And what better way to kick off the new year we ask, than to open the discussion with news of our favorite community institution -- the Emerald City Council? In that connection we link tonight's City Council Agenda: our very first link of the year 2007.
We find two items of particular note on tonight's council calendar, the first of which is the topic of this morning's Scott Schwebke story. In a nutshell, developers and speculators are already scooping up property interests in the phase 2 & 3 areas of the Emerald City River Project. Boss Godfrey will be asking the council tonight to impose a six-month development moratorium in these areas, in order to allow time to put in place "picky" new zoning rules. Rigid central planning is alive and well in Emerald City, we are quick to note, as is illustrated by this telling comment from this morning's Standard-Examiner story:
"People can buy property in the river project and we can't control what they do," explains Dave Harmer.
We can't have property owners calling the shots on matters involving their own properties in our Brave New MattGodfreyWorld, can we (?)
Secondly, a gentle reader reminded us via email last night of a second council agenda item which we believe to be by far the most important item tonight and for the next year, all things considered (in the political long-run):
5. Election of New Council Officers.The Emerald City Council will be choosing its 2007 Chair and Vice-Chair (Council Leadership) tonight. Make no mistake. The choices our council makes this evening have great significance for the upcoming year. These offices are not merely ceremonial Not only do our "council leaders" "chair" council and RDA meetings; they control committee appointments and council policy. Moreover, they meet regularly with Boss Godfrey and other administration officials regularly, and serve as gatekeepers for the information which is passed on to other council members. In many ways they have the utilitarian power to set the entire council agenda.
6. Swearing In of New Council Officers.
Choosing the "right" leadership is particularly important in this municipal election year. We have heard from several sources that Boss Godfrey has been actively lobbying for the placement of "Gang of Six" council hold-over Brandon Stephenson into the council Chairman's seat. "He's a senior councilman," Stephenson advocates argue. "It's his turn," the Godfreyites whine.
Frankly, we can't think of a worse possible result than placing Stephenson in a council leadership role. Not only is he by far the most compliant Godfrey-gopher on the council; rumor has it he's getting ready for a 2007 mayoral run (in the event that Boss Godfrey has the good sense to sit out the next election.) Better to let him cool his heels outside the council leadership circle for the next year, we think. Better for him languish for the remainder of his council term on the relative sidelines, rather than to furnish him the opportunityity to use a council leadership position for furtherance of his neoCON political ambitions, we believe.
And if we had our preference, we'd opt for placing the chairman's gavel in the hand of one of our fine woman council members. With the exception of Amy Wicks, who presently holds the council vice-chair office, women are conspicuously absent from top leadership roles throughout our entire city government. Chairwoman Wicks, anyone?
How 'bout an ALL-WOMAN council leadership slate, we ask? That would certainly be a Emerald City novelty... and it would no doubt drive Boss Godfrey literally NUTS!
Comments, anyone?
21 comments:
Do I see contradiction here between zoning to control what property owners in the Riverfront Project area do and desiring a No-Zoning zone, ostensibly for downtown development which would pave the way for Chris Peterson's townhome blight?
I'm not sure if I'm being remarkably perceptive or hopelessly lost.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Honestly, I think we should just trust mayor godfrey in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.
You people still don't get it. Women aren't ordained for leadership roles. That's why they can't hold the priesthood.
>>>...and it would no doubt drive Boss Godfrey literally NUTS!<<<
More NUTS than usual?
Difficult to imagine.
Amy is definitely the hottest; therefore, she is the ONLY choice.
Happy New Year to all, especially Rudi who has gotten the year off to a good start here on the forum.
Rudi, the matter before the Council tonight isn't a question of whether or not to have zoning in the River Project area. You may prefer no zoning at all, but that ain't gonna happen (unless the Council eventually passes the Ellison No Zoning Zone ordinance, and even that would merely allow sufficiently wealthy landowners to petition the city to remove any existing zoning restrictions on a case-by-case basis). Every parcel in the River Project area is already subject to zoning restrictions. However, the current zoning is apparently incompatible with Godfrey's plan for what the area oughta look like.
We could debate whether we like Godfrey's plan for the area. I kinda like it, though I think it was a mistake to try to do it at this time when there's still so much to do in the traditional downtown area immediately to the south. At this point, though, it's too late to complain about this. The project is moving forward.
If we can agree to support the basic plan, then we can debate what types of zoning restrictions would best implement the plan. The necessary changes could be of two types: removing existing restrictions that would prohibit the desired type of development, and adding new restrictions that would prevent incompatible types of development. Please don't assume that the changes would be entirely of the second type.
It's a fallacy to imply that landowners don't benefit from zoning restrictions. Although I may not benefit from zoning restrictions on my own property, I sure as heck benefit from zoning restrictions on my neighbors' property. If it were legal to put a hog farm on my neighbor's property, my own property value would plummet. Still, it's legitimate to ask whether, on the whole, our current collection of zoning restrictions (or any other) is beneficial. I don't know the answer to this question. But I do see some tremendous opportunities for improving existing zoning ordinances, to nearly everyone's benefit.
I believe that any woman can out do a guy in darn near any job assignment, they feel that they have more to prove, they are under the microscope all of the time by a bunch of guys who barely get by in their assignments.
Dorrene Jeske has a bigger (larger) set of balls ,and has more integrity that any of those other whimpy guys on the Council, I would like to see Dorrene on the Chair.
Ogdenlover,
You're bang on! You are witnessing two conflicting extremes. The city wants total front end control over the development of the river project and absolutely no front end control over the urban gondola/malan basin development.
Frankly the city's got it wrong on both projects.
