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.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
35 comments:
Well, Rudi, on this one we disagree. Seems to me the Council on this matter is being prudent, blocking out a procedure that will have to be followed if/when Mr. Peterson decides to actually propose something to the city. I like very much, for example, the idea that the Council should act first on the now in-progress Mt. Ogden Community plan [rather than having the plan delayed in anticipation of what a Peterson proposal might contain]. I like the idea that the Council is giving the procedure long and careful attention before the full-court-press hype and cheerleading that will doubtless accompany the "proposal" [should one ever appear] begins. The danger is that amid a full media blitz and political full-court press some version of some Peterson proposal might be rushed to judgement unwisely. Much better to have the Council thinking about what will have to happen in what order before all that begins.
Remember, Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey's frequent practice is to bring things before the Council and to demand immediate action because delay would be fatal to whatever it is he claims will profit the city. It is his modus operandi and it has worked in the past. Not recently, but often enough to make me prefer a calmly discussed and arranged procedure in advance on the Council's part. Which will mean the inevitable Godfrey/ Lift Ogden "you have to vote on this and approve it NOW or Paris Hilton won't go shopping with her entourage in downtown Ogden, there won't be a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and our streets will not be paved with gold!" will not be able to stampede the Council to improvident action. Because the procedure for considering and acting upon the proposal will already be in place. Seems a wise move on the Council's part to me -- provided of course the procedure they adopt is a wise one.
"...provided of course the procedure they adopt is a wise one."
The devil's in the details, innit?
Please explain to us how the council can adopt a "wise" series of process steps... when the underlying "proposal" hasn't yet been revealed.
Our concern is that the adoption of ANY resolution at this time will leave the council "hemmed in." Bound by a possibly "half-baked" resolution, our concern will be a lack of necessary council agility.
The council will be revealing its full "game plan" before the "game" begins, making it easy for Peterson to simply adapt his "proposal" to the pre-determined process.
In the event that the council later finds it necessary to amend its approach, Peterson and the Godfreyites will rightly scream "foul" like bloody murder.
Better to let the situation evolve in real-world fashion -- we believe -- the council needs the agility to respond to events as they develop, we think.
We have no problem with the council's adoption of a loose process, informally. The problem we see is engraving one in granite through a formal resolution. The council should simply leave all options open. To do otherwise is just bad negotiation, IONSHO.
Well, seems to me what the Council has blocked out [as reported in the papers] is a reasonable process for considering a major [not minor] development offer that would necessarily involve changes in zoning, to community plans and to the general plan. And I still see an advantage in blocking it all out ahead of time. That alone will prevent a "fast tracking" of a Peterson proposal backed by a publicity blitz ["50,000 new jobs! The lame will walk, the blind will see, we are all going to get rich, everyone in Ogden can retire at 50 but only if this proposal is adopted in its entirety RIGHT NOW!" ] We are going to hear something like that if a Peterson proposal ever materializes. Having a process in place works, inevitably, to counter hasty un-wise action. That's all.
I note Mr. Safsten's observation that nearly all the comments the Council has been getting have been on the merits [politely so called] --- or lack thereof --- of the Peterson "proposal" versions that have been trotted out so far by Godfrey/Lift Ogden Dog and Pony shows, not on the procedure, which is what the Council solicited comment onl.
As for the Council having blown the Shupe-Williams and St. Anne matters... well, those fiascoes seem to me to be wholly and entirely the responsibility of the Godfrey administration, not the Council. The Council acted in both instances on open on-the-record assurances that turned out to be worthless in the end. [I note in the recent SE story, that Councilwoman Wicks had asked, repeatedly, for written evidence of the St. Anne's board's support for the move. Wise of her. ]
The Council members have now been twice hung out to dry by the Administration's assurances. I suspect... I presume... that from here on in, the members will refuse to act on verbal assurances any more, and will insist on written corroboration first. From Mr. Patterson, from Mr. Montgomery, from anyone who purports to speak for the Godfrey administration before the Council.
