the time it was done, the Feds paid for it. Business, and I mean good business, has a tendancy to go toward the unexpected. That's why guys like Holding have the money and guys like you just dream about it. Secrecy is sucess, and don't believe eveything you hear nad read....maybe it came from the opposition, just to make you put your guard down.
Seems to me that the gondola folks are much better prepared and organized than you "gentel readers," as it's you that keeps stoking the fire, not them. I'm a betting man, and my money is on the gondola, or some form of it, rather than some trail system or golf course that loses money.
But then, that's merely my opinion.
I do wonder, however, where you all get the time to answer nearly EVERY post that someone makes, and with length too.
Neutral:
On the general subject of speedy and frequent replies: I attribute them in my case to the wisdom of a high school guidance counselor who convinced me nearly half a century ago now, against my better judgment as an all-knowing sixteen year old, that the single most valuable course I could take in high school if I intended to go on in education was typing.
And, I bet you passed with the proverbial flying colors, Curm!
Eventually....
New comments are not allowed.