As we enter the weekend, we submit three print media articles for our readers' attention, as another weekend kick-off potpourri:
First, the absence of a palpable Peterson Plan is again strange Standard-Examiner front page news this morning, with an Amy Stewart headline piece, reporting that key local government decision makers still remain entirely outside the Peterson information loop.
Members of the Emerald City Council and Weber State University officials reportedly met in semi-annual joint session last Thursday to compare notes on the Peterson Land-grab. Unfortunately the information available to share in connection with the Landgrab Scheme amounts to exactly zero, zilch, zip & nada.
All the council has gotten from Chris Peterson so far is dead silence, says Councilwoman Wicks. And the council's carefully-compiled 184 council questions remain entirely ignored. WSU officials stand in a very similar position, of course.
Lacking anything substantive to talk about on the subject, WSU and Emerald City officials apparently reverted to a discussion of comparative bureaucratic plans and procedures to review the Peterson Proposal -- should such a proposal ever arrive at all.
We would consider the current state of affairs nothing more than antic comedy, were it not occurring right here in our beloved home town. Unfortunately, we find it difficult to laugh. The stakes are too high to work up much mirth. And it's discouraging to observe our conscientious public officials being compelled to run around in circles, as they faithfully perform the obligations of their public offices. On top of that, Peterson's secretive and uncommunicative behavior has been quite disgraceful, we think.
It's difficult to imagine the current mind-set of our official decision-makers concerning this topic at this juncture. They have a myriad of factors to consider. Still we think it's fair to speculate about what must be running through their minds at this point in the Peterson melodrama. Surely they must be coming to some conclusions, and drawing common-sense inferences about Mr. Peterson's aptitude for following through with his grand-scale project. And in this connection we think it's possible to consider what we'd be thinking, if we were standing in their shoes. If we were the official decision-makers what conclusions would we be drawing -- so far -- about Mr. Peterson's competence, capacity -- and character?
Our conclusions so far are not at all favorable. In our view Mr. Peterson has demonstrated a continuing pattern of aloofness, inattention, secrecy, duplicity and lack of follow-through. His inability to meet deadlines is demonstrably consistent. We think his continuing failure or refusal to keep our city council and WSU officials informed of his progress, if any, demonstrates discourtesy, at the very least, and outright disrespect, in a less-generous-case scenario.
Our official decision-makers ought to be reaching these same conclusions, we would logically speculate. They're only human, afterall.
And what think our gentle readers? Even assuming for sake of argument that Mr. Peterson has the financial capacity to pull off this project, is Chris Peterson the guy you would choose to ram-rod such a grandiose project? Would he be a tolerable public-private "partner?" Is it reasonable to expect that Mr. Peterson's performance, once he's in the developer driver's seat, would be any different from the level of performance he's demonstrated during the 1-1/2 years he's been in the Emerald City spotlight? So many questions -- so few answers.
Secondly, we move to the first page a link provided yesterday in a lower comments section by gentle reader Curmudgeon. The Standard-Examiner printed a fine article earlier this week, dealing with the topic of street cars and trolleys. We invite reader comments on this article.
Finally, we bring to the forefront a December 1, 2006 Std-Ex guest editorial, relevant to the Parklands Land-grab scheme. We find this article to have been particularly significant, in that it comes from a member of the locally-prominent Goddard family. Susie Goddard Hulet is of course the daughter of Jack Goddard, a well-known local real estate developer and financier. We've been keeping this article on the back burner, and have now decided to throw it out for discussion.
Don't let the cat get yer tongues...
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
33 comments:
So...who's COMPELLING the Council and WSU to do ANYthing about Peterson?
There is nothing about the Peterson/Godfrey/Ellison Ordinance vision to DO anything about!
I urge everyone in leadership positions in this city to just get on with the important business of taking care of our town's needs.
I will say again that Ogden, thanx to Godfrey's UNleadership, is a laughing stock in any circles where his unethical antics are discussed.
And, that goes for out-of staters also.
Peterson has not shown us anything but bad character. Therefore, ignore him, Godfrey and Ellison. By that, I mean, keep any action by the PC, the CC and WSU delayed til the proverbial cows, or Dian's hogs, come home!
There's a rumor going around that one of Godfrey's cool and sexy A team got caught downloading porn to his desktop computer, and that he has two sexual harrassment complaints pending in his own department.
Coincidentally, Dean Martinez, the Ogden City Human Resources Director, got fired last week by Mayor Godfrey, when Martinez blew the lid on this whole problem, and refused to go along with an official coverup.
Watch for Kristen Moulton's Salt Lake Tribune story tomorrow.
Couldn't the entire Peterson/Ellison/golfcourse/urban gondola fiasco be short circuited by the City Council's enacting a statute stating that municipal parks and open space (including the golf course) belong to the people of the City in perpetuity; ie, can never be sold to any private individual or corporation.
