By Tec Jonson
Here's a fresh idea. Let's suppose we as a city decide we may want a lift to Malan's as an attraction and to add some recreational opportunities to the already ample possibilities of adventure available here in The OGD. Why not exercise eminent domain over Peterson's land, annex it as municipal recreation lands, and contract with a real mountain resort developer to build a small educational wilderness outpost that can be used by the locals of all ages and income levels to learn to ski and snowboard, rock and ice climb, learn about eco-initiatives and the mountain environment. That is a win-win for all and we can send Peterson packing. Our city would really be on the map for committing to recreation and education as a foundation for civic pride. This instead of selling off valuable public open space for the benefit of a few. The property values in a city so committed would soar the same as claimed by the LO choir wthout bringing in wealthier-than-thou outsiders and we enhance the Ogden experience for those already here.
I am sick of the council squirming under the pressure of scaring off investment in Ogden if they vote this down. The mayor and Geigers assume things in Ogden are still in a decline and we need more stuff to prove we have a real city here. BS. I meet people everyday who have moved here recently and none of them care one bit for an Urban Gondola. Most are completely unaware or just barely have heard something about it.
The council behaves as though there has yet to be any analysis of this thing. I have personally along with others brought to the attention ogf the council through letters many flaws in the plan. It amazes me that still the logistical and operational hangups with an Urban Gondola system alone should kill this thing. I would be glad to interview a representative from Doppelmayer and pose some of my key questions to him that I have given to the council. This thing is indefensible yet no one in any position of power and influence wants to get smart about it and get these questions answered once and for all. We live in a time when logical resolution to ANYTHING is never enough to quiet the promoters. The Intelligent Design crowd are evidence of a disease in our media saturated culture where no one gets facts from study. It is just too demanding. They want promotional language and shoot-from-the-hip resolutions to everything. I am SICK OF IT ALL. Send this fool and his pocketed mayor packing.
The above article has been liberated from a lower comments section, pursuant to our Weber County Forum Comment Rescue Program.
Mr. Jonson raises some interesting questions here, we think.
What say our gentle readers?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
28 comments:
Tec is correct. In addition,
1) Sending Peterson packing has nothing to do with anybody else. While Ogden is a welcoming city, every organization large and small has its short list of undesirables with whom it does not associate. Peterson has caused deep consternation in this city for the past year. His qualifications are lacking and his inability to sell his own ideas proves he is not the right person for any major project. His primary claim of qualifications is his prior association with Earl Holding, yet Holding’s staff has made a point of stating that Peterson has not done much of what he claims to have done. We know more than enough to place him on a “questionable characters” list, and to focus our attention and efforts on more legitimate persons.
2) We do know public opinion. Those who have attended the Mt. Ogden community plan meetings know the opinion was 20:1 if favor of preserving open space, not selling off public land, not allowing bench development, and for many beneficial improvements to the community which were put forward. The first three have been the same recommendation coming from every community plan, and they’re in the general plan. How can the public have said this any more clearly? The public has spoken – a small minority of selfish people don’t care – but the public has spoken.
3) The mayor and the Geigers have terrorized community members with this scheme for months. They have told people along the gondola route to “get over it.” They have heaped derision on anybody who expresses an alternate vision. And even with their biased, disingenuous presentations they have convinced no one! Suggestions that we need to study this further are absurd. What issue has ever been more thoroughly publicly vetted than this one? What political issue has ever had more public participation and opposition than this one? What is left to study?
Why do we continue to tiptoe around this? Why does the Council to allow these people to vex and trouble the residents? Why are city funds and Council time continuing to be wasted on this? Why does the Council not shut this down, and begin to move in the direction of the people’s clearly stated wishes? Yes, the goal is to get Malans into the public domain, to declare all city lands as parkland in perpetuity, to permanently block anymore bench bulldozing, and to FIRE any city employee who can’t get that message, as the public will once again FIRE those Council members who do not listen to us! Council members, stop the bleeding, stop playing defense, stop nuancing your statements, and stop pandering to Peterson, the mayor, and to their few sleazy supporters on city staff and in the nauseating Chamber of Commerce. Kill this now, and start spending your time working toward residents’ clearly stated vision for this city! Sometimes the easy way out is to show a little courage up front.