That the Godfrey administration's word is no good now must be plain to all on the Council. If the Council again acts purely on the basis of verbal assurances from the Administration, I'll join in your criticism them. Loudly. But, again, the Shupe Williams and St. Anne's fiascoes are evidence, I think, not of the Administration's duplicity [we have other evidence for that] but of its staggering incompetence. The Shupe-Williams and St. Anne's mess ups ought to raise [and I hope are raising in the minds of Council members and others] this really basic and simple question: is the Godfrey administration sufficiently competent to carry out a project as complex as [we presume] a Peterson proposal [should one actually ever materialize] will doubtless be? The answer to that question is now, for me, obvious.
The issue before the City Council Tuesday night is NOT the Peterson Proposal. We have not received the proposal, yet, contrary to the sign at the Pizza Runner.
The issue before the council tomorrow night is a resolution regarding the process by which we would proceed from here, including the issues probably coming along with the Peterson Proposal.
The city is already doing some generic actions like the Sensitive Overlay, Mixed Use, and Mt. Ogden Community Plan. However, it must be remembered that these issues are ALREADY before the city WITH, or WITHOUT the Peterson proposal.
Would they affect the Peterson proposal? Of course. They would also affect any number of situations or issues that are already here, or that might come before the city in the future.
I do agree that there may be topics or slants contained in the actual proposal from Mr. Peterson that may require a procedural course correction. Fine. We deal with that type of stuff all the time.
Thanks for joining us again, councilman Safsten. And now that you're here, we're sure all of our gentle readers would be interested in your comments on this. (Please be sure to read and carefully consider the linked attachments.)
Thanks in advance.
Mr. Safsten wrote above:
The city is already doing some generic actions like the Sensitive Overlay, Mixed Use, and Mt. Ogden Community Plan. However, it must be remembered that these issues are ALREADY before the city WITH, or WITHOUT the Peterson proposal.
Since we now know that the initial Mixed Use Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission for consideration was drafted by Mr. Peterson's attorney, Mr. Ellison, that it was in fact the "Ellison Ordinance" the administration recommended be adopted by the PC last December [and with the PC wisely delayed for further consideration], I don't think the separation implied in the statement above between the MU Ordinance and the Peterson proposal [presuming one exists] can be sustained on the evidence.
To restate a bit more clearly: the Ogden planning staff might well have submitted a multiple use ordinance to the PC for its consideration long about now if Mr. Peterson and his [so far] mythical proposal had never existed, but manifestly it would not have submitted the MU Ordinance it did submit, the one drafted by Mr. Ellison on behalf of Mr. Peterson. So the suggestion that the current MU drafting process is purely "generic" and not related to the much-anticipated and still unseen Peterson proposal is not sustainable on the evidence.
Always the same old stuff from Safsten I remember his remarks on the mall a few years back. how wonderful it will be. So far a few buldings and mud and snow.
Nancy
An open letter to the City Council re: What to do about the proposal
What proposal?
Table this issue AGAIN and AGAIN until there is something from Peterson than can be seen.
He has kept us waiting.
He can wait for US, once we see what he is actually offering.
His special treatment makes it looks like there is something unethical, if not illegal, going on in Ogden.
Better, yet! Save the mountain side, the golf course, the nationally famous Ogden Trails Network and our beautiful view for the next seven generations. It is in your power to do this!
Please spend your time getting us a streetcar system that could truly revitalize downtown Ogden, would serve ALL the people in town and would take advantage of UTA and Federal money available.
if we hadn't been distracted by the GOONdola and land sale, we could have been ready to begin construction. It's too bad we can't be ready for the Frontrunner.
It is obvious that the mayor and his people have not been straight with you on so many items that it must be embarrassing for you. It is embarrassing for me to see how our city government ends up in the paper. We look like those papers you put in the bottom of a bird cage.
Be the ones that stop the mayor from wasting any more time and money.
Be the ones that saves the mountain side as a common ground for all - Ogden citizens and visitors alike.
While you are at it, make sure he can't sell the property or do ANYTHING else without your approval, as indicated by a change approved by the last City Council. He obviously can't be trusted. Make sure that you CAN be trusted with the future of our city!
