12.06.06 Emerald City Planning Commission Meeting Notes
We just returned a few minutes ago from the Emerald City council chambers, where the Planning Commission held a hearing on the following agenda item:
Continuation of Public Hearing, to amend the Zoning Ordinance concerning creation of Chapter 39 - Mixed Use Zone. (The Ellison Ordinance)
In a nutshell, the commission tabled the matter for further study in a special work session, to be held on January 24, 2007.
We expect to publish our own synopsis/report later tonight, or early tomorrow morning. In the meantime, we're opening this thread for readers who attended this event, and who might have a burning desire to immediately comment on their own observations and impressions.
The floor is open, gentle readers.
Update 12/7/06 8:52 a.m. MT: As promised, your blogmeister links this report, on last night's Planning Commission Mixed Use Ordinance hearing. Please don't hesitate to chime in with your comments or corrections. Dian was under the weather yesteday, BTW, so your blogmeister files this as a reportorially-rusty stand-in.
Update 12/7/06 7:38 p.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner finally makes today's Ace Reporter Schwebke shameless Pro-Godfrey propaganda spin-article available online here.
Gawd save the Standard-Examiner editors and publishers from their unholy alliance with the mayoral "son of perdition. "
Lettuce prey.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
48 comments:
Not burning, Rudi...but I was impressed with this Planning Commission.
They actually seem interested in what each of us had to say. As nearly as I could tell, not one person spoke in favor of Ellison's Ordinance.
It was gratifying to listen to the Commission actually DISCUSS their viewpoints in FRONT of the huddled masses. How often do we see that happening at the City Council meetings?
I also like Chairwoman Blaisdell's welcoming attitude. Asking if anyone had anything to comment on pertaining to added restrooms at the Marshall White Center before 'our' part came up.
It's a relaxed and open atmosphere there. Hard to believe we're in the same chambers as the Council meetings.
The person next to me mentioned that there wasn't a cop in sight. Not only that, but one man said he had lengthy comments and had prepared copies for the members. He then walked up and handed them to the Chair!
If that happens at Council meetings, one can be tossed out by the armed cop!!
Then we went to the excellent JINGLE JAZZ at the Union Station. A huge crowd was there. Most gratifying to see.
The next event is Jan 5th...but a special program and movie will be presented at the Egyptian Theatre on the 16th of December.
The 2007 mayoral election can't come soon enough.
Peaknik...you are succinct!
Steve, do you even live in Ogden City?
Steve:
OK, that clarifies your view nicely. Here's is where we disagree most: I very much support the idea that cities have a responsibility to provide public-owned parks and recreational opportunities which enhance the quality of life for their residents. I would not want to live in a park-less city. Parks, playgrounds, picnic areas and, yes, even softball fields, soccer fields, golf courses and trails are not only appropriate venues for the public to own for the benefit of the whole community, I stand with progressives like Teddy Roosevelt [Republican] in arguing that well-run cities have a responsibility to arrange for parks, playgrounds, picnic areas, just as the nation has a responsibility to preserve for public benefit national forests, national grasslands, national parks etc.
I wonder if your animus to community-owned recreational opportunities extends to opposing the Mayor's proposed downtown to WSU gondola, the major purpose of which will be to deliver customers to Mr. Peterson's as yet un-built private gondola from WSU to the as-yet un-built Malan's Basin resort? [Both UTA and, finally, the Mayor have stated that the downtown gondola is not primarily a transit project.] Just curious....
Are you the same Steve Huntsman whom we loved and respected for your erudition?
If not, get thee hence, you charlatan!
OK, in fairness to the SE, it has the story of last night's planning commission under very large headline on its front page this morning. I just checked the SL Trib's on-line edition, and there is no story. Having earlier thumped the SE here for being twenty-four hours behind the SL Trib regularly on Ogden-breaking news of this sort, thought I should point out that the SE has the story today, the morning following the meeting, and so far as I can see on line, the Trib does not. Points to the SE on this one.
Wish the headline had said the PC "delayed" the MU ordinance instead of saying it "tabled" it. Very often in legislative parlance, "tabled" is a synonym for "killed" --- it is often that in the Utah legislature and in Congress. I suspect some will read the headline and no further and conclude the Ellison Ordinance has been killed rather than delayed for futher scrutiny, consideration and possible revision or replacement. I know, I know, headline writing is tough with very limited space available to summarize the gist of a long article. But still, this one could give some "scan only" readers the wrong impression.
Nevertheless, the SE was first out of the gate on this one.
"Bully" for T.R.!!!
Now, if Teddy were here today, he'd give that little snip Mattie, and his playmate, Pete, a thumping with that big stick he carried for emphasis.
We can all be grateful to Teddy for his legacy of PARKS!!
He might want to thump on S. Huntsman too.
Steve:
You wrote: I do not support rarefied public recreation. “Rarefied” means: “Belonging to or reserved for a small select group”
A local Park or multi-city Trail is not ‘rarefied’ recreation then is it? And it could be finely argued that Parks and Trails promote the general welfare.
Oppositely, a select group required to pay a prohibitively high entrance fee in order to golf on the course, would be classified as rarefied.