If we truly treasure our open space, maybe the time has come to stop being reactive and start fighting aggressively to keep it.
Ogden:
A subsequent Council could pass an ordinance repealing the first ordinance. Generally, existing legislative bodies cannot, by legislation, bind the actions of future ones. The option of repeal is always there.
In response to Stewart's article in the Standard-Examiner, I can provide a bit more information on Peterson's refusal to answer questions at this time.
Along with the other documents provided by the city in response to my recent GRAMA request, I received a copy of a three-page letter from Tom Ellison to Bill Cook, dated November 6. The letter is Ellison's response to a draft of the process resolution that the Council considered (and tabled) on November 14. Here's a particularly interesting paragraph from the letter:
As Chris develops his plans, he will certain [sic] need to be engaged in a private conversations [sic] with stakeholders in refining those plans, but it is our intention to do so in a manner that attempts to minimize public noise while obtaining critical information. We would like to hold open the possibility of obtaining early input from City officials as well, but not in the context that would trigger a public meeting. The City Council will know when it is entering into the public approval phase of the Chris Peterson's [sic] specific projects when one of the following occurs: A) Chris Peterson files an application for project approvals, rezoning, zoning ordinance and general plan revisions and any other actions required to approve his specific projects, B) Chris Peterson commences any pre-application process required by any applicable ordinance as a precondition to an essential application, or C) Chris Peterson sponsors one or more public open houses or presentations to announce and familiarize the public with his revised proposals. Until that time, we believe it would be premature and unproductive to require him to respond to any specific information requests except those that may directly bear on a pending ordinance or general plan change of general applicability.
In other words, Ellison and Peterson have made a strategic decision to keep things as quiet as possible for now, and they have no intention of answering any of the Council's questions any time soon.
The letter goes on to request several specific changes to the draft resolution. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the draft to which the letter refers. I'll follow-up with the city and try to get it.
"....except those that may directly bear on a pending ordinance or 'genetal plan change ' of general apllicability".
Uh huh. 'I no speakee English...but want ever't'ing I can get from you!"
Is THAT why Peterson and Milner were in the Municipal Bldg together?
How disingenuous of this trio. Demand all and give nothing.
Curm...pls further explain your answer to Ogdenlover, re: the CC not being able to declare the parklands belonging to us in perpetuity?
Thanx.
Oh My, it looks as though we have another attempt to sweep dirt under rug in City hall this bright and beautiful morning.
Sharon:
It's a general principle that applies to most elected legislative bodies. They represent by means of election, the will of the people during the term for which they are elected. And no longer. Thus, no past legislature can permanently bind the choices of a subsequent legislature, since that would mean the will of the people in the future would be bound irrevocably by legislatures whose terms had expired. Hence, every legislature has the power to repeal any law or ordinance passed by a previous legislature. If the City Council tomorrow passed an Ordinance declaring Mt. Ogden Park to be now, henceforth and forever a golf course, the Council next year could pass an ordinance repealing it.
This goes, by the way, for constitutions as well. Congress could send to the states, if it wished, a constitutional amendment repealling the Second Amendment, or the First, or both, and if the states ratified the amendments, the first and second amendments would cease to provide any protection for free speech, press, right to bear arms etc. ANY portion of the Constitution can be amended out. [That's how prohibition was removed from it.] There is no limit to the amendment power of Congress, and similarly, there is no limit to the ability of any Council to repeal the actions of a previous Council. [E.g. I note you and several others are urging the Council to repeal the previous Council's ceding of property sale authority to the mayor.]
Anon:
You wrote: Oh My, it looks as though we have another attempt to sweep dirt under rug in City hall this bright and beautiful morning.
Well, we'll have to see. Both sides have lawyered up, both sides contest the claims of the other. Other than the general allegations and denials reported inthe SLTrib and the SE this morning, we don't know much. A little premature to be claiming "cover up" just yet. However frustrating it may be, we're just going to have to be patient and see how it plays out.
Curm:
I think you slightly over-state the inability of legislative bodies to tie the hands of future legislative bodies. I'm no expert, so I can't delineate exactly where the exceptions lie, but I can easily think of examples. For instance, the previous City Council authorized the city to enter into various contracts for the downtown rec center, and this tied the hands of the current Council, which couldn't simply back out on those contracts.
Anyone:
Shouldn't the Council have a role in investigating allegations of impropriety in the administration? After all, Congress has the power to investigate scandals in the White House. Yet our City Council doesn't even seem to have the ability to extract answers to straightforward questions from the Godfrey Administration. Remember when Wicks asked how much the city had spent so far on the gondola proposal? She got no answer at all for two or three months, then she got an answer that was obviously incomplete. In the cases of Matt Jones and now Dean Martinez, I'd have a whole lot more confidence in my government if I knew that the Council was fully informed and playing an active role in rooting out corruption.