Wulld you people mind creating yer own identities, ferchissake?, just a thought.
Click "other: on the "choose an identity" button.
The multiple "anonymous' posts are hopelessly confusing.
If you're too shy to register, we encourage you all to pick your own anonymous ID.
A batch of 'anonynouses" is frickin' stupid, actally.
We beseach you all to find your owm ID.
-Rudi
Right on, Rudi!
Curm...please stop buying into the administrations's hopes, dreeeems and shenanigans.
There is NO proposal...then why have a procedure for a NON-proposal?
Rudi's 'hat'trick' is so correct. Two down, and one more coming up in the 'pulling the wool over the Councils' eyes'. Horses with blinders move better along the right road than this Council does.
The Council should NEVER act on anything they are told by this administration or anyone appearing before them (by letter, either) until absolute proof is before
them! The Council should have demanded proof, in writing, that a solid buyer wanted the Shupe property.
The Council should have demanded that Patterson bring them a letter of approval from Ste Anne's directors that they were on board with Godfrey's scheme to hide the unwashed masses from our sensitve eyes.
One would think that the combined brain cells of this Council could detect duplicity and unethical behavior from this Administration, ESPECIALLY after being stung for so many times!
I guess being stung so often has built up an immunity to recognizing duplicity and fast talkin' con men.
Thank goodness for Dan Schroeder. He's our watchdog...and we owe him a big THANK YOU!
The citizens have a paltry 3 minutes for giving their comments at the CC meetings...one could harldy begin to touch on all the seemingly corrupt antics of the Godfrey Administration.
And the best part?? Garcia RARELY invites comments before the voting.
Tsk, Tsk.
Yesterday Ogden-Lover left a post on an earlier thread referring us to the BEN LOMOND GOLF COURSE
SALE.
OG quoted the paper as stating that a developer presented the plan, hard money and the shareholers rejected it!
Well, that's the proper way to do things, and Peterson/Ellison Godfrey don't want to take a chance that the Council will reject a legitimate proposal.
Nothing they've done in this matter is legitimate so far.
The City Council effort to develop a process to handle the non-proposed Peterson proposal is like the French building the Maginot Line to defend against the Germans.
Once it was built the Germans very handily went around it and captured France even more easily than had the Maginot Line not been built.
Same thing Peterson and Ellison are going to do to Ogden City. The oily Safsten will drip his essence into the gears and lubricate the rape.
"The City Council effort to develop a process to handle the non-proposed Peterson proposal is like the French building the Maginot Line to defend against the Germans.
Once it was built the Germans very handily went around it and captured France even more easily than had the Maginot Line not been built."
Elegant analogy, anonymous.
Thanks.
We're certain though, that councilman Safsten will again show up here any minute, to esplain our cognitive dissonance.
He's now a regular poster here, as you probably know.
Anonymous....(the smart one.)
Great analogy. Did you watch Ollie North's War Stories too?
What we need is that hedgerow that is impenetrable, til the AM. GI came up with the solution for cutting through.
Our Council's brains are like that hedgerow....Schroeder is doing his best to cut through the B.S.
I particularly loiked this part of the November 6, 2006 letter:
Tom Ellison to Bill Cook:
"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 than {sic] 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 a context that would trigger a public meeting."
These assholes want to keep their deal under the public radar screen.
May a pox be upon all of them for this.
Sharon:
You wrote:
Curm...please stop buying into the administrations's hopes, dreeeems and shenanigans.
Just for the record, I have "bought into" none of the administration's hopes, dreams, shenanigans, pie in the sky promises, etc with respect to the gondola, landsale, Peterson [long promised, never delivered] "proposal." However, that there is a "plan" out there involveing sale of public foothills land, building an pointless doomed to fail flatland gondola [at public expense] from down town to WSU, sticking 400, 500, 600, 650 condo units [pick one or make up your own number] on the public foothills lands, etc. and the Mayor has guaranteed that "it" [whatever it is] is coming. Given that, seems to me not at all out of line for the Council to think about how it will handle such a proposal if/when it arrives. My preference would be for the Council, right now, to adopt a resolution saying it will not approve sale of the Mt. Ogden golf course or adjacent public foothills land for commercial development or private ownership, nor will it agree to constuct or play any part in constructing a downtown to WSU gondola. But it seems very unlikely that it will do that now. In light of which, its thinking now about procedures seemed, and seems, wise to me still.
