Late to the party again, the Standard-Examiner finally gets around to reporting a story which broke days ago on these very Weber County Forum pages. Chris Peterson's stealth acquisition of three Wall Avenue properties directly adjacent to the new FrontRunner train station is front-page news with this morning's Scott Schwebke piece.
Ace Reporter Scwebke has done some reportorial "digging" since we first published the story, and has come up with some very revealing facts and quotes.
First, we learn that that the principals in the transaction were in fact Chris Peterson and his brother:
Community and Economic Development Director Dave Harmer confirmed that F.L. Peterson and Chris Peterson are brothers and are likely going in together on the purchase of the parcels at 2127, 2131 and 2151 Wall Ave.Secondly, we find out that the Godfrey administration wilfully (and fraudulently, we think) concealed and suppressed this highly material information from the Emerald City RDA Board:
The Ogden Redevelopment Agency, made up of the City Council, authorized Mayor Matthew Godfrey in December to sell the land for $270,000 to Bootjack LLC, operated by F.L. Peterson.
A city government official, who asked not to be identified, said the administration sent a memo earlier this month to City Council Executive Director Bill Cook explaining why Bootjack’s ownership was not initially divulged.Boss Godfrey has been caught red-handed with his grubby little paws squarely in the cookie-jar in this transaction, folks. Boss Godfrey and his soul-less lacky Dave Harmer very well knew that disclosure of the identity of the actual Godfrey crony principals in the Bootjack LLC would cause an uproar; and they thus intentionally withheld this troubling and incriminating information.
“It would have created too much controversy and questions,” the official said... .
Once again our Council/RDA Board has been flim-flammed and hoodwinked by the crafty, conniving and ethics-challenged Boss Godfrey. The conduct revealed here is reprehensible, we think.
And we ask once again... WHEN WILL THE CURRENT "RIP VAN WINKLE" COUNCIL WAKE UP?
The floor is open.
Update 2/22/07 8:42 a.m. MT: Ace Reporter Schwebke again furnishes more particulars on this topic with this morning's story, wherein Chris Peterson finally comes clean, admitting that he's the true owner of the purchase option for the Bloom Recycling parcels. Asked about his plans for the property, Chris resorts to his usual schpiel.: "It's a secret," says Boss Godfrey's very best buddy.
"I think that people will be intrigued by and excited about the plan when it is released," says Chris. We're sure that's true, say we. We are always thrilled whenever Boss Godfrey's cronies are lined up preferentially to reap real estate profits hand over fist, as the result of Boss Godfrey's sweetheart deals.
Meanwhile our dumbfounded council/RDA board sits idly, scratching its head and twiddling its thumbs; and Boss Godfrey continues his unfettered tenure as Emerald City's Rogue RDA Executive Director.
67 comments:
I find disturbing the suggestion that Weber State would be interested in swapping their 100 hillside acres for about four downtown, even if the commercial development possibilities are vast for these blighted Brother Peterson parcels; WSU is not in the commercial development business. WSU has expertly telegraphed that they are not interested in selling their land to Peterson. These latest revelations show the administration acting either desperately, with great delusion, or both.
Great reporting, WCF! Today's Standard article did provide some interesting details. One question I have, though, is why on earth would WSU even think twice about land near 22nd and Wall, if that is indeed an intent? Granted, the land is definitely worth more than $270,000 and should not have been quietly sold to Peterson. I imagine Peterson has other plans for the property. Sounds like Peterson has the City bootjacked. Is there anything the City won't do for him? What else is going on that we don't know about?
Yeah,
I have worked for various levels of government in the past and have had to present and answer to commissions and boards. If my fellow colleagues or I deceived or did not provide prudent information on a subject when submitting info to the commission/board/etc. we would undoubtedly be reprimanded or canned as soon as they found out, especially if it was something that makes them look bad. Why this continues to happen again and again in Ogden is beyond me. What baffles me even more is the audacity of the City trying to get away with this behavior. They are definitely not slick enough to get away with it (although they manage to stay off the Standard's radar until someone bluntly points it out to them).
Aren't the principals of any given LLC available on the utah.gov site?