Dan:
Of course, contracts are binding. The question was, could the Council pass an ordinance saying the parklands would remain public forever. Nothing prevents a subsequent Council from repealing that with a new ordinance. Any ordinance can be repealed, and if as a result of repeal, the city violates leases, contracts, etc. it would have to pay whatever penalties the contracts provide for, or other laws provide for in such cases. [We saw this happen with the Mall demolition, the sky bridge matter, etc.] But the ordinance could be repealed. Any ordinance can.
What I think you may be driving at is this: could a "poison pill" be built into a protective ordinance such that repealing it would become prohibitively expensive? I don't know. Interesting question. Poison pills are often used by companies to try to prevent hostile takeovers [sometimes successfully, sometimes not], but they do not involve legislation. Be interesting to see if some legislative poison pill could be devised to achieve the same with regard to preserving parklands. I know of no examples, but there may well be some out there. Maybe someone else knows and will post an example or two. Interesting idea.
As for your second question: I have no idea. Municipal government and the laws governing it are, of course, state-specific and the distribution of authority in Utah under the Mayor/Council form of government is a thing of wonder and great mystery to me. I used to think I knew how the Mayor/Council form of government worked [from experience in other states]. After not quite five years in Ogden, I no longer think anything of the kind. Be interesting to know what, if any, investigative authority a city council has with respect to the executive branch of city government.
"The question was, could the Council pass an ordinance saying the parklands would remain public forever."
The establishment of an irrevocable public trust would probably be an adequate solution to put the park into a lockbox, although it would have to be set up for a fixed term, rather than in perpetuity.
This is the most common method used in this country to protect public parklands from legislative capriciousness.
"Carefully-compiled" 184 council questions." Since when has this status been assigned to the list of questions? Wasn't it just the other day, whenever it was that the question list was released to Peterson and the Public, that these 184 questions were basically looked upon as a joke? Here, on these pages, one would read about how "light" the questions were; how the questions didn't address the proposal with much "probative" value; and how many of the questions were redundant. Now, suddenly, this list is a "carefully-compiled" list of questions. Interesting.
Amy Wicks asked for an accounting, received one, yet this forum went beserck because some felt that the accounting hadn't been answered to the penny.
Ellison's crafting of a proposed ordinance has everyone in a lather, becuase he's "Peterson's mouthpiece." Yet here comes Lockwood's version and the two are quite similar. That tells me that Ellison wasn't, or isn't, far off when he put pen to pare, as his version was quite similar to Ogden's version. But here we go, calling it "surreal," because the two versions don't vary much at all. That tells me that Peterson's proposal should be looked at and considered, as it is not far from Ogden City guidlines. Too arbitrarily dismiss this project because there's a golf course in the way and some have labeled the whole thing a "land-grab," smacks of nothing but politics and leaves out logic, logic that COULD be of some value to our city if things are done right.
I've watched both sides throw out their reasons as to "why" and "why not." Generally, with the exception of Ellison and the "potential" gain for Ogden if this proposal is put together correctly, there's little or no substantive value in the arguments that are against Peterson's proposition. The thing just might work, and the only way to find out is to shelve the politics and research the facts, something, I'm afraid, won't be possible should this anti and prevailing attitude continue to run the opposition's show.
It's a shame that the "save the golf course and trail passion together with the mere fact that because this proposal comes from where it comes from, are the driving force behind, and most importantly prevent, substantial considerations that should be discussed. I'm afraid that REAL issues are being suplanted by emotion rather than reality.
another view:
Your post consists of one non-sequitur after another, but a few points do call for a response.
True enough, the list of 184 questions is a hodge-podge that could use a lot of editing. But many of the questions are legitimate, and the answers are overdue. It's now 15 months since Peterson promised to deliver a concrete proposal for the Malan's Basin resort within 60 days.
Ms. Wicks got her response much later than she should have, and the response omitted what should have been the biggest line items: the costs of the various gondola feasibility studies and the cost of all the staff time that the city has spent on the proposal.
You write as if Lockwood's version of the MU ordinance was drafted indpendently of Ellison's. It was not. She used Ellison's draft as a starting point, tweaking words and adding sentences here and there. Her failure to make any major changes is easily explained by the fact that she reports to Mayor Godfrey, an admitted supporter and salesman for Peterson's "proposal".
You vaguely refer to "Ogden City guidelines" but conveniently forget that Ogden City has a specific guideline known as its General Plan. Lockwood made no determination of whether the proposed ordinance was consistent with the General Plan. But if you look at the General Plan, it clearly calls for two much more specific ordinances to encourage mixed use in certain, clearly identified locations; and it clearly calls for preservation of city-owned open space. So neither the Ellison ordinance nor the Peterson proposal would be consistent with the General Plan.
As for researching the facts, many of us are trying as hard as we can to do just that. Quite a few facts about Ellison's role in drafting ordinances and resolutions would still be secret if it weren't for the research I've been doing. But Ellison has made it clear that facts about Peterson's proposal will be released not in response to requests from the Council, but according to Peterson's own schedule and terms.