You also wrote:
The Council should NEVER act on anything they are told by this administration or anyone appearing before them (by letter, either) until absolute proof is before
them! The Council should have demanded proof, in writing, that a solid buyer wanted the Shupe property.
The Council should have demanded that Patterson bring them a letter of approval from Ste Anne's directors that they were on board with Godfrey's scheme to hide the unwashed masses from our sensitve eyes.
I don't know if you've ever been involved in public administration, but generally speaking, a city government cannot operate efficiently if every statement of its administration, every time, has to be fully documented in advance. To some extent, if a city is to be run well, the word of the administration has to be accepted by the Council, and vice versa. Doing it any other way inevitably slows down necessary operations, and runs costs up through the roof. This is so unless an administration has demonstrated that its word is not good... as this one has, now, twice in the last few weeks. [Hence Councilwoman Wicks, who caught on I think faster than some of the other members, repeatedly asking for written statements in re: the St. Anne's board.] From this point on, were I on the Council, I would insist on much more corroboration in advance of action than would normally be desirable in a city's administration. Sadly, the Godfrey administration has left the Council no other choice by its incompetent handling of the Shupe Williams and St. Anne's matters. From here on, if Mr. Patterson insisted the administration guaranteed the sun would set in the west tonight, I'd move to adjourn, drive home and fetch a compass, and await the event just to make sure. From now on.
But I'm not willing to go dumping on the Council for having previously followed what ought to be the practice, and is, in all well-run cities: the administration's word, given publically [as it was in both instances above] is presumed to be good. Until proved otherwise, as has now been done.
I'm afraid a lot of the shrill complaining appearing here that the Council should have been telling the mayor no on everything long ago is driven by a strong belief [which I share] that the downtown gondola/Peterson proposal is a very bad idea and should have been throttled in its cradle long ago. However, there are people, as much citizens as you or I, who think differently. They include the Ogden Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor. Which means they are going to get a hearing on this proposal [if ever it appears] whether you or I like it or not. Given that, the Council's thinking ahead about how to handle seems, as I said, a wise thing to do.
Furthermore, I think the Council now sitting has demonstrated, by its actions on several occasions, that it is not a Godfrey rubber-stamp. That it has begun to take its oversight role seriously. Shrilly denouncing the Council whenever it does something, anything, you don't approve of seems both unfair and, tactically, unwise to me.
We're disagreeing about tactics here, Sharon, not ends.
Althepal:
Nice catch on the secrecy quote in Mr. Ellison's letter to Mr. Cook. Naturally, as a public employee, I am sure Mr. Cook immediately wrote back pointing out to Mr. Ellison that such matters of public policy cannot ethically be conducted in such a way as to avoid public knowledge or comment, and that any further such suggestions would not be tolerated. Surely Mr. Cook wrote back explaining that "the public" is one of the essential "stakeholders" in all this and both should not and cannot be omitted from any ongoing discussions with public officials... didn't he? Can't understand why his letter back to Ellison pointing out how inappropriate his [Ellison's] suggestions were wasn't made available to Dan S. via his GRAMA request. Must have been an inadvertant omission, I'm sure....
Again, nice catch, Althepal. Thanks.
This is what I sent to the Council. I believe the primary issue is we already have the information we need to vote this down once and for all. I would like others to consider that. Thanks.
```
RE: Peterson Resolution
1-22-07
Forgive me for not writing earlier but I had assumed we would get the chance to comment tomorrow night.
I had planned on briefly discussion the fact that Peterson’s claims of experience in this sort of project have been largely refuted by public quotes from Snowbasin. Moreover, Peterson has said himself that he does not have the money to pursue this project and must rely on public funding through the sale of public lands.