The Geigers, the mayor(purposely uncapitalized for lack of relevance and leadership) and Peterson have attempted to discredit Dan Schroeder, Don Wilson, and others on this blog. I feel alot more comfortable with the analysis of a physics professor and naturalist such as Dan, who respects fact and whose profession requires observation and evaluation of data to reach conclusions. Same goes for Don, a senior member of our community who has served as a ski patrolman and engineer. Both of these men, as well as the many other SGO supporters have NO vested interest in their positions. They speak from experience and only ask that we get the facts and decide for ourselves. The mantra "Ogden needs something" is not dealing in fact and wallows in the decline of Ogden in the 80's and 90's. Those days are gone and Ogden is rising based solely on it's affordability and the long overlooked recreational resources. The newcomers from Amer Sport will be completely blown away by the beauty of this place and how anyone ever thought Boulder, Santa Fe, Sedona, Bend, Couer D' Lene, Bozeman, Ft Collins etc. etc. were so cool. Those places pale in comparison to the accesibility of our recreational havens. Not one of them have 8000 acres of inbound ski terrain within a half hours drive. Not one of them have Express Train service to the neighboring Metro Areas. Not one of them can you buy a home for 100,000. All of them are becoming havens for the rich. How Passe. Not one of them have a lake view from most of the city. Not one of them can you walk out from a foothill neighborhood and take a hike on a municipal trail network into a mountain wilderness. You have to get in the car and drive a while. Sure you can SEE the mountains from those cities. We are sitting at the foot of the mountain. Ogden has something so special that many take for granted. You cannot build a mountain next to a city. The city just happened to built at the base of this mountain. It deserves protection.
As for Peterson's 2000 sq. ft. luxury homes. What a joke. Has anyone noticed that luxury homes these days are 3 to 4 times that size and come on lots of several acres or more. My 1948 art deco inspired brick home built by an Ogden local is 2400 sq' and cost 150,000. Somehow I cannot see the math there. Do we want him to decide at a later date that instead he wants to build 50 obscene energy hogging 6000 sq ft mansions because thats what sells in Park City and Jackson Hole. Afterall those areas would be his competition for the ski accesible homebuyer. Imagine our foothill littered with the sight of these empty, tudorish, brick-facaded, monstrosities reflecting blinding beams of sunlight from their r-factor busting picture windows at sunset. Yuck.
How does "Mayor Tec Jonson", or at least, "Councilman Tec Jonson" sound? At last, someone with imagination and gumption!
BTW, Charles Trentelman has a pretty good article in today's SE. "Money comes, money goes, but when land is gone, it’s gone." Guess what THAT's about.
We earlier posted the Trentelman link in today's update to yesterday's article.
No reason at all, though, that we shouldn't also post it here.
Tec:
Excellent idea in re: Malan's Basin. However, I'm not sure the city can exercise eminent domain powers to acquire parklands. Can it? Anyone know for sure?
And if the city was to acquire the Malan's property via eminent domain powers [which would have to follow annexation, surely] or by outright purchase, the question arises: where would the money come from? How would it be raised? Would Ogden voters agree to say a property tax increase or some other tax in order to fund open space aquisition, as Salt Lake City voters did recenty? I would vote for something like, that, but could it carry in a general election? I'm not sure.
If anyone out there knows for sure about whether cities can exercise eminient domain powers to acquire open space or parklands, please let us know.
Excellent idea about a proper city-boosting, business-attracting, lifestyle-enhancing use for Malan's Basin, I think. But can it be made to work under existing law and can it [or will it] be financed by the voters? On those two points, still not sure.
The 2005 state statutory ban on eminent domain applies only to RDAs.
The power still remains in municipalities like Ogden, to condemn properties for traditional purposes such as schools, government infrastructure and public parks.
Curm,
My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but totally possible. If it's an option it should be on the table. So much of everything these days is sub-contracted to the lowest bidder or sold out for profit. Why can't a city be in the recreation business. We are with the golf course. It may not make money or even lose a little. Cities can deal with a loss on enhancements like parks and other recreational facilities because they elevate the quality of life for everyone in the city. That is a distributed loss that most can accept. A little research may find this to be not so far fetched. At the very least it could be saved for the future when our tax base could support it ...if godfrey doesn't break us first.
Thanks all,for the concurrence.
Rudi:
Are you certain the law on eminent domain permits its use by municipalities to acquire parklands? I know it can be used to acquire sites for public purposes like roads, bridges, and public buildings like schools. But I'm not sure park lands are currently included as legitimate ends for the use of eminent domain powers. Should be, but hey, this is Utah, and "should be" and "are" are not always as synonymous as they ought to be in matters of law and public policy.
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.
Any one that seriously thinks this Peterson ski resort scam in Malan's basin is really viable should check out the following. It seems that the top scientists now all pretty much agree that global warming is upon us.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
Tec,
I’m sorry your suggestion to condemn Malans and take it under eminent domain was tongue in cheek. As a matter of fact, that very idea came up in the Mt. Ogden community planning meetings and was enthusiastically supported by everyone.
Furthermore, do not allow yourself to be dissuaded by a misconception of costs. The land itself is relatively cheap, especially in view of the money that is routinely spent by government for less-useful purposes. Moreover, the maintenance costs are for raw land, which needs little maintenance.