The problem is, in the real world of urban life, things don't always shake out this neatly into black and white categories. I lived in a city for years while youth soccer was beginning to take off, and when the Council began considering buying land for soccer fields to accommodate the need, many people went ballistic, saying this would be spending city money for the benefit of a "small group." They also by the way objected to city-owned tennis courts in public parks [fee to play]. When asked, however, why the city should spend added parks money on new softball fields or basketball courts, they replied that "that's different." Well, no, it wasn't.
The point is, what makes city recreational facilities properly public in my view is that they have to be open to all on the same terms, and have to have some minimally established popular base [or likelihood of use] to make them justified. But of necessity, a minority of residents are likely to use any particular recreational venue. People who use the soccer fields may not use the softball diamonds, and people who use the softball fields may never picnic along the river trail, and all of the above may never play tennis on a public court. But the implied "contract" if you like among citizens is this: I will support public recreation facilities generally [including your soccer field or tennis court] because you will generally support public recreation facilities that include my soccer fields and picnic areas. None of us might command a majority using any particular one; we all benefit from the range of parks and fields and courts and trails etc. being there.
You have to use some judgment in selecting public park uses, of course. You take the argument to, I think, absurd lengths in your list of other possibles. Public outdoor skating rinks? Here in the mountain west? Sure. I have no problem with that. Many cities have them, towns too, and they are often popular. Seems a defensible use of public funds to me, even if a small admission is charged for access. But plane trips to the Grand Canyon? Way over the line.
Extreme cases make poor arguments [for or against public policies]. Mostly, governance... good governance... involves making prudent judgments well removed from the extremes on any given issue. [And yes, I understand that you and I and many others would draw that line separating the "extreme" from the prudent in different places.]
As for your final snarky aside about my "knowing about everything," [manifestly not so as evidenced by the number of times at WCF I've had to post an apology for getting something wrong, or I've posted a thank you for someone filling me in on matters about which I was blissfully ignorant] and asking what a curmudgeon is, here's the answer. A curmudgeon is a usually older generally grouchy commenter on any variety of matters, who tends to view the world and people in authority in general, and politicians in particular, with a jaundiced and skeptical eye. Think Andy Rooney or H.L. Mencken. I have a ways to go [I hope] but by the end I hope to have earned the title "curmudgeon." Workin' on it....
Overall, I, too, was impressed with the way the PC handled the issue. And in the end was happy with their decision to table and proceed with further study. It was the right decision. One question I have is, Mixed Use has been around for a lot of years and has been touted by planners for years. Why is this just now on Ogden's radar screen? Of course planners and those involved within the realm of the planning world are going to think that MU is a good idea or at least worth approaching. Mixed Use = Good, Proposed Ordinance = Bad.
And Mr. Huntsman, what are you talking about the PC doing their job to postpone the gondola? The Mixed Use Ordinace is not geared for the Peterson project, right? It's to pertain to potentially any/many projects city-wide. This is a big addition to the General Plan (that the City spent an absurd amount of time and money on), it shouldn't be treated lightly. Also, Peterson is doing a fine job of delaying on his own. Why has he not moved forward with anything concrete? If we moved forward with the Gondola today, where on earth would we put it and where would it go to? Since the gondola is about economic development and not mass transit shouldn't it go somewhere to spur economic development, such as a resort in a mountain (which is light years away from being built). Are you also okay with the disingenuousness and lack of transperency being displayed by the City of Ogden to its residents? To me, the Planning Commission is only city entity bringing up the important issues, at least to some degree.
Yer hogwash.
Steve,
I google-earthed your residence. Seems the things that the people in Ogden on the bench cherish are the same thing you cherish where you live. It would be interesting to see how you would react if someone wanted to do a bunch of mass developing around your house, including turning the roads all around your house into a main transit routes and gating you off from your back yard access to the foothills. Would you be saying, not in my back yard or would you be saying bring it on, I wonder.
Ogden a very long time ago had great mixed use in it's downtown. "Mixed Use" isn't just now coming to Ogden. The Junction (Mall) and 25th Street are "Mixed Use." These 2 examples of "mixed use" applications were approved on a case-by-case basis. The current issue is how "Mixed Use" is going to be codified in the city ordinances.
Okay - if there are successful examples of MU in Ogden that were created before it was codified in city ordinances, why is there a big rush to create an ordinance now?
Shouldn't these types of development happen more organically over time in certain areas of the city that's best suited for them--as is the case w/ downtown and 25th Street.
Why all of sudden create a citywide overlay MU zone? It just doesn't seem right to me. Unless, of course, it is suited to a particular developer who has been jockeying the City over the past year or two.
Clarification:
Rudi's summary of citizen comments [for which thanks, by the way] includes this, attributed to Deb Badger: "The concept of using development agreements as a substitute for prescribed standards is out-dated, according to a recent BYU study." I called Ms. Badger to find out if the study referred to is available on line, or if not, how to access it. Ms. Badger replied that her comments were based not on a published study, but on conversation with a BYU urban planning professor who told her that cities and urban planners had "moved away" from development agreements following the 1990s. Ms. Badger asked that I post this clarification.