There is a fee of 3.00 per search, but it appears this information was quite available to the council with a flick of the mouse over wi-fi and a valid credit card. I could have gotten Garcia or any councilmember this informtion in about 2 minutes of anyone had asked. Why is it so many in leadership are so technologically slack and unable to even ask someone who is to get this public information. Schoolchildren are now required to develop a minimum of computer and searching skills. Why not city government officials.
This kind of technological disability is inexcusable these days.
Jill:
Interesting point you make. I wonder if the WCF posting of "Ogden Red's" report about the land sale was in fact the origin of the SE story? The timing of the WCF posting and subsequent SE story certainly fit that explanation. In which case it would have been gracious of the SE to acknowledge WCF as a source.
Interesting point, Jill. Very interesting....
Actually I just searched this for free in less than 30 seconds at Utah dept of Commerce.
BOOTJACK LLC Limited Liability Company SALT LAKE CITY Active
Business Name:
BOOTJACK LLC
Entity Number:
5876050-0160
Registration Date:
04/05/2005
State of Origin:
Address
3434 E. 7800 S. #177
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121
Status
Status:
Active
Status Description:
Good Standing
This Status Date:
04/05/2005
Last Renewed:
05/09/2006
License Type:
LLC - Domestic
Delinquent Date:
04/05/2007
Registered Agent
Registered Agent:
F L PETERSON
[Search BES] [Search RPS]
Address Line 1:
3434 E. 7800 S. #177
Address Line 2:
City:
SALT LAKE CITY
State:
UT
Zip:
84121
Tec:
True enough, but the larger point still seems to me the Administration's deliberate withholding of information requested by the Council/RDA board. Council members shouldn't have to go outside to get information the Administration has and that should have been, as a simple matter of good government, passed on to the Council without its having had to ask, and especially after it did ask.
But you are right. With insider crony government clearly the norm in the Godfrey administration, members of the Council need to get used, fast, to developing independent sources of information that should be coming from Godfrey but isn't. Otherwise, with policy evidently being decided upon as a means to serve the private [and deliberately hidden] enrichment of FOMs, the Council... and the residents of Ogden general... will continue to find themselves a day late and a dollar short on Godfrey's actions.
Of course, the Council does have a staff. Seems to me no matter how technophobic a Council member might be, a request to staff..."find out who is behind BootJack, and we need to know by tomorrow noon..." would have done it. Surely Council staff are [and must be] tech savey when it comes to on line public information.
More likely, Little Matty and the Petersons will attempt to use the downtown parcels as landswap bait for bench areas; it's gone beyond byzantine: the city sells prime commercial real estate it already owns at a cut rate, so it can swap those pieces it used to own for much more valuable parklands that it already owns. I'm Yosarian and Gondola Godfrey is a really, really small version of Major Major Major Major. Strafe, goddamnit, strafe!
The use of internet search has become second nature for those of us who take information seriously. I cannot have a meaningful conversation without the urge to initiate several searches. This lack of basic curiosity on the part of the RDA in this obviously blatant move to tie up prime real estate has me wondering. Any half-aware individual who was there should have immediatly gotten this information. We have wireless data carriers that give instant access to the information. I would imagine there is wi-fi available in the meeting areas. There is no excuse for such slackness. For the number of people involved, that there is not one of them with a data connection to the OUTSIDE WORLD, and a smattering of curiousity make me sick. ANY transaction between the city and a corporation should initiate a principals inquiry to know just who it is you are dealing with.
The Council staff in reality works for Cook. Cook works for Godfrey. Godfrey works for himself, his friends and his huge ego.
There is no independent checks and balances in Ogden City Government.
The joke is on us.
Dear Speculators
It is very unlikely that the purchase of the land on Wall Ave has anything to do with a land swap at WSU.
It may very well have something to do with the Gondola.
1. Landing site
2. Student housing
3. Retail operation
On the other hand Peterson's brother is not Peterson. He may be positioning himself to take advantage of a potential growth in business in Ogden if the Gondola does happen.
Who knows!
ANON
What I am surprised by is not that Godfrey and Harmer hoodwinked the Council but that Scott Schwebke wrote a good article and that the Standard actually printed it.
I think this article definitely would have been stopped if the powers-that-be had been aware of it.
Now that Schwebke has learned to dodge their bullets maybe he will do a sequel...I hope.