Folks like "view from another side" keep saying "we" need to research the facts. First of all, I'm not sure that it is "our" responsibility. I believe Peterson needs to do the research and present a credible plan. Only then should the City Council conduct an investigation to determine of Peterson's plan will actually be good for the city. It is not the city's responsibility to do the work to put a plan together for a private developer. Even if you think the city should be researching the facts, it can't, since no specific plan exists. How, for instance, can we know if Peterson's plan to alter the golf course will be a good idea until we see an actual plan to do it? Until that time, we are all simply speculating.
There are things that can be researched now, such as the mass transit feasibility of an urban gondola, and many on this blog have presented their research to demonstrate why that would be a bad idea.
Another View:
Research... wonderful idea. Why, I do believe there is an organization that researches these kinds of questions often, and that did research the Mayor's plan to build a city owned gondola system from downtown to WSU. It was the Wastch Front Regional Council, and it researched the feasibility of the Mayor's gondola, a streetcar line and a bus rapid transit line over the same route. And after doing the necessary research, it concluded that [a] the streetcar line was the best option and [b] a BRT route was the second best option and [c]the gondola proposal was not really a viable option. And all the result of actually researching it, just as you suggested. Imagine that.
The Mayor's research on the matter, so far, has consisted of this: Him stamping his foot and saying "I'm mayor, I want it! I'm mayor, I want it! I'm mayor, I want it!"
I know which research I find more convincing. Of course, you may differ.
Dan s. said...
...Anyone:
Shouldn't the Council have a role in investigating allegations of impropriety in the administration? After all, Congress has the power to investigate scandals in the White House. Yet our City Council doesn't even seem to have the ability to extract answers to straightforward questions from the Godfrey Administration....In the cases of Matt Jones and now Dean Martinez, I'd have a whole lot more confidence in my government if I knew that the Council was fully informed and playing an active role in rooting out corruption...
I agree, and the Council did at one time in the past make an attempt in this direction when it got an outside legal opinion on the Reid severance matter. This got buried, however, to my knowledge--they certainly didn't go public with it.
Here is the law that empowers the Council to investigate such things:
10-3-1217. Limitations on actions and authority of council members -- Investigatory committees.
No member of the council shall direct or request, except in writing, the appointment of any person to, or his removal from office or to interfere in any way with the performance by the officers of their duties. The council shall not give orders to any subordinate of the mayor or manager either publicly or privately, but may make suggestions and recommendations. Nothing in this section shall prevent the council from appointing committees of its own members or of citizens to conduct investigations into the conduct of any officer, department, or agency of the municipal government, or any matter relating to the welfare of the municipality, and delegating to these committees such powers of inquiry as the council may deem necessary.
Amended by Chapter 47, 1981 General Session
Thank you, Dian! Your encyclopedic knowledge is much appreciated.
Given some of the allegations that are going around (not just on this blog), I think it may be time for the Council to investigate some of the city's employment practices.
For those insisting skiers bound for as-yet mythical Malan's resort would never ride buses --- how declasse'-- to catch a gondola at the head of 36th Street to reach the slopes, I offer the following from today's SL Trib. Apparently the ski bus runs to the Cottonwood canyons' resorts are now so popular, UTA is investing in technology to speed boarding:
Ski buses to feature new payment system
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:12/09/2006 01:25:47 AM MST
Digging cash out of ski bibs can be a hassle, so the Utah Transit Authority has equipped its 41 ski buses to accept "contactless" debit and credit card payments for rides to the resorts it services, primarily Solitude, Snowbird, Alta and Brighton. UTA is the first transit agency in the country to use the debit and credit card payment system. Over the past seven months, UTA and some partner companies developed cards that can be touched to a reader at the front of the bus, covering the cost of a ride. About 100,000 cards will be issued as part of a pilot project this winter. Buses also will be equipped to accept resort-issued season passes, employee identification cards and Ski Salt Lake Superpasses. UTA officials believe the system will simplify and speed up the boarding process.
I have a theory.
"Another View" is just the latest reincarnation of "fly on the wall," who had his ass severely kicked recently here by Rudi @ Weber County Forum. That's my theory, at least.
His "logic" is worse than fuzzy; and his arguments are laughingly weak.
Logic 101 concepts totally escape this poor cretin.
Posit this: Is this the nitwittted Bill Glasmann, the Godfrey turncoat paid-for moron who posts the gibberish here under various and similar "other side of the story names"? Did the poor dumb schmuck (glassman) get assigned by Boss Godfrey to regularly "work us," here at Weber County Forum? Is that his assignment, now that he's pulling down $70K a year in the Ogden Economic Development Department?
I'm guessing that the brain-dead Godfrey suck-up Bill Glasmann is back posting on this board again, and straining his peabrain in the effort.
Same fuzzy logic. Same malapropisms. Same unique mis-spellings. Same drugged out brain problem.