You know that the public is heavily against this project. We have been to meeting after meeting to express our wishes. And thanks to the efforts of the mayor and the Geigers, the public is well informed. Yet the more they talk, the more the public’s antipathy is solidified!
So what we have is an applicant with no relevant experience or money wishing to do a project that is contrary to the public’s vision for our city. Given that, what more do we need to know? This “review process” is a sham to allow Peterson to sneak in the back door with his monstrosity. A majority of the Council is already opposed to this project. Why do you continue to trouble yourselves and us with it? Vote the entire thing down now and let’s move forward in Ogden with no more irritation to the public with the charlatan Peterson and his greedy, destructive, manipulative ways.
What you should be considering is the text for a letter telling Peterson not to trouble himself any further – that we’re not interested in him or any proposals from him – that the public is firmly against this. You could probably get the words for a Peterson brush off letter from the people at Snowbasin who seem as tired of him as the rest of us! Stop this here, and now.
David...you've got it!
I hope the Council will seriously consider your suggestions and observations.
I would imagine that with few exceptions all of us writing to the Council will or have echoed your sentiments.
What you have written surely reflect my conclusions about Peterson, his 'experience' and his greed.
Thank you.
Well, looks like it's my day to play contrarian.... In re Dave's post:
Two points. First, you wrote You [i.e. the Council] know that the public is heavily against this project. Well, Dave, I don't think the Council knows that. I don't think you know it either. If you have evidence that the public is heavily against the gondola/gondola/Peterson lland speculation scheme, I'd love to see it so I could pass it on to every Council member. There were rumors the the Lift Ogden crowd commissioned a poll some time ago, and that it came out about as many opposed as for the scheme. But that's only rumor. I don't think anyone knows for certain where the overall public stands on whatever the public thinks the Peterson proposal is.
Second: while I would again love the Council to simply say "we are enot selling off city lands in the foothills for private development," it would be a bad idea for the Council to tell Mr. Peterson, as you would have them tell him, that we’re not interested in him or any proposals from him. It is conceivable that Mr. Peterson may come up with a development proposal [involving other properities] that would be a good idea and that the Council should entertain. Stranger things have happened. [Think '69 Mets.] Telling him "we're not approving the sale of public lands in the foothills" would be enough to spike the current project. Going over the top with a "get thee to a nunnery and never darken our door again!" letter would be pointless, and cast the Council in a bad light.
I do agree the Council does, or should, know enough now to know that selling off the city's foothill lands for residential development is a very bad idea, and I hope the members will take your suggestion that they say so now, firmly, once and for all. But I doubt they will. In part because at this point no one knows if "the public" as a whole is for the proposed project, against it or mostly doesn't much care.
(comment moved by administrator to the front page)
I appreciate what our council members do for the City for so little pay! No matter which way they vote, it's wrong! I know that they try to be fair and represent all the people, which is a mistake, because you can't please everyone. My advice to them is to study the issues, then vote your conscience. I think you who bad-mouth them are ingrates. What a thankless job they have and then to be treated as some of you treat them! I’m ashamed for you. Why don’t you put in the hours for the city that they do? And their thanks is only to be called the scum of the earth?! There are a couple of them whom you will find always at whatever is happening, supporting sponsors, learning, and getting public input. My hat goes off to them! Everyone makes a mistake now and then, but they do try to do what’s best for Ogden. Thanks, City Council Members for taking the time to study issues, to read all the emails, and to answer telephone calls. Thanks for all you do to make Ogden a better place, and it isn’t easy when you’re not sure who and what you can believe. You're heads and shoulders above those who try to put you down. Thanks for your comments on the blog, Mr. Safsten, Ms. Wicks, and Ms. Jeske. You help us to know what’s going on in the City.
Judy,
Although the frustration of seeing this saga continually played has brought some very tough and direct language, I do not read so much derision into the comments. The council has been responsive to a point but is still operating on information PROVIDED to them instead of seeking some of it on their own. There is nothing preventing any one of the council members from taking the short ride to SLC and sitting down at the desk of one of the Doppelmayer engineers and getting the critical answers from the horses mouth.