Dear Councilwoman Wicks:
Good that you did so, but you should not have had to. The appalling thing in the SE article for me was the Administration withholding the information because it thought it would be embarrassing or create a public fuss to have it known who it was selling the city's land to. That's how crony government prefers to operate: out of the public eye. Or as you put it so succinctly [and aptly] to Mr. Schwebke: you have to "know" someone on the inside of the Godfrey administration to find out what's available.
Crony government, Godfrey style.
What I am surprised by is that no one gets fired --
except, of course,--
Gloria Barrett and Dean Martinez.
And does anyone know what is happening to OK3AIR's Federal lawsuit against the Ogden City Airport which is supposed to take place this month in Judge Tina Campbell's Court in Salt Lake City?
I hope Godfrey has built up a stash of cash for this doozey.
Thanks, Amy
I jumped to conclusions assuming no one was interested.
Curm, I also agree that the secrecy move by godfrey and co. reflects arrogance and contempt for the community.
Here is the free search link:
Business Entity Search
So what does it take to become a FOM? That could of been some prime real estate when Frontrunner hits town! Hoodwinked again is right!
Rather than continue to criticize the council for these mistakes (which consist of taking Godfrey’s word) we might suggest what they should do.
I suggest they strip Godfrey of his power to sell land – the power that was given him by the previous council.
Then, in the minds of each council member should be the idea that if questions are left unanswered, the answer shall be “NO”. Godfrey has been trained to believe he need not answer questions. He needs to be trained otherwise and it would be easy to do.
Lastly, I know that Godfrey’s spokespersons, Stephenson and Saftsen read this blog. I would ask that either explain to us why the sale of these prime lots to Peterson for a small price is beneficial to the city. Surely they have a ready answer they could share with us to dispel the concerns!
Somebody must have at least a putative reason. So what is it? Or is this one of those times that when the “good people” who “care” about the city must simply avert their eyes in the “best interests” of the city?
danny
Godfrey should be removed as the Executive Director of the RDA.
The situation isn't that complicated, people. The RDA Director (Boss Godfrey) has been obviously lying to the RDA Board repeatedly.
In normal government circumstrances an agent for any government entity who is working at cross purposes in his appointed position ought to be fired, or at least be severely reprimanded.
Somebody needs to give the lamebrain council Chairman Garcia a no-doz pill.
Amy Wicks could use a good cattle-prod jolt, too, apparently.
This Amy Wicks quote was astounding:
City Councilwoman Amy Wicks said she is less concerned about Bootjack purchasing the property and more worried about the municipality’s policy for disposing of surplus land without a public bidding process.
C'mon Amy. Boss Godfrey has given Chris Peterson option rights to the arguably most valuably appreciating real estate parcel in Ogden -- a property that could reasonably at least double in value during the next year -- and you have no problem with that?
We shudder at the unsavvy innocence of that comment.
Yes. THe lack of proper process in disposing of this property is important.
What's really important though, is the fact that Boss Godfrey is unabashedly dealing out valuable downtown real estate to his buddies -- and that YOU People Keep on approving deals like that.
The time has also come to examine the motivations of council leadership.
Why, exactly do they fail to "take up the reins of city leadership?"
There is NO PLAUSIBLE REASON that Boss Godfrewy ought not be fired from his RDA Execitive Director position, taking recent information into account.
We'll be watching closely on this.
Well, Rudi, I haven't been forced to play contrarian for a while now, but looks like the drought is over....
You wrote: This Amy Wicks quote was astounding: "City Councilwoman Amy Wicks said she is less concerned about Bootjack purchasing the property and more worried about the municipality’s policy for disposing of surplus land without a public bidding process."
Seems reasonable to me to be more worried about the apparent Godfrey administration policy of parceling out "surplus" city land to FOMs and others, without putting it up for bids than to be concerned about one particular transaction. I probably would be too.
You then wrote: "C'mon Amy. Boss Godfrey has given Chris Peterson option rights to the arguably most valuably appreciating real estate parcel in Ogden -- a property that could reasonably at least double in value during the next year -- and you have no problem with that?
Seems to me Councilwoman Wicks did not say she has "no problem with that" as you claim. She said she is less concerned about this transaction than she is about the no-bids policy for selling city land. Not un-concerned, but less concerned. Again, seems reasonable to me.