On the one hand, there is no current eminent domain laws for the river project which is what they want(and what they hope to gain from the state legislature within the next 6 months or at least a direction relative to the matter)and that is why they want the moratorium. The city should involve the property owners along the river front before they take any action that would affect their property or the value of it. There needs to be a public meeting with the people affected by the moratorium before this proposed moratorium goes to a vote.
On the other hand the city wants to give immediate and absolute control of the urban gondola and malan basin project to a developer with the city effectively acting only in an advisory role. The gondola/malan basin development should precede like any other development within the city. If the developer will provide the city with the specific details of his project then the city can (if the development is deemed beneficial to the city) determine the level of control that the city is willing to relinquish to the developer and the city will then be able to determine the zoning ordinance concessions (if needed) that it is also willing to make. The ultimate parameters and outcome of this development should remain with the city and adhere to the city standards.
The public process is a tool that the city is supposed to use to ensure that the rights of the residents and those of the property owners of this city are not abused. The zoning ordinances are tools that ensure that we come to an organized and logical development of our community. These two extremes pointed out by Ogdenlover only prove that the city chooses to not use either tool properly.
The city needs to be consistent in how it conducts its business. The end rarely justify the means, but especially when the process has the potential of doing more damage than good.
Good comments, Ogden Lover and anonymous.
As ought to be predicted, Ogden City public policy is demonstrably schizophrenic, as befits a city with a schizophrenic and tyrannical mayor under constant medication due to a "thyroid problem."
I'm a little unclear what a six month freeze on "development" in the River Project phases 2 and 3 zones would mean. That private owners could not sell their property during that time? Surely not that. That no building permits would be issued for land in the two zones during that time? How, exactly, would a six month development freeze work, and how could it work w/o violating or limiting property rights already in the hands of owners/buyers?
Note: the above is not an editorical comment. I just don't know how such a freeze would work or what it would involve. Seeking information so I can figure out whether I think this is a good idea or not.
the only thing that the city is consistent in, is that they are in-consistent.
Remarks like Brandon's about women not being elgible for the priesthood is what turns us non-Mormons off on the whole state.
Just maybe the big Council of 12 hasn't received the right revelations yet just like they had to get a new one about admitting blacks.
This stuff is a bunch of crap.
Please tell me that the person above using the name "Brandon" is not really our City Councilman Brandon Stephenson. If so, I would really want to know. Please let me know too how the person named Brandon above can feel right in linking his post to the Councilman's web page.
Maybe it's past my bedtime, but how kosher is it for the Administration to put a freeze of 6 months on the River Project? Because 'they' want to control that property...'scuse me, cuz the RDA wants first dibs?
Whatever happened to free enterprise without teensy-weensy littlest brother breathing down would-be developers' necks?
I thought we were encouraging restaurants, shops, businesses, etc there?
Why is gov't competing with private business ONCE AGAIN?
Well...the City Council retains the same leadership. I hope Jesse takes a more proactive role this time around. Starting his 14th year, one would hope he has his 'sea legs' by now. (Or his CC legs...). Also, I hope Amy starts speaking up and out on issues. It would have been too delicious to have Dorrene as Chair and either Amy or Susan as Vice-Chair!
BTW...women in the LDS Church have some pretty high-powered leadership positions. Don't show your ignorance by confusing Godfrey's antics with the Church....nor Church leadership and doctrine with the arrogance and small-mindedness rampant in City Hall.
so who is the new leadership of the council. did anyone go last night? I want to know!!!
The only thing worse than anonymous bloggers using opinion and name calling rhetoric to besmirch people who are honestly trying to make a difference in Ogden are those that login under false pretense and make as if they are someone they are not. The "brandon" who has posted above and used my web-site to attribute his/her comments to me is, from my perspective, the epitome of hatred and dishonesty. It is very sad.
I expect that the bog is not the best place to get to know me and what I stand for. Therefore, for all of you out there who are intellectually honest, please go to my web-site. I have posted some information that will give you an idea of who I am and what I represent. If that is not sufficient, please call or email me.
In any case, I felt it important to clarify personally that the comments from the “Brandon” blogger above ARE NOT MINE, nor do his/her comments reflect the truth.
Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry though that you don't consider a blog one way to make your views known. For a growing number of public officials, and prospective ones, they can be and are. Linking to your website by the "Brandon" above, though was, as you say, reprehensible.
And most people who read blogs, or post, know [or learn pretty quickly] not to take seriously outrageous or atypical statements attributed to elected officials, without some kind of attribution or evidence being included. Its sort of like reading letters to the editors in newspapers: take the well-reasoned ones seriously, and ignore the ranters and ravers and the ad hominum screeds.
I did not say that "I don't consider a blog one way to make ones views known". If I did not believe the blog was a legitimate forum, I never would have clarified above.
In fact, I appreciate well reasoned argument and discussion by some bloggers, many of whom accept accountability for what they say by telling us who they are. I hope that "most people that read blogs" are as discerning as you say, however, cloaked by anonymity, some bloggers can facilitate doubt and anger with no accountability for the things they say.
Accepting all of this as it is...I clarify only for the purpose of extinguishing doubt. In addition, I personally appreciate all those who are not afraid to accept accountability for what they say by identifying themselves, and I will always offer them the same courtesy.
To Brandon Stephenson,
Please note that it was an anonymous that brought to question the legitimacy of Brandon and his comments. Not all comments made by anonymous bloggers are to facilitate doubt or anger. Additionally some bloggers have good reason to maintain their anonymity.
to anonymous,
Point well taken. Thank you.
New comments are not allowed.