Emerald City Council Aproaches "Silliness Hat-trick"

The Emerald CIty Council performs yet another Monty Python skit.

Updated 1/23/07 6:30 a.m.

In the latest demonstration of its recent penchant for engaging in useless and idle acts, the Emerald City Council will tomorrow solemnly consider a resolution outlining the decision-making process for a multimillion-dollar development project involving the possible sale of Mount Ogden Golf Course. This matter was originally slated for a vote on Nov. 14, but was tabled, to get more citizen input. So reports Scott Schwebke in this morning's Standard-Examiner story.

The fact that there isn't an actual proposal on the table requiring the council's grand "spinning of wheels" tomorrow evening doesn't seem to faze the council at all. Even in the absence of any actual proposal, the council is nevertheless steaming full speed ahead, in classic bureaucratic rudderless ship-fashion.

Our gentle readers will recall the recent decision of our city council to approve the "proposed" sale of the Shupe-Williams property to a buyer who later proved to be uninterested. They'll also remember last week's story, wherein the council added a $1 million dollar grant request to its legislative "wish-list," in order to move the St. Anne's homeless shelter "out of sight and out of mind." Only later was it revealed that The St. Anne's Board of Directors had neither agreed to this proposal, nor did they have the means to raise the extra cash needed to make the move.

Tonight's proposed resolution, aimed at responding to a proposal which has not yet been received, appears to be a reprise of the last two oblique mal-perfomances; and the council seems destined for a sillyness hat-trick. Recent council perfomance is of such a nature as to make Monty Python blush. The council is hell-bent, it would seem, to prove, once and for all, its absolute cluelessness.

Well... "hellbent" may be too strong a term. The council still has time to salvage its dignity and take this matter entirely off-calendar. The opportunity still remains for the council to drop the matter entirely -- or wait until a tangible proposal has been received from the elusive Chris Peterson. And in that connection, we're giving our readers another needle. If you haven't yet contacted the council to register your objections, time is running out. One of our gentle readers sent us the text of a SmartGrowthOgden letter over the weekend, which accurately summarizes the citizen task-at-hand. And when our gentle readers DO contact the council, be sure to let them know why tomorrow's "process steps" resolution is premature. According to today's Std-Ex story, "...most of the public input he has received regarding the resolution has centered on the merits of Peterson’s [nonexistant] plan and not how the council should evaluate it."

Snoozers will be losers, as the old saying goes. Council contact info is available (as always) in the Weber County Forum upper-left sidebar.

Who will be the first to comment?

Blockbuster Update 1/22/07 10:26 a.m. MT: According to this just-received Ogden Sierra Club press release, the above-mentioned "process steps resolution," on calendar for tomorrow's council meeting, was modified from its original form at the request of Chris Peterson's attorney, Tom Ellison. See, e.g., COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAS MODIFIED AT REQUEST OF PETERSON'S ATTORNEY. Gentle readers should also be sure to carefully read ALL the attachments and links.

Yet certain council members and staff keep on telling us tomorrow's council action is "generic," and has nothing to do with Chris Peterson. Oh my.

A Weber County Forum Tip o' the Hat to the Sierra Club's Dan Schroeder for providing this useful information. We don't know what they're paying Dan; but we suspect it ain't nearly enough.

Update 1/23/07 6:30 a.m. MT: Scott Schwebke reports the basic facts of the Ellison-requested resolution alterations in this morning's Standard-Examiner story; and for one danged fine land-grab analysis, be sure to check out Charlie Trentelman's excellent opinion piece.