Let's put the damn horse in front of the cart for a moment. If the Urban Gondola is a bad idea and lacks utility when compared to a streetcar transit corridor, THEN....
WE DO NOT NEED TO SELL ANY PUBLIC RECREATIONAL LAND. THAT IS FINALITY.
JUDY...which unerpaid council member are you?
'
Or spouse?
Why must everyone including the council sit like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels entertaining non-proposals when the evidence shows that it's a money pit.
Has the whole of the council ignored the FACT that there is not one single urban gondola deployment in the world. The only one that comes close is in Medellin, Columbia(pop. 2.5 ... MILLION!) That deployment is only a spur to a much larger urban transit system that includes STREETCARS, trains and busses. The gondola portion was built to serve a densely populated(250,000) steep hillside borough that was unservicable by traditional conveyances. When Peterson decides to develop ALL of HIS property with low income shanty's running up the mountainside, than maybe we can consider his urban gondola.
"Sierra Club says...", "Group says...", "Schroeder said...". All of the statements that accompany these phrases in Schwebke's article are documented by the actual records, scanned copies of which are posted online for all to see. None of the statements were denied by Mr. Cook. Yet the documents themselves aren't mentioned until halfway down the article, after five occurrences of "Sierra Club says" or the equivalent (including two in the headlines). Why is the Standard-Examiner so terrified of treating facts as facts?
Imagine, for instance, if it had been the Standard-Examiner itself that had filed the GRAMA requests and obtained the very same documents from the city. Would every other sentence of the article have started with "The Standard-Examiner says..."?
It's certainly appropriate to point out that it was the Sierra Club that obtained the records and brought them to the attention of the reporter. But it's completely ridiculous to describe undisputed facts as if they were mere opinions.
Dan, the citizens of Ogden very much appreciate that you went out on a limb, and probably a very expensive one at that to obtain the documentation that you did. THANK YOU!! At least we know that the council not only has to question the administration, but it looks like their own executive staff member might have some fleas on him from lying down with the enemy. How can you operate successfully with the deck stacked against you like that? I hope your "Grama" revelation brings down this whole smelly house from the mayor to bill cook. The Standard is probably jealous that you took the iniative to expose the shady shenanigans going on at city hall. Did anyone go to the grand jury about the shady dealings conducted "right here in Ogden City?" GOOD JOB, DAN! Your our man!
sharon, abner and tec jonson, you know not of what you speak. You will eat your words before long, because as I said there is much going on behind the scenes.
Judy:
You wrote "there is much going on behind the scenes." So inform us, then. What is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about? Surely on such a matter of public discussion and debate, secrecy can not be in the public interest. So, let us know what you know. What's happening in the dark, and how did you find out about it? Thanks.
Is it true that Godfrey wants Jesse Garcia to run for mayor so that he can win a third term, just like last election. I think that Jesse should do what he does best, mess up the city by having the council vote for things that have no business being voted on. does he not do his home work? and people think that he would make a good mayor! give me a break.
Secrecy and "behind the scenes" shenanigans is what the Godfrey/Geiger combine is all about!
After all, they are the only true holders of the "Keys" and we shouldn't worry our simple little minds with important high power information that only they are entitled to know.
Secrecy in information and hand shakes is for them to know and us to not worry about.
hey, judy....are you a puppeteer?
Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything because it isn't open yet for public discussion. If the mayor knew, he would definitely take unwanted action to thwart the efforts of those working to serve the best interest of the community. You ask how I know about it: I was asked by a council member to help with the project. That's all I can say.
Abner, I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to know what you're referring to, but I'm guessing that you're not being nice.
Sharon, I agree with you, it was a very good Council meeting. Everyone except Stephenson and Safsten were right in tune which is the norm for those two -- marching to the Mayor's drum. It was nice of several of the patrons to thank the Council for their vote and for listening to them.
Judy,
You said you were behind the scene...that's where puppeteers are...and pulling strings. Sounds like you are behind the scenes, but not necessarily pulling the strings.
Now...that wasn't too bad, was it?
New comments are not allowed.