I'm curious now, and I'll start hunting down some urban planning faculty at a variety of places to see if there are studies on what is considered "best practice" among urban planners now and what the history of the development agreement model has been and why, apparently, it is no longer considered best practice. If I find out anything substantive, I'll pass it along. [It may take a couple of weeks. Off on a business trip soon.]
I would encourage anyone interested in the "mixed use" issue to take a look at the Development Centers map (pdf, 748 kB) from Ogden's General Plan. The map shows a number of areas where mixed use development, of varying intensities, would be desirable. The text of the General Plan (Chapter 8) also identifies several specific strategies to use in achieving this goal. Among these strategies is the creation of two new overlay zones, one for urban mixed use districts and another for smaller neighborhood villages.
It's ironic that the city did nothing toward creating these new overlay zones for four years. Then Peterson and Ellison came along and asked for a new zone to accommodate their proposal, and the city got something to the Planning Commission within three months. It's even more ironic that the administration is trying to claim that the zone to accommodate Peterson is really intended for urban mixed use areas.
Ideally, the Planning Commission would simply reject the Ellison ordinance and direct the planning staff to create the two overlay zones called for in the General Plan. Instead, it looks like they're headed toward some sort of hybrid or compromise--but I have no idea what it might end up looking like.
Junebug, I totally agree with your phrase about developments happening "more organically over time." Could not agree more. They should.
I am really taken aback by Mr. Montgomery's statement in the attached Rudi-report:
...He elaborately denied that the "model ordinance" provided by Mr. Ellison was necessarily Peterson "project specific," contending instead that Mr. Ellison's submitted ordinance had been modified by Planning Department staff and the city legal staff...
Mr. Peterson would not hire Mr. Ellison for the sole purpose of altruistically coming up here to help us out with our code, for heaven's sake. If Mr. Montgomery wishes to split hairs in this manner and state that the larger proposed ordinance is not project-specific, there is still a big problem there because of whom Mr. Ellison is working for.
Of course Ellison would attempt to get everything his client (Peterson,) personally needed in that "blanket ordinance." Goes without saying. Would he walk in there with a proposed ordinance that would Not be favorable to his own client? The oddity is that the City would now try to back away from it.
I was going to call this collaboration between Ms. Lockwood and Mr. Ellison "collusion," but upon ascertaining the definition of that word, which includes, "for a fraudulent or illegal purpose," and also mentions that this practice is illegal in the US and Canada, I wouldn't want to go that far, because I don't think that is what this is at all.
Rather, I will retreat to the vernacular and state it this way:
Mr. Ellison is on the payroll of Mr. Peterson. Ms. Lockwood, Mr. Montgomery, et al, are on the payroll of Ogden City. That exchange of money indicates in whose interests these parties are, or, perhaps rather "should be" working. As such, since all hammering out of agreements is based upon somewhat of a conflict model--that is, we have our representative working in our interests at those meetings and Peterson has his. I view any collaboration between "our people" and "their people" at least during the initial drafting stages, as being improper, to say the least.
To "our people," it shouldn't matter a hill of beans what the other side wants during the initial stages of crafting an ordinance. What matters is what we, the people of Ogden City, who will be saddled with whatever they come up with, want.
Have "our people" even told their people what we want, one wonders? That did come through in some of the comments from the members of the public last night---we want conformance to established standards.
As in---It has been proven that houses are sliding off mountains all over Weber County. Therefore, we wish to establish standards for building and/or non-building in those areas, and hold you to conformance with them. Things like that.
But since "our people" have been inculcated with the idea that all agreements can be conducted on a basis of harmony and mutual benefit, (for exception, see "Good Landlord Program, in which landlord makes tenants conform to certain standards and conditions in order to rent,) we have now come to the not so pretty pass of allowing "their people" input into the crafting of our city ordinances. And this should not be.
Part of what has contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs is, of course, the perception that "Ogden City" equals the Mayor of Ogden City and what he wants. The Mayor of Ogden City could of course fire Mr. Montgomery and/or Ms. Lockwood, and no doubt this fact is sometimes in the forefront of their minds. However, under our Constitution, government does not function under the will of the Mayor, but "of the people." That's us--all those "members of the public" who proactively voice their wishes to those they have elected to represent them.
They must all think we're really something up here. I envision a group of land developers out to lunch, and conversation turning to this:
"Yes. Ogden City's letting Peterson's attorney rewrite their laws for them."
Wherupon, eyes roll, napkins are flung, cups and glasses slammed down, because this way of working is really a land developer's dream.
Not ours.
And those developer's slam down enuf money to cover their lunches as they rush out the door, into their cars, and see what land THEY can 'wrest' from Ogdenites....bringing their attorneys with them!
Since when did we ever think we the 'public' have a say in our own governance? ISN'T "Ogden City and Mayor" one and the same? That's what Matt thinks and says.
For toooooo long, we've let the Emporer prance around nekkid while we ooh and ahh over his.....uh....'fabulous wardrobe'.
Enuf already.
It is past time for this Council to undo the damage of the former Council and take back its authority which was handed over to Godfrey without a shot being fired.