Now about this particular sale. At this point, we don't know if the land went for fair market value or not. [I would be glad to see numbers on this, one way or the other.] We don't know how its FMV was established [appraising is an art, not a science]. We don't know if there were others who would have bid had it been offered for public sale. It is possible the sales were for the best likely current price. [No, I'm not willing to bet on that; the administration's attempt to keep it all from being public knowledge until the deal was done makes it plain Godfrey, Friends & Co. thought they had something worth hiding from public view. That's enough by itself to make Little Mary Sunshine suspicious, much less a curmudgeon.]
But at this point, we don't know for sure. Lots of speculation encouraged by the usual Godfrey, Friends & Co. ham-fistedness in dealing with the Council and the public, sure. But speculation none the less. And I know nothing about the man who bought the properties. [Being Chris Peterson's relative is not an indictable offense.] Nor do I know why he bought the land or what he plans to do with it. Nor do I know if he is acting as a proxy for another. Lots of speculation, again, but it is just speculation at this point.
Not defending Godfrey, Friends & Co on this in any way. Nor the Council's willingness to approve the no-bid sale after GF & C stiffed it on the buyer's name. Merely pointing out that at this point, we actually know very little about the sales, and perhaps should wait for more reliable information to emerge before drawing hard conclusions. Except that Hizzonah ought to be removed as Executive Director of the RDA. That can be justified on the basis of what we know at this point. As for removing the rest from the realm of speculation... we just don't know enough yet to do that.
I agree that Godfrey needs to be removed as RDA director, as well as from any other position of responsibility over which the council has authority.
I would like to give Stephenson and Saftsen a chance to hone their arguments here (for they are both very condescending and argumentative in council executive sessions.) Before they beat up the rest of the council in discussing this underhanded deal, why not play with us boys and girls here first?
And in Amy’s defense:
1) One shouldn’t read too much into a newspaper quote. They tend to be superficial and even inaccurate (although Schwebke deserves credit for this article, as well as the SE for printing it on the front page.)
2) I feel what she is saying is NOT that the sale is NOT a problem, but that the problem goes BEYOND the current issue. The larger issue is the mechanism by which the city disposes of property, which she seems to feel is based more on contacts (cronyism) than on anything else. It seems correct here to look at the larger issue.
And I understand the frustration, as we picture Godfrey and Harmer standing before the council, withholding and distorting information time and time again. As Chris Bentley said in a recent Council meeting: What more do we need to know? Enough is enough!
And I have said, the Council needs to exert more authority over what seems to be a reckless and dishonest mayor. I keep remembering Hitler’s flooding of Germany’s crowded subways when the German people failed to live up to his leadership. He would have destroyed Germany, to punish it. In Hitler’s case, his generals and subordinates saved Germany over and over from Hitler’s destructive orders. The council (as well as staff) needs to do the same for Ogden. The council should dump and strip Godfrey every way they can, demand straight answers at all times, and table issues until they get those answers. They are the type of people who can do it if they will. And if they will hold the line for a few more months the rest of us will do the remainder of what needs to be done this fall.
"Well, Rudi, I haven't been forced to play contrarian for a while now, but looks like the drought is over...."
You wrote: This Amy Wicks quote was astounding: "City Councilwoman "Amy Wicks said she is less concerned about Bootjack purchasing the property and more worried about the municipality’s policy for disposing of surplus land without a public bidding process."
LOL, curmidgeon. Hard to believe a gentle soul like you would dis-agree on anything, [wink]
I believe the buddy deal between Boss Godfrey and Chris Peterson is the most important point, inasmuch as it could finally get the little guy indicted.
In truth however, the "buddy deal" and the "policy iasues" are probably so hopelessly intertwined that we may have been splitting hairs when we seemingly singled out and criticised Councilwoman Wicks.
Don't get us wrong.
Amy is our second favorite Emerald City Councilperson.
We just wish the entire council would follow Dorrene Jeske's strong leadership, and eat a can of spinach every day, heheheh.
Councilmembers could NEVER eat a can of spinach!
The Standard would cricize them, and their political carreers would soon be over!
especially if they have some between their teeth.
Do we have leadership on the Council or not?
The only remark Harmer has made that is not disengenuous is when he said that if the Council had a problem with Bootjack...they should have voted no.
What do the rest of us do? Rudi...you're a smart lawyer type....WHEN and under what conditions can Godfrey be indicted?
WHO will handle that?