Same dunce????
Let our fellow gentle readers decide, say I.
Uh, duh! You named him, Darrell.
Othersider, fly on the wall, another view...tis one and the same as you identified him.
Sharon named him on a another thread. Wondered where he went.
I have had it with all this babble about "doing research," "following the process," "going through steps," etc., etc. In my view, I/we have been nice in response to this sort of thing for far too long. The Council, of course, and the Planning Commission, have an obligation to look at development proposals, etc.
But I don't. We don't. And therefore I'm going to start saying no.
Why should I feel obligated to take part in "a process" the end result of which may be something I don't want? Namely, the selling of the Mount Ogden Parklands. Why should I take part in MU debates which are, at this point, for no other purpose than facilitation of the sale and development of that land if that is not something I want in the first place?
It isn't. And so I don't really have to do anything some are saying I need do, like "suggest an alternative," or "do some research," no matter how long and loudly some scream that "We have to do something!!!! The City needs money!!!
Well, it may, because of ill-conceived projects that are not paying off. So you know what? YOU suggest an alternative, something other than the sale of those parklands. How about it?
I am going on record right now to say that any trick in the book can be tried on this and I won't be moved by it because I have reached a point.
(Sorry for making you cringe, Curmudgeon.)
The letter Dan posted part of this morning also really got my back up, especially this:
...The City Council will know when it is entering into the public approval phase of the Chris Peterson's [sic] specific projects when one of the following occurs: A) Chris Peterson files an application for project approvals, rezoning, zoning ordinance and general plan revisions and any other actions required to approve his specific projects, B) Chris Peterson commences any pre-application...
and so while I'm at it, I'm going to say no to that too. No. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Ellision, the actions of this city are Not predicated on actions of yours.
We could, if we wished, begin holding huge town meetings with petitions present at them, one for the project and one against, with names of registered voters, and we could do this whether you are filing applications, rewriting our ordinances, or simply doing nothing.
You do not tell us how to run our own public approval process or when you deem it appropriate for us to do so. We certainly do not have to conform to anything of that kind, whether we are in favor of your project or not.
I have really been wanting to say all that for a long, long time.
Dian:
Not making me cringe. Only point I would make is this: you are not the person who has to be convinced in the next two months about how to deal with the Ellison Ordinance, the members of the PC are. And they, clearly, (a) think Ogden would benefit by a MU ordinance and (b) think the ordinance the planning staff laid before them [the Ellison Ordinance] is flawed... and not because it came from Mr. Peterson's attorney, but because it lacks any standards defining what constitutes multiple use, what standards must be met to qualify as an MU zone, and so on. That's what they said, from all reports, the other night. And, forgive me, what controls at this point is their views about what matters, not yours. Or mine. Or Rudi's. And so, to lobby effective on this [i.e. to see that Ogden ends up with a MU ordinance that serves the best interests of the whole city and not one crafted solely or even largely to meet the needs of Mr. Peterson -- and Dan S. has made some suggestions along those lines], seems to me we need to address the matters the PC thinks are substantive. The members of the PC are, for the moment, the target audience. They are going to make key decisions on the MU ordinance and, a bit later, on the proposed changes in the sensitive overlay ordinance [if any].
And it seems to me they have, manifestly, not acted as rubber stamps. They've asked good questions, taken comments seriously, and refused to be stampeded, on either issue, into hasty assent to the Mayor's proposals. They seem to me, collectively, to be taking their job seriously and trying to do it as best they can. All of which suggests to me that we ought to take them at their word and address the matters they've told us concern them the most with respect to those two proposed ordinances. If we want to be effective, that is....
"We could, if we wished, begin holding huge town meetings with petitions present at them, one for the project and one against, with names of registered voters, and we could do this whether you are filing applications, rewriting our ordinances, or simply doing nothing." - Dian
Personally, I've fantasized about holding a rally on City Hall steps that would resemble the townsfolk in "Frankenstein" complete with pitchforks and torches. How I'd love to see hundreds of irate citizens calling for the majors tiny hide! However, I suspect that we'd never be able to get a permit to hold such a glorious event, much less huge town meetings with petitions being put forward.
Relax, Curm - my flights of fancy are over and I'll settle back to responsible reality now.
But have they examined, Curmudgeon, what it is that has caused them to believe that a MU Ordinance is necessary to this city, and is that belief based on anything other than the Peterson Project?
And if so, what, and I want specifics. Did they say these things at the meeting? Do you know them?
Because it is my opinion that the perceived need for the MU Ordinance, once examined, will fall apart like a house of cards if the Peterson project is removed from the equation.
Which means that where I see us sitting is in a position wherein we are being told that there are other uses for a MU Ordinance, but they have not been really gone into. Fancy that.
Somewhat of a MU Ordinance has already been cobbled together at The Junction site,and not even there, on the site of that six-plus year old money pit did they feel it necessary to craft this new and special ordinance.