This isn't about MU zoning, but it is about Godfrey's attempts to manipulate and indulge his ego in unethical behavior.
Therefore I ask: What is going on with Officer Matt Jones??
I wish 'Humble Public Servant' and 'Public Servant' would chime in here and tell us what they KNOW.
Thanx
Well, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. "Developer" is not necessarily a pejorative term. There are responsible developers and builders and there are irresponsible ones. [Which statement can be made about every job or profession I can think of.] There are good development plans for Ogden and there are poor ones. And people who own property which they bought zoned one way have a right --- yes, a right --- to develop it consistent with the existing zoning and all relevent city ordinances. And they have a right --- yes, a right --- to petition for a change in zoning, or a variance. They don't have, necessarily, a right to have the petition acted on favorably.
It would not be wise, I think, to frame this discussion over whether the Ellison Ordinance is a good one for Ogden, all things considered, as a "pro-developer" vs. "anti-developer" debate. If the Ellison Ordinance is a bad idea for Ogden --- and I think it is a very bad idea --- it is so regardless of whether it serves the interests of Mr. Peterson's long-promised and still undelivered "proposal" or not.
That the Ellison Ordinance will serve the needs of Mr. Peterson is not in and of itself a reason to reject it. That it will serve Mr. Peterson's interests but not serve Ogden as an effective generator of the kind of multiple-use projects envisioned in the general plan is about the most compelling argument against it I can think of.
So the task, then, is to demonstrate to the Planning Commissioners as they look at the Ellison Ordinance again, that it will not do what they want a multiple use ordinance to do in and for Ogden, and to come up with a better drawn, better designed MU ordinance --- prefereably modeled on a MU ordinance that has succeeded in another mid-sized city.
Just ran into Ann Milner at the Municipal Building. Chris Peterson is in town today too.
Go figure.
Ann must have got a Garmin GPS as an early Christmas gift.
How'd she find downtown?
"It would not be wise, I think, to frame this discussion over whether the Ellison Ordinance is a good one for Ogden, all things considered, as a "pro-developer" vs. "anti-developer" debate."
So how else would you "frame it?"
Here's what we know:
*Chris Peterson appeared in the council chambers in June, asking the City Council to show "good faith."
*A month later Peterson's mouthpiece appeared before the counci asking the same, and recommending that the city get to work amending zoning oridances."
*the same day he sent a letter, summarizing his client's demands.
"A month later, the moron attorney Lockwood reeceives the ordinace Ellison hinted about a month before."
*Next, the Ogden malpractice per se Ogden attorney dipshit Lockwood "modifies" the "developer's document" to "coordinate" with existing ordinances, and plays the editorial nanny, converting prepositional phrases and correcting commas, etc..
Yet she doesn't even examine the substance of the ordinance, in spit of the cosmetic verbiage that she added.
Don't be a pussy, Curmudgeon!
The battle is between well-financed developers and the citizens here!
Recognize that the entire Ogden City staff are working against the citizens' interests, and creating a scenario where Peterson can argue under "impied contract" or "detrimental reliance"principles that the city is already committed to a devolopment concept.
In a circumstance where Ogden citizens should be rioting, and throwing grenades...
Curmudgeon still remain in his ivory tower.
"Be nice," the pantywaist activist Curmudgeon says.
Totally Hilarious.
Curmudgeon is like many of the the other smartgrowth pantywaists who don't yet recognize that they're at war with a sociopathic elected official with bulldog passion.
These dolts believe the system still "works," and that the battle can be won merely with rational debate.
Sad, so very sad.
-Marko
My question is---do we, the city development department, and the planning commission, not know our own minds?
If the city has indeed, as is being said, been looking at crafting such an ordinance for the past couple of years, wouldn't you think we would have at least some rough notes on that that we could have brought to the table at the inception of this?
Rather than having to use Ellison's as a blueprint?
I am starting to look at this the way Marko does.
However, Curmudgeon, I was not aware that I, for one, was framing any argument in a "pro-developer/anti-developer debate." The argument I meant to be making is that whenever there are two parties involved in framing an agreement, each should have fair and adequate representation. Not saying at all that one side is "good" or the other "bad," just that there are two of them, and therefore that collaboration between the reps of those two sides, especially when it involves, as it has here, the possible dominance of one at the possible expense of the other, is not done.
Very bad form, I think.
Dian and Marko:
Dian: you weren't framing it that way, but I thought Sharon was.
I thought, and think, it would be a mistake to look at this, and frame the discussion primarily around the extent to which the Ellison Ordinance serves the interests of Mr. Peterson. Of course it does. That's Mr. Ellison's job, to advance his client's interests. I no of know one [whose employment does not depend on pleasing the mayor] who truly believes that the Ellison Ordinance was suggested to the City Planning Staff out of the blue, purely by coincidence. And of course the source of the Ellison Ordinance raises questions, serious ones, about whether it was designed to serve the interests of Ogden in general [it wasn't] or the interests of Mr. Peterson and his sock-puppet in office, Mayor Godfrey [it was].