If Amy Wicks had all the information earlier, why didn't she publicly reveal it immediately?
I'll bet dollars to donuts that Rudy would have published the information.
What the hells going on here with the council anyways?
Open Question to Amy and the rest of the city council,
Amy, you mention that you passed this information on to the council members long before it appeared on this blog, (your comments on this blog at 12:24 PM).
If that was the case, why didn't the council members immediately go public on this information; why didn't the council disavow itself from this action; and why didn’t the council immediately issue resolutions to the By Laws of the RDA to keep this from happening again? What changes are you and the council going to make to control this out of control mayor and his band of thieves, both with regards to city business or RDA business? I’ve read the RDA By Laws, you as council members have the right (and now the responsibility) to fire the current Executive Director and put a new one in (as long as that person isn’t a council member). There are plenty of other people that you could put into that position.
We elected you and the other city council members to represent us, to stand up for us, not to pass your responsibility off to some staff member to decide what should be done and how something should be written. We elected you because you said you wanted the job, Now GO DO YOUR JOB and that goes for the rest of you too!
Aw, there is no leadership on that council. Garcia is a shill, and Wicks hasn't shown herself to be on the ball. She usually sits there, and hardly says a word..and her voting is erratic.
At least with the old council, we knew who the rubber stampers were...and never had to wonder. With this council, only Jeske seems to ask questions, and once in awhile Van Hooser speaks up.
Amy had information that she could've taken to the public AND the coucil...and I don't think she did.
why is the council not firing bill crook. he is the whole reason this all happened the way it did. come on council grow some godfrees and fire him like mark johnson did with dean martinez.
Anon:
Let's keep in mind that at this point, we still don't know that the sale was not a wise one for the city to have made. Lots of speculation that it must not have been or probably wasn't, but no facts. Was the price at least "fair market value" for the land as the RDA rules required? I don't know. Do you? What was the FMV on the land and how was it determined? I don't know. Do you? A lot of people seem to be assuming that it was, it must have been, a bad deal for the city. We don't know that it was. And talk [as some are doing] of "indicting" the Mayor is at this point wildly speculative, since all he was required to do was sell it for no less than its fair market value. No one has yet offered any evidence that he did not do that. And the Council approved the sale, which means it [acting as RDA Board] must have accepted the deal as a good one for the city as well. [Would learning who was behind BootJack and was buying the land have changed that judgement? Probably not. Why should it have?] It is possible that it was a sweetheart deal arranged for an FOM. But we don't know that it was. We just don't have enough information to draw that conclusion. Not yet anyway.
Speculation can be fun, but based on what we know at this point [not suspect thanks to Godfrey, Friends & Co.'s characteristic bungling of what should have been a simple, above board transaction], some of what's being charged seems very premature to me, and way over the top.
"Let's keep in mind that at this point, we still don't know that the sale was not a wise one for the city to have made. Lots of speculation that it must not have been or probably wasn't, but no facts. Was the price at least "fair market value" for the land as the RDA rules required?"
Ahem!
Sales of public property should only occur through open bid, after a property has been placed on the public market for a reasonable period of time.
The free market is the only reliable method to determines fair market value.
This insider transaction stinks to high heaven.
Period.
I recommend that you take a course in econ 101.
Curm,
See the comment just above and ponder the fact as well that Frontrunner is just one year out.
Now ask yourself would you sell the property if you owned it just before that coming of the Frontrunner?
If your answer is yes, then I want to do business with you, because up until the time you go banko, it could be as rewarding as being a FOM.
Your attempt to be objective has gotten to the point of being silly.
Realtor #10 and Anon:
Realtor #10: If you've been following the discussion, you should know that I couldn't agree more that city proporty being sold should be widely posted as available for sale and put up for public bids to ensure the city will get the best possible price for the public's land. That was one of the points Councilwoman Wicks made to the SE and she was absolutely right. She also was concerned, as am I, as are you, as all of us should be, that under the policies established by Godfrey, Friends & Co. [DBA "The Mayor of Ogden, Utah"], folks have to "know" someone in the administration to learn about and arrange purchase of surplus city property. Right again.