And so the way I am leaning now is that this is a project specific move, although they are saying it is not, and participation in it equals participation in the Peterson Project. Which I have decided I am not going to do.
And I would really like someone, if I am wrong about this, to prove it. Not just say-- Oh, blah, blah, blah, we've been looking at this for two years, blah...
I would want to know why. I would want to know in what context.
In other words, I question their whole premise stating that this MU Ordinance is necessary. That's a nice place to start.
And thank you for not cringing.
Dian:
You wrote: Because it is my opinion that the perceived need for the MU Ordinance, once examined, will fall apart like a house of cards if the Peterson project is removed from the equation.
Well, I think it can be established that many cities have adopted mixed-use ordinances that have worked to generate the kind of mixed-use growth they desired. And the Ogden General Plan identifies mixed-use in some areas as a desirable goal. That the Ellison Ordinance was generated solely to serve Mr. Peterson's interests I couldn't, and wouldn't, contest. That there are no other reasons to consider it, and to consider it [potentially] beneficial for Ogden seems just as clearly, to me, not true. And, again, clearly, the PC thinks a MU ordinance would be good for Ogden.
We have done mixed use on a kind of ad hoc basis [downtown, river project as you noted], and I wouldn't have a problem with continuing that way. But I can also see some downsides to doing it that way in the future, and some upsides to having a general MU ordinance with some standards built in. And, again, clearly, the PC seems to think so too. And given that they do, the goal it seems to me now is to help them write a good one, not to demand that they justify their interests in an MU ordinance at all. [If I were on the pc, trying to do the best job I could for Ogden, and someone came at me that way, demanding that I justify for them my interest in the very idea of MU, I can tell you how I'd react: my back would go up instantly, and however much I might try to not let it happen, my likelihood of taking whatever else they had to say about the matter would diminish noticeably.]
Once again, I'm looking at this from the POV of a lobbist trying to have a beneficial effect on those about to draft some legislation in which I have an intererst. We have a pc I think that does take its work seriously, that does listen to input from citizens, and that has proven itself not to be a rubber stamp panel. Given that, getting in their face seems an unwise and unproductive way to proceed. Addressing the concerns they have in ways they are likely to take seriously seems to be by far the path more likely to result in a good ordinance. On MU and on the sensitive overlay zone.
Far be it from me to "get in the face" of the Planning Commission, Curmudgeon. My impression of the Planning Commission is that it is a sincere and dedicated group of people who believes in the efficacy of what it is doing.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the presence of the Peterson Project does cast a shadow over what we are being told is simply a MU Ordinance for Ogden.
At a Planning Commission meeting I attended, a member of the public spoke to the effect that he would feel much more comfortable about this if we just made a special provision for Peterson, unethical as that might be, than to try to enlarge what was basically a Peterson agenda to encompass our whole city.
And so in your face though it may be termed, that is a question I would really like the answer to, that is: If the Peterson project did not exist, if nobody'd heard of it or gotten the idea for the gondola/resort/ etc. plan, would we be working on this MU Ordinance now?
And if so, to what end, with what area in mind, and has anyone approached us with plans for a development parcel where it could be used?
The reason this distinction is important to me is twofold. I have written before about the possible danger of some preliminary action on the part of the city being construed as a committal to the project. I am sure those in favor of the project would think this all to the good---remember the rec center and how justification for the bonding was that we had so much into this that we couldn't stop now, that we had no choice but to continue shoveling money into it until it was completed?
It's called a Force.
And so I do not want these actions on the part of the Planning Commission et al to become a manipulative situation wherein we will find ourselves with no choice, once again, but to go on with this project, especially since that point of no return will probably be reached when it gets in front of the Council, and I cannot imagine the pressure they will be subjected to because of all this that has gone before.
However, if the Planning Commission is able to prove that the work done on this MU Ordinance in relation to the Peterson Project has been just a bit of coincidental timing (in spite of Ellison's participation?) and that we are doing this anyway, the Council will have a bit of breathing room when the package gets in front of it.
This is why this MU Ordinance process has impressed me as having so many pitfalls, because I honestly cannot see us being able to dissociate it from the Peterson project given the way things have gone.
And so my personal tendency would be, at this point, to get really far away from it and any involvement it might have with the Peterson project which might be construed as a committal to it. But as you say, the Planning Commission does not share this view.