However, what I'm interested in here is not making debating points against the Mayor or Mr. Peterson. What I'm interersted in is getting Ogden a well-crafted, well-thought out Multiple Use zoning ordinance, preferably based on ordinances that have worked well elsewhere. Harping on Mr. Peterson's ill-advised landgrab involving Mt. Ogden parklands will not achieve that. We all know that was the motive behind the Ellison Ordinance. The question is, now what? What next?
And it seems evident from their statements Wednesday night that the majority of the planning commissioners think Ogden needs a new MU zoning ordinance. To be effective, then, we need to convince them that the Ellison Ordinance on its merits or lack thereof is not a good idea, and offer the members an alternate ordinance that is designed to foster the kind of MU the general plan envisions. "It's no good because it comes from Mr. Peterson's attorney" will not do that. The PC members clearly wanted, I think, proposals hashed out on their merits, not on the basis of who proposed them. If I were on the PC, I'd have, I think, the same attitude.
If Marko wants to take the tack with the PC that all developers are bad, and no development is the path Ogden should follow, he's free to do so. But if the debate does get framed that way, we've lost. Markos can pound his chest and hurl epithets at Mr. Peterson and Ellison 'til the cows come home. That won't, it seems to me, cut much ice with the PC members who want to know if the Ellison Ordinance is a good idea, and if not why not ["Because its author works for Chris Peterson" they will not find a convincing argument.] They'll want to know if people offer alternatives why those alternatives are superior to the Ellison Ordinance ["Because they don't come from Chris Peterson" they will not find a convincing argument.]
Finally, Markos [and others] like to claim they speak "for the citizens." Hell, everybody who lobbies the PC or the Council claims they represent the will of the people. The mayor claims that too, and he has the advantage of pointing out that the voters put him in office. In fact, nobody knows what "the people" think about this particular question. Nobody has asked them yet. Like it or not, just now, the next level of decision-making lies not with "the people," but with the Planning Commission. Which, to its credit I think, is taking concerns expressed by many citizens about the Ellison Ordinance seriously. They are going to look at it again. But the decision making power at this stage is in their hands. There is not going to be a referendum on the Ellison Ordinance before the PC takes it up again in January.
If we are going to "win" this, it will take convincing the PC that Ellison Ordinance is not a good idea regardless of who proposed it. That if SGO had come to the PC touting it, it would still be a bad idea. And it will take convincing the PC members that an alternative ordinance is a better one regardless of who proposed it. If Mayor Godfrey proposed it, it would still be a good idea.
The problem here is that the City Planning Staff, which should have spent the last three years comparing existing MU ordinances in mid-sized cities around the country, looking for ones that worked well, in order to create the MU zones envisioned in the Ogden General plan [as Dan S. pointed out], did not do that. Apparently little happened until the Mayor decided to make the Planning Office a subsidiary of Lift Ogden and Peterson Enterprises, which brought Mr. Ellison into the picture. We all know this. [If anyone truly does not believe this, I have just acquired exclusive title to the bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for a very reasonable price....]
But what the PC wants to know is whether the Ellison Ordinance is a good idea, if not why not, and if not, can it be ameneded in such a way as to make it a good ordinance, or should it be replaced with an ordinance that is, on its merites, superior? And none of that can be achieved by simply intoning over and over "the Ellison Ordinance helps Chris Peterson." None of it.
Oh Curm, Curm, Curm...
I was just having a little fun about the land deavelopers Dian envisioned at lunch flinging down their napkins, rolling their eyes as they envision the opportunities awaiting eager land developers who might be rushing to Ogden!
Lighten up, Curmudgeon
SE Trolley Article
Amdist all the attention on the PC meeting and the Ellison Ordinance, WC Forum seems to have overlooked an interesting, and important, front page article a few days ago on how street car systems have proven effective as business generators to revive downtown areas of other cities... street car lines very similar to the one the Wasatch Front Regional Council identified as the preferred transit solution for the downtown to WSU and McKay Dee Hospital corridor. [The article can be found here.]
One section in particular caught my attention and I'd had to see it missed in all the discussion over the PC meeting. Here it is: " Trolleys offer a cool way to travel and can play a major role in economic revitalization, said Kay Dannen, director of community relations for the Portland Streetcar Co. For example, since 1997 about $2.3 billion in commercial and residential development has occurred within two blocks of Portland’s streetcar line, Dannen said. “It’s amazing what has happened,” she said. "
Kind of interesting, que no?
Sharon:
If I misrad your post, sorry. But LO and the Mayor have been trying to characterize all opposition to the gondola/gondola parkland speculation scheme as coming from people who oppose development in Ogden, who are anti-growth of any kind, who "say no to everything." And I think we need to counter that suggestion, swiftly, wherever it arises. If it lead me to misread your post, my apologies.
No, no no Curmudgeon. We hadn't overlooked this at all. We'd planned to link and discuss it in a main article, once the hot-fire MU ordinance brou-haha had died down.
Once again, one of our gentle readers jumps the gun on an upcoming discussion.
No surpirses are allowed here at Weber County Forum thanks to our able, attentive and impatient readers, heheh.
"And I think we need to counter that suggestion..."