To my shock, there was also unanimity in our planning group for a tax increase to buy the land! This is somewhat moot, since the tax increase would be small and one-time, or even smaller annually if bonded, but the support was there, regardless of cost. (As a hard-core small government man myself, as I said, I was shocked.) Another approach would be fund raising. If the land were to be permanently conveyed to an irrevocable position of legal trust either private or public, I believe private money would be forthcoming for such a useful purpose.
Personally, I own part of a subdivision in Idaho. We also own all the timber acreage around which we leave undeveloped. The cost of the land was relatively small and the annual costs are nil, but the value and the worth to our community of this raw timberland are immeasurable.
This then, is the alternate vision for Ogden, as formulated by her residents: To buy the remaining undeveloped private foothill and mountain land and convey it into a legal state of trust. It also may be possible to work a similar conveyance for our existing parks, or find a way to otherwise keep these things in perpetuity. This mountain land will become our version of California’s Pacific Coast Highway and their redwood forests. Except ours will all be within walking distance, unlike anywhere else in the world. Let’s embrace this vision and promote it. It’s all very much within reach.
David,
Much agreed, I understand Peterson paid under 2 million for the land. That's peanuts in terms of urban real estate and what a piece of real estate it is. I would venture to say the city was sitting on it's hands and had little foresight if they knew this land was obtainable before Peterson got his grubby paws on it. I cannot believe a city would pass on the opportunity to own such a huge chunk of undeveloped adjacent land. Perhaps the issue could be raised again and force a sale to the city.
All you have to do is take a look at the mountain from the west end and...
Holy Sh*t, Peterson owns virtually the whole side of the mountain. That he would scar it with roads or attempts at top to bottom ski trails when it is pristine today suggests a small man indeed.
All creative suggestions should be on the table. This is a turning point for our vistas. Be smart council. Future generations will remember today's decisions.
I hope the council considers that this whole thing was formulated on lies and distortion.
Snowbasin link...NOT
Seamless SLCintl to Malan's Link...NOT
Urban Gondola as transit...NOT
500 million investment...NOT
WSU ski-in ski-out...NOT
4000+ vertical skiing...NOT (notice this years mid-winter snow cover)
Comparable to Brighton...Big NOT
I think Dan has the whole list of NOT's on the Sierra Club site.
How bout if the eminent domain starts with your property and lands? What a bunch of socialists- socialists too stupid to even realize they are socialists
I was doing some research last week of our ordinances, and found where the city has an ordnance that states if any open space park or golf course is sold, the money obtained from the sale must be used to purchase more open space park property. Therefore, the Mayor will be unable to use it to pay for the gondola.
Also, Tec Jonson, I have from a very good authority that Chris Peterson wants to put 600 houses in his gated community! Sure won't be much green space there -- the reduced golf course would probably be it.
A decade ago the city did, if I'm not mistaken, use eminent domain (or at least the threat thereof) to acquire land that was converted into a park. For those who weren't around then, here's the story: Westland Ford wanted to expand from their old location to the site of a neighboring 7-acre city park (Affleck Park, I believe). The park land had been donated to the city a couple generations earlier by someone who stipulated that the land always be a park. So Mayor Mecham convinced the City Council to give the park land back to the heirs of the original donor, who then sold the land to Westland Ford. The city didn't get a dime for the property. Then, to make up for the loss of park land, the city bought out about 30 homeowners and a church on a nearby block, where they bulldozed everything and created a new park (Jefferson Park). The cost to the city ended up being over $2 million. I believe that Jesse Garcia was one of two Council members who voted against the scheme. The justification, of course, was that Westland Ford would repay the lost $2 million through sales tax revenue to the city over a decade or so. Oh, and of course the Council promised that the new park would end up being just as big as the old one, but ended up skimping and making the new park a bit smaller.
Which is precisely why the council cannot commit itself to resolving to address the Peterson proposal, when it does not know what steps would conceivably need to be undertaken, because it doesn't have a proposal. There is no mandate to resolve to address the non-existent proposal. It would be laughable, but it's quite sad, sad that we've come to this place as a community, and sad to know whose tiny little hands drug us here. Remember who handily won the mayor's race in '03? I do, and I know for whom I voted.
To anonymous:
Actually I am neither socialist nor stupid – indeed, quite the contrary on both counts.
Eminent domain – the taking of private property for public use as long as just compensation is provided – is in the US Constitution, which is hardly socialistic.
Bench and mountain lands are presently for the most part legally non-buildable anyway. And they have always been considered recreational lands. Buying them for perpetual public use is hardly tyrannical.
Changing the law to make them buildable on the other hand, is the sort of thing corrupt men have done for centuries to reap windfall profits.