The mixed use ordinance discussion has been in Ogden planning dept. and Ogden city planning commission for years. It is not new to Ogden and is being used successfuly in other cities. There are other benefits for it other then Peterson. The River Project for one is primarily in need of an ordinance right now for the magnitude of that project. It is an unfortunate "coincidence" that it is before the planning commission at this time with such a controversial project as Peterson's in the public's attention. Yet, it would be necessary for him to build what he has in mind. So it is set to benefit him as well, hence "input" from Ellison. So it is true that the urgency is tied to him at this time, that is not necessarily a bad thing if it benefits Ogden. This would be why, and the River Project, that it is being pushed so hard from the Administration at this time. Time is of essence to them. It is not so much of a urgency with City Planning Commission other then it is before them now and has to be resolved one way or another but done right. This is why they have tabled both ordinances, to study them further to actually see the benefits of them for greater Ogden city and perfect them. They must view them in short term and long term benefits. And there is benefit in them and it is up to the commission to work with the ordinance so that it does work in a way that entices and benefits developers and our community. There is not anything wrong with working with developers if it is proven to be a worhtwhile and acceptable project. This is growth. And Ogden is facing a growth surge and it will continue. It seems clear that the commissioners agree that a mixed use ordinance would benefit Ogden but not the one that was presented to them this last week. Which is why they chose wisely to table it for work sessions in Janury. In an effort to prove that it would work and is for the betterment of Ogden, one commissioner asked the planning dept to have copies of other cities plans that are comparable to size and other criteria to Ogden as well as be prepared to discuss how certain projects would work with or without this ordincance to get their project passed throught the city. To show scenarios. To show the successes and possible pitfalls. They felt that there was not enough standards or criteria on how it was used. And how to protect the city and where the planning comission & city council would have ways to control and regulate what was being proposed. Not just a blanket freedom to build whatever and whenever a developer wants. And those will be there even as it is writtne now but they felt needed more. Each developer will have to provide considerable informnation and go through a lot of approvals before it is final, largely based on the development agreement that each will provide. Keep this in mind. Yet, the PC did feel they needed more standards and criteria and that is where it is now. The Jan meeting will be the big step for making this happen or not, and most likely it will pass after being worked to the City Planning Commissions liking. They have the necessity to get this done so they can get on to other business on their table. They did not create this to be presented before them at this time, the planning dept does that. They passively receive on their agenda what is brought to them. There have been work sessions on the subject and discussions for years so they have known it is coming for a long time.
It also seems that folks are perhaps extra careful and perhaps over cautious on this ordinacne due to the fact that it appears that it is only for Peterson. One does need to look at it as if he was not in the equation as well as the other way around. The key question: Is it in the best interest for Ogden city! That is what is important. Look at it without Peterson's project. Perhaps it wouldn't be so full of pitfalls. If this passes that does mean that Petersons project is approved. Hellno. Far from it. There are so many more hoops he has to jump through even with the mixed use ordinance and perhaps the sensitive overlay zone passed in his favor. This would help him for sure but nothing is wrong with helping a developer at this time if it makes sense and the project is right. That all has yet to be determined. There has not even been a proposal yet. He still has to present his plan, create a developmenatl agreement and still overcome the fact that presently the park land is zoned O1/open space and cannot be sold unless the general plan is ammended. Not to mention WSU selling their land. The big decisions come down the road and many, many discussions, input and approvals yet to be had. It is obvious that these recent ordinance changes are needed to help him move forward yet they do also help other wouldbe developers and should so for Ogden city to entice developers and projects. Not all developers and projects are bad for Ogden and we are in the mode of trying to get investors and developers in Ogden for its growth and progress. But they do not guarantee that his or any project will pass. There is not any committment at any level. Look at this ordinance devoid of Peterson and then ask these questions, especially: Is it for the betterment of Ogden City!?
"ogden iiis"
ogden iiis:
Like Mr. Montgomery, you're being a little sloppy with your language. What, exactly, has been "in" the Planning Commission for years? Not the "MU" ordinance that's before them now, which only arrived in Ogden (attached to an email from Ellison) on August 16. I filed a formal GRAMA request with the city asking for all records pertaining to an MU ordinance since 1 January 2004, and the city produced none dating from before Ellison entered the picture.
The ordinance that Ellison provided is not a mixed use ordinance, despite its title. Mixed use means putting residences, retail, and offices within walking distance of each other (often in the same building). The Ellison ordinance doesn't say anything about such a concept, and would in fact permit any sort of development at all--single use or mixed use, with any density. The ordinance is based on one that Ellison wrote for a resort development in Iron County, which calls it SPA (for Special Planning Areas), not MU. The principal difference between Ogden's version and Iron County's version is that the latter is restricted to developments of 320 acres or more, outside of urban areas.
You say that "it" (antecedent unclear) "is being used successfully in other cities." Could you point me to another city that has a mixed use ordinance that even vaguely resembles the Ellison ordinance? (Iron County doesn't count because it's not a city and because of the restriction just mentioned.) If you look around, I think you'll find that mixed use ordinances generally include detailed design standards; they're generally applied to restricted areas rather than city-wide; and they rarely include provisions for development agreements.
Yes, Dian, you are right on the money!
Someone spoke to this at the recent PC meeting. Why NOW? Allegedly this is also to help the River Project, but as that speaker noted....how come now after 4 years?