Indeed, Curmudgeon. I attended a board of directors meeting today, with a company that operates out of Salt Lake City.
One of the board members expressed the standard misconception that political activists in Ogden are opposed "to evertything."
I set the guy straight with a few examples. He clearly didn't understand the issues.
The worst possible thing for any of us to do is to "buy into" this ridiculous "naysayer" bullcrap meme.
It's persistent, ubiquitous and wrong-headed.
And the worst possible result for those of us who are educated on the local issues is to fall into that trap, and to start flailung away at each other.
Righto....I KNOW that the mayor and his legion of minions have characterized me that way for a couple years now. Also, really off the wall quotes are attributed to me. Filiaga (English prof., I am quite shure) used to misquote and insult me on a regular basis, followed by hizzoner from his too big chair!
It was all so predictable. Rudi is right. That label of 'negativity' has been stuck onto us from the first opposition to the rec center BONDING!
It means nothing, unless we start to believe it. Many who speak out at meetings and HERE have given wonderfully 'progressive', pro business, pro Ogden suggestions...but they fall on deaf (by choice) ears. Ever look into the eyes of most of the Council members? A dead zone, for sure.
Curm...I don't think that all 'developers' are bad guys out to grab our prime lands. I was having a little fun....and we need to keep our senses of humor.
We're all on the same side here. Welllll, most of us are!
gonna hit the feathers. G'nite.
Rudi:
You wrote: "And the worst possible result for those of us who are educated on the local issues is to fall into that trap, and to start flailung away at each other."
True in general, but, on the other hand, folks on the same side of any public issue are not going to agree about everything. [They may disagree for example about the most effective tactics to acheive their common goal.] Nothing wrong with exploring the differnces, having to defend your own ideas against the arguments of those who think differntly, especially when you all share a common goal.
Generally, it strenghtens arguments to do that, I've found. And folks can, and often on WCF do, agree to disagree about this point or that, while still keeping their collective eyes on the prize. Arguments are like old-timey razors: they get sharper when you take them out and strop them now and then.
Dear Mr. Huntsman:
Are you any relation to our governor? In any event, since you say that the French Economist Bastiat should be the gold standard of how we should make decisions, let me address your comments one at a time, and leave Curmudgeon time for his more statesmanlike pronouncements.
Hmmm, where to start? How about this one?
However, I’m still of the opinion that a municipality has no authority to providing rarefied recreation, like a golf course or a sports park. Some Public Lands, unjustly exacted from a people should be returned to private ownership and the proceeds and operational costs also returned to the people. So I support selling the land in this case.
Since when was golf at Mount Ogden rarified recreation? I think you just haven't ever broken an 80 and are bitter. Ogden Country Club -- now that is rarified. If you have ever ventured out of North Ogden to visit your city's namesake to the South and walked along the trails, you would realize that the golf course and the trails (which were OK for you) happen to be intertwined. In fact, gasp, some of the trails also double as golf cart paths. Oh, and I've never had to pay to run along those cart paths.
While we are on the subject of rarified, you should know that Mount Ogden Golf Course, at least as recently as 2002 had the lowest green fees of all 25 public golf courses in the state, with the exception of the Roosevelt Golf Course. Have you been to Roosevelt? I think they have to pay people just to come to the city, let alone golf. I also have it on pretty fair authority that you can get two for one coupons for green fees in the Happenings Book. Can anything with coupons be "rarified?" No coupons for BMWs and Rolexes.
Second, how about this one?
Thank’s to our lawmen who penned in U.C.A. 10-9a-102 “The purpose….is to promote the prosperity……and aesthetics of each municipality….” This is hogwash!
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Do you not want the state legislature to allow individual municipalities to govern their own land? This is the purpose of Utah Code 10a-9-101 et.al.. If this is hogwash, what did you you want them to draft: Municipalities should have no control over the land? or maybe, Anarchy should reign supreme? Or is this some kind of obscure reference to Dian's hog farm allegory? I'm just confused. Oh, and UCA 10a-9-102 says in there amongst all your ellipses that another purpose is to protect open space. Ever been to Manhattan? Central Park makes that city visitable. The terrain made development not feasible and after three years of haggling in 1853, Central Park was formed. Again, having traversed the aforementioned Mount Ogden Golf Course and Trails, the terrain is what one might consider less than ideal for development and marvelously enough, very ideal for open space. The facts are always the most difficult part of any argument aren't they?
Third, and maybe my favorite. If you can't dazzle them with your own brilliance, refer to dead French economists and revolutionaries. The Bastiat quote is a rehash of a dead Greek guy by the name of Aristotle who was fond of using a form of argument known to most logicians by its Latin term, reductio ad absurdum, or reduced to the absurd. If properly set up, an argument based on reductio ad absurdum would be correct. The rub is in properly structuring the argument. As you may have noted earlier, I showed the absurdity of your argument on selling the golf course by simply showing that the trails which you acknowledged as a valid use of city resources and the golf course were factually one and the same. I didn't even have to reduce. As Bastiat might have said, that was a damn short path to inconsistency.
Or more colloquially, You can't have your parks and trail cake and eat it too. Wasn't there something about cake eating in the French Revolution?