Anon, I fear you are no patriot after all. Indeed, quite the contrary.
Don't be too bothered by that anonymous knee-jerk psuedo-libertarian type (Anonymous,) David. We did relish your retort, though.
Looking at it from the practical side, Chris Peterson would get fair market value in an eminent domain action; and at this point in this fiasco, we suspect he'd appreciate the "bailout." An eminent domain action would allow him to "recapture" his originally poorly-intended capital -- and allow him to build his dream golf course -- in Nevada.
Anybody with a brain in Chris's position would love to find a buyer at any price. It must be obvious by now, even for him, that the Malan's Basin project is a non-starter. Absent that, he owns a fairly remote parcel of Mountain terrain, better suited for raising goats, than for resort development.
We citizens of Weber County ought to look more carefully into the possibilty of setting up Malan's basin as a regional protected park. Perhaps the County commission might find a joint venture with the city attractive. This isn't merely an Emerald City issue. People from all over northern Utah and elsewhere use the park and hike into the Malan's basin headlands.
My brother-in-law from Switzerand hiked up from the golf course a few wweks ago -- and he was in total awe.
Last summer when I was walking the trails with my malamute, we ran across a team of hilers from Florida!
Time we think to have a further disussion on this.
Carry on, gentle readers.
Anonypuss,
If protecting a substantial piece of pristine mountain property adjacent to a city for the enjoyment of all is socialist so be it.
Besides, I am not the only one on this blog that has been supportive of Peterson's private property right to develop his land at his risk and cost, provided he could get the WSU to sell him a parcel for a base or con the forest service into allowing a road across some of their property. That was the plan to begin with. Now it is all mucked up in so many tangent codependent projects. I venture it is Peterson and Godfrey who are the practicing socialists looking to rape the public trough to underwrite their nonsense.
As usual, the lonely few supporters of this project, take a smidgeon of the sound opposition out of context and read whatever they want into it. Good luck fool, you'll meet your match here. Next time, try writing more than a line or two. Give us alittle more of your stale fodder to run through the free-market grist mill.
I'm a capitalist to the core. I don't need any government help with my projects.
An ordinance stating that if our parkland (open space is sold)...the money obtained has to spent on buying more open space?
Well, duh...and HUH?
There is nothing inherently wrong with Socialism. It's the practice of it by Follyticians like Godfrey(in the name of Conservatism) and those on all fours like Peterson looking for favors that give it a bad name.
I would reply, but I'm just so excited that in only months I'll be able to pay $40 to spend ten minutes in a wind tunnel pretending I'm parachutting that I can't concentrate on this Peterson business....
Obviously you have no concept of high adventure.
After your 10 minutes in the indoor wind tunnel, you can spend just a few more dollars negotiating an indoor feaux rapids in a fake river. After that you can rent a towel to dry off and then pay to climb a plastic climbing wall without even having to go outside. After that you can pay more to bowl 3 games in a genuine bowling alley, buy tokens to play games in an electronic arcade and order pizza at $2 per 17 fat-grams slice. Tell me it doesn't get any better than that.
On the other hand, never mind. I don't give a darn what you people think anyways.
I am the Emperor of the Republic of Ogden!
From my throne up on the ninth floor, you all look like ants!
(Comment promoted to the top shelf)
While doing a research paper I found this little gem...
http://utah.sierraclub.org/ogden/OgdenFront/MalansVsBrighton.html
Just a question to any serious skier/snowboarder out there, would any of you really be excited about Malan's Basin? At first I was gung-ho for the proposal, but after just a little research I was greatly disappointed by the terrain logistics of the proposed resort. I'd rather drive 45 mins and choose amoung several better/bigger/more exciting resorts. Chris Petersen claims that he can market Malan Basin to a certain clientel. I just want to know if any of the readers here would be interested in actually going to this resort vs. others in the area, and I question whether Chris Petersen would really be able to market such a small resort. Is he realistic? Or is there any reaonable belief that Malan Basin is marketable as a viable resort?
Anon:
Good questions. And if Mr. Peterson were attempting to raise investment funds from the usual sources for resort development --- pension funds, banks, etc... one of the first things the potential investors would ask to see, I think, is a market study looking into the likely "demand" for another [small] resort in the Wasatch. Mr. Peterson has been touting his "proposal" in some form or another for nearly two years now, and in that time, he's made public so far as I know, no market study addressing that point. I presume that is because he hasn't got one.
Which is why, it seems, he needs to go after the Mt. Ogden parklands for real estate development, so he can generate the funds from that that he has not been able to raise from the usual sources. If investors are unwilling to provide the funds for his mini-ski resort, then it seems to me the market has spoken vis-a-vis its financial feasibility.
New comments are not allowed.