Also, Wayne April made much sense when he offered the scenario that Peterson starts 'his' project...gets some sewers in, maybe some other preliminary things are done, and then BINGO!! uh oh, he cries to the mayor and the Council that he's on the verge of caving under financially. Therefore, if 'we' don't want him actually filing for bankruptcy (as he may threaten) then of course we'll have to pick up the financial pieces and be stuck with finishing what he's started.
Now, with that scary scenario in mind....why in heaven's name are we giving any credence to this UNproposed non-proposal?
Just like a bratty kid at the toy store..."I want it, I want it, I want it"......."I don't care if you have any money, Dad, I want it anyway....I know Susie wants something too, but I'm bigger, and what I want is what's important."
Take that brat by the ear and march him outside! Take Peterson by the ear and show him the door.
The cowboys had it right: "Git outta Dodge by sundown, stranger."
Not ONE more ounce of energy should be expended for Ellison/Godfrey/Peterson. This town has been in an uproar for a couple years over a 'vision...legacy'...ego-driven madness. The PC and the CC can stop this RIGHT NOW!
I've said before that Morgan and Huntsville are the newest chichi places to build.
Pete could go to either place...build his gated community AND a gondola to Malan's. Now how cool would that be? A longer ride.
Dan... thanks for your insights. You sure have researched this more then most. I hope you will have some means to communicate all this to the Ogden City Planning Commission. I am making my assessments largely from being at the meetings and listening to all that is being said and trying to make sense of a complicated ordinance and issue. Perhaps the concept of Mixed Use Ordinance has been discussed in years prior, but you are right... the current version with Ellison's input has not ever been present. If indeed what you are saying is true, which I am sure it is as you seem to have done considerable research, then if it is actually a Special Use Ordinance then we are talking about a different subject then. What you are saying is that it is indeed a "special use" ordinance disguised as the "mixed use" ordinance. This becomes a little trickery if so. I do see the benefits of a mixed use ordinance to expedite, attract and encourage "responsible" development which is ineveitable and needed in Ogden's growth with controls, standards and criteria that has to be met. I agree it is suspicious and obvious why Ellison, Peterson's attorney would have such an input into this ordinance at this time. The question then becomes does this version make sense to Ogden in general, not just the Peterson project. If there is deception here then it should be exposed and known. I have read it over several times and cannot find the trickery in it, although I have suspected something fishy. It is well disguised in its benefits to the community. And I think there must be much benefit in there somewhwere, but where, and where is the deception? The fact is it is here now and must be addressed. The "it" I refer to is of course the MU Ordinance as proposed or not. It is the concept of the ordinance but for better clarifaction should be referred to as the current version. I had referred to the concept of MU ordinance but with your point of this version being separate from the concept is well taken. I did take what Greg Montgomery said at face value in absence of other information. So it remains to be known... is this Chris Peterson's personal "special" ordinance? If so, shouldn't it be presented at the time of his proposal or development agreement then we know specifically what we are talking about. One commissioner said there is just too much grey in this current proposal and I agree. That is why it is being taken to a work session to get it to black and white. I understood that this current mu ordinance was about mixed use as you described. I did not see it different. If this is true, then I hope the city planning commission will flush out the truth as well with this fact. It is a major point. Thanks for your insights. I still feel a true mixed use ordinance is not a bad thing and better yet, beneficial to Ogden, but should be put forth with Ogden city in mind in general, not any one particular developer. Hence the issue here. So should it be voted down completely or simply revised to meet the needs of Ogden City?
Thanks for your insights backed with research.
ogden iii's
I get the feeling that the overall feeling is that mixed use is inherently bad. Is it because it is now associated with peterson's non-proposal? SO far I cannot find anything negative about MU. I am mostly reading references to Transit, Pedestrian lifestyle, Comunnity revitalization.
Here's a few links.
Mixed Use Citizens Guide
What is an Urban Village
Hillsboro , Oregon MU Code
Davis CA
La Vergne, TN
Colorado Springs
Bedford, MA
ogden iii's:
For a more careful and complete explanation of the difference between "mixed use" and the Ellison ordinance, you could look at the formal comments that I submitted to the Planning Commission. The general concept of mixed use has indeed been discussed in Ogden for a number of years, as best exemplified by our General Plan (see Chapter 8 and the Future Development Centers map). I now wish that I had referenced the General Plan more extensively in my comments to the Planning Commission.
tec:
Thanks for the links!
I don't know about the "overall feeling", but I personally am a very strong proponent of mixed-use development in urban centers and neighborhood villages (see my comments to the PC, linked above). The Ellison ordinance is dangerous for three reasons: one, because it would be the first step toward enabling the development of our foothill open space; two, because it would create a completely open-ended zoning option throughout the rest of the city, with unpredictable results; and three, because the city is treating it as a substitute for a set of true mixed-use zoning ordinances that would be of great benefit. (Kinda reminds me of how the urban gondola is dangerous because it would preclude the much more beneficial streetcar.)
New comments are not allowed.