Finally, and Steve, you can relax now, this isn't about your stuff -- something has been really irritating me about the argument that the Urban Gondola is going to be privately funded (by the sale of city property.) Last I checked, real property was an asset. If I sell off an asset, like my house, to raise money for a trip to Venice to see a real gondola or just gamble at the Venetian with fake indoor gondolas in Vegas, then I'm paying for the gondola trip, not the buyer of my house. Argghhhhhhhh. Fortunately, I had a good year this year and could fund the gondola myself and buy Steve a year long pass at Mount Ogden -- if I wanted to.
Yours Truly,
Tiger Woods
Sharon,
No doubt, the best way to counter the negativity label put on you is to come back with suggestions, alternatives, and proposals of your own.
Why don't you list out some specific economic proposals you are referring to for Ogden? Display the financials of your investors/developers and show how these proposals would benefit the city and the individual residents.
There seems to be some concern here about “us fighting among ourselves.” I would offer that fighting is something that men like to do and I for one think a certain amount of it is healthy. Often after the fighting is over the protagonists have a renewed sense of appreciation for each other, particularly if the parties are gentlemen. (As far as women fighting I can’t speak to that.)
There is something I’ve found that I think we should be aware of. City code 4-3A-5 if I read it correctly allows the Mayor to sell Mt. Ogden Golf Course upon:
Determination by the Planning Commission that the sale complies with the General Plan,
Public notice to the City Council,
Determination by the Director of Public Works that the particular sale represents the “highest and best economic return to the city”.
Note that the City Council does not have to approve the sale, nor does the sale have to be to the highest bidder. But it DOES have to comply with the General Plan. Note that the Planning Commission is currently re-writing the General Plan.
This may account for why the Mayor has said that what the Council says or wants regarding the Peterson issue “doesn’t matter.” It appears he is correct.
We need to change this code to require Council approval for sales of significant public property. It seems like a big issue to me.
Danny:
Two points:
(a)on fighting [aka arguing, discussing] -- if you think women aren't fully armed and ready to engage, you evidently haven't taken part in many faculty meetings.
(b) on the sale of public property provisions: I'm not an atty or expert on Utah municipal codes, and I've heard the point argued in other ways than yours. But I would point out that the City Council would have to approve any change in the zoning for the land [from open space to residential development] without which purchase would not be worth much to the purchaser. [Note: feel free to substitute "Mr. Peterson" for "purchaser" in the above sentence.]
How the adoption of development-agreements as part of a new multi-use ordinance might affect that, however, is unclear. If the developer and the city signed a development agreement that included a redesignation of the property as residential property, and the PC okayed that, would the Council still have the authority to reject the development agreement [under the Ellison Ordinance or some variation of it]? I don't know the answer to that either, but it has me concerned.
You're right, Danny. The previous city council delegated nearly absolute authority for the disposition of Emerald City-owned property to Boss Godfrey. The sole remaining council power with respect to such transactions is to reject transactions lacking adequate consideration.
We link in that connection an annotated version of Ogden City Code section 4-3A-5, which contains our own analysis of this provision:
4-3A-5 Conveyance of Real Property (w/ Legal Analysis)
We agree entirely with your conclusions, and have privately urged several council members to take action to correct this problem.
Gee, looks like we need some clarifications here...
Development agreements are city ordinances, so they require City Council approval.
General plan amendments and zoning changes are also legislative actions of the Council.
I'm not even a little bit worried that the Mt. Ogden Park land will be sold without the Council having a say in the matter. There is, however, some danger that the Council might be tricked into taking a "first step" that could make it very hard (in the threat of lawsuits) to turn back and deny the sale later on.
This leads to the question of where the Council is getting its legal advice. Unfortunately, the city attorney reports to the mayor. (The personal attacks on Ms. Lockwood in this thread are entirely off-target. Her job is limited in scope and she's done that job quite professionally. The problem is not Ms. Lockwood, but who she works for.) The Council has retained an independent attorney, but I'm getting the impression that they don't talk to him directly--everything gets filtered through Lockwood or Cook. I could be wrong about this.
Getting back to mixed use, again I urge everyone to read the relevant sections of Ogden's general plan (links in my earlier post above). Many citizens had input into the General Plan, and it was adopted by the Council. It carries far more legitimacy, in terms of representing the peoples' wishes, than the opinion of any individual--even the mayor. Unfortunately, the mayor doesn't seem to recognize this. He should be taken to task for ignoring much of what the general plan says, and for promoting projects that are inconsistent with it.
Dan S.-
Thanks for providing links to the General Plan, they are or at least should be a very important guide to everything that is going on here.
Dan,
I believe you are specifically correct, but generally wrong.
What the plan is, is to change the General Plan and install the new zoning we saw this week, both under the guise of community development and downtown.
There will then be enough wiggle room in the documents for Godfrey to sell the golf course, with the approval of the Planning Commission and his Director of Public Works, with relatively little chance of a lawsuit reversing it.
The only force the General Plan has is in the interpretation. My guess is a judge would be very hesitant to take a different interpretation of the General Plan than did an elected official like the mayor.
It all makes sense, and it makes Godfrey look like he’s been planning this for awhile, quite cleverly I would say. If true, we must
Stop or alter the proposed new “mixed use” zone,
Watch the General Plan amendments carefully,
Encourage our Council to require by law their approval for all land sales.
Otherwise Godfrey’s last act as Mayor will be to sell the golf course and go to work for Peterson. I really gotta give the boy credit for some smarts.
Nice analysis, Danny.
And if we're going to err, (which is what Dan S. seems to be suggesting we are doing,) prudence dictates that we would err on the side of caution.
The City Council must act as soon as possible to restore its approval power for significant real estate transactions. General principles of good government would demand restoral of council approval power, even in the absense of the Mt. Ogden Landgrab complication.
Dan S:
OK, now I am confused. [A not uncommon condition for me, in Mrs. Curmudgeon's oft-expressed opinion.] You wrote: "Development agreements are city ordinances, so they require City Council approval."
Could you explain that a little more fully? I thought the development agreement was something worked out between a prospective developer and the city Planning Staff [hence as well the Mayor], and was signed at the those parties came to an agreement on the plan. Then the signed development agreement goes to the Planning Commission for approval. Clearly, at that point, it is not yet an ordinance. It would then go from the PC to the City Council, but if, as you say, by that point the developer may be able to argue that the city is already committed, and can not subsequently reject the agreement [in the Council], it seems the agreement will have acquired some considerable legal force prior to Council approval and hence, before it became an ordinance.
So, calling the development agreement signed by the developer and the Planning Staff/Mayor an "ordinance" has me a little puzzled. Surely it's not that before the Council approves it, but if the Council in fact cannot disapprove it because the agreement already is, somehow, legally enforceable, it certainly would have the characteristics of an ordinance... but without having been passed by the Council?
As Alice used to say from the wrong side of the looking glass, "curiouser and curiouser."
I wonder if I might impose . . .
I recall very well the Planning Commission members and their personalities as they sat around the dais this week. But except for a couple of them, I don't know which name goes with which.
Can one of you name them from left to right so I can put the right name with the right face? I would like to help one or more of them by finding some alternatives to the Ellison document for them to consider. But I plan to focus on the more public-minded ones (in my estimation.)
Thanks.
Glad to oblige, Danny.
At Wednesday night's commission session (left to right):
Herman, Holman, Atencio, Hyer, Blaisdell, Wright, Maw, Schade, Hueton
You're a prince, Rudi.
danny and rudi:
By all means, let's be vigilant. But at this time I'm not aware of any proposed general plan amendments that are relevant to the Peterson proposal.
curm:
Undoubtedly, if/when it finally comes time for the Council to vote on the Peterson development agreement (or any other, for that matter), the mayor and the developer will try to tell the Council that they have no choice, the city is already legally and/or financially obligated in some way. But development agreements are not in effect until they are adopted as ordinances by the Council. I don't know when they actually get signed, but nobody representing the city would have the authority to sign one before the Council has approved it. You're right, though, that the negotiation is handled by the planning staff, who work for the mayor. There's no mechanism for the Council to get involved until the last stage, when it would normally be presented to them in a "take it or leave it" fashion.
Here is something that looks more like a multiple use ordinance to me.
Model Ordinance
I would like to talk this with some of the PC members, but not before I get a sense of what others think about it. To me, this is what they are looking for, not the Ellison document they are working from.
a[i]f/when it finally comes time for the Council to vote on the Peterson development agreement (or any other, for that matter), the mayor and the developer will try to tell the Council that they have no choice, the city is already legally and/or financially obligated in some way. But development agreements are not in effect until they are adopted as ordinances by the Council."
I'm astounded at your confidence in this, Dan S.
Danny is entirely correct. Any act in cooperation with Peterson, or his attorneys, prior to the actual presentation of a firm proposal, could be contrued in a court of law as acts evidencing contractual intent -- i.e., a defacto agreemnt.
And we don't know anything about promises that may have been offered by "The King of the Emerald City Republik."
We're sure that "Mad Matt" has made many "informal" wild misrepresentations, and offered many "official" wild assurances and inducements to Peterson and his attorney.
And he's done this in a context where BOSS Godfrey has near-complete authority to bind the city withhis own bizarre intentions.
Dan S.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not being an atty, I don't know if this would be possible or prudent, but seems to me if there is a question, however slight, that agreement between the Mayor and a developer might be considered binding prior to Council ratification, that if I were on the Council, I would want to inform the developer, in writing and post haste upon learning that an agreement had been reached and forwarded to the PC, that the agreement is not binding upon the city unless and until the Council adopts it. Seems to me anything the developer did subsequent to that notice [in the event the Council did not ultimately adopt the agreement] would not be the city's responsibility. Or should not be.
But who knows? As O.W. Holmes once informed a young attorney, "This is not a court of justice, young man. It is a court of law."
Dear Gentlemen and Ladies,
I, too, keep urging the CC to take back its rightful authority HANDED over to the mayor!
If not, you'll have to go to Roosevelt for inexpensive green fees.
PS Recent anon...are you 'othersider' hiding again?????
New comments are not allowed.