What I posted about [that you replied to] concerned what I think were wildly speculative claims that what Hizzonah had done in this instance was an indictable offense, was a crime. No one has yet produced a scintilla of evidence that it was. Was it ill-advised, unwise, not consistent with the ethical standards we should expect of a public official, and arrogant and offensive [i.e. refusal to inform the Council of the buyer]? I think it was. But criminal? Not a jot of evidence on that yet that I've seen, and so predictions of imminent indictment seemed [and seem still] way over the top.
It was an insider's deal. It is crony government at work. At no point did I suggest otherwise.
Anon: You wrote "ponder the fact as well that Frontrunner is just one year out. Now ask yourself would you sell the property if you owned it just before that coming of the Frontrunner? If your answer is yes, then I want to do business with you, because up until the time you go banko, it could be as rewarding as being a FOM. Your attempt to be objective has gotten to the point of being silly.
Several points to be made about that. First, Frontrunner's arrival is no secret, and the market commonly takes into account imminent significant changes in market conditions and reflects them in market prices, just as the stock market discounts in advance expected bad news. Just as real estate prices downtown are already reflecting the coming of the mall redevelopment which is at this point only under construction [just as Frontrunner is]. And so on. To think that buyers and sellers are unware of Frontrunner coming and are not adjusting asked and offered prices in light of that is unrealistic. That's now how markets generally work. [Econ. 101]
Now, if you are suggesting that Mr. Peterson got from Godfrey, Friends & Co. a price significantly below current fair market value [which anticipates Frontrunner's arrival], that's another matter. But so far, no one has established that he did get a below-market price for the land. And before we go around charging criminal conduct, it would be wise to have the facts established first. None so far have emerged establishing that Peterson got a below FMV price. If you have information regarding that, I'd very much like to see it. So would we all.
As far as objectivity being silly.... well, anon. from my point of view, being objective [and therefor being fair] in commenting about public affairs is always the wisest course to follow and is never silly or wrong. Never.
Ogden City Code 2-7-3: PROHIBITED ACTS DESIGNATED:
No appointed or elected officer or employee shall:
...B. Use Position For Privileges: Use or attempt to use the officer's official position to further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest or secure special privileges for the officer or others.
(1979 Code § 3.50.130; Ord. 94-56, 11-1-1994; amd. 1999 Code)
2-7-11: PENALTY:
Any person who knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of this Chapter may be subject to the criminal penalties provided under State law. A violation of any provision of this Chapter, which is prosecuted by the City or which is not a criminal violation under Utah Code Annotated section 10-3-1310, is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable as set forth in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Any officer or employee who knowingly and intentionally violates this Chapter may be dismissed from employment or removed from office, as provided by law.
(1979 Code § 3.50.030; Ord. 94-56, 11-1-1994; amd. Ord. 97-82, 10-30-1997)
What surplus land? These properties are right next to the Frontrunners terminal and soon to be expanded, new, hub parking. This was property situated in one of the most desireable spots within the RDA.Surplus? I have witnessed enough RDA activity in council and planning session to know that the RDA wants total control of the development. Is that not it's purpose? They have denied sales for a variety of reasons including intended use and timeframe of development. In the case of the poor guy that owns the motel next to the arch on Washington,I got the sense they are trying their best to stall and force him out. Like they have promised his place to someone else, with a different purpose in mind. These properties cannot be concidered surplus and this transaction has been handled in a completely different manor than the usual RDA protocol, Someone within the RDA structure should reveal what their intended use of that property was prior to the sale. The way this has gone down,it would appear that the RDA has violated it's own intended purpose and sold land to a prefered(by it's Director) insider, purely for speculation.Is this truely legal or ethical?
I am aware that the properies owned by the city have been for sale for years and months.
No buyer has stepped forward.
They are not new on the market.
Did you know that 400 aging homes in Ogden have been sold in the last 18 month to developers hoping to restore them and sell or rent them?
Did you know that most of the old empty building on Washington Blvd between 26th and 22nd have sold in the past 18 months and are currently under renovation?
Did you know that none of these were bought by CP?
Did anyone of you buy any of them?
Are any of you willing to take the risk?
ANON
Without knowing anything about the details of the currrent situation, let me just point out that being a City Council member is harder that some on this blog (including the blogmeister) seem to think. Out-of-context quotes and isolated actions may appear mysterious and inexplicable, when in fact there could be very good explanations that would become clear if we could see the big picture. By all means, let's criticize the Council when it makes a wrong decision in a public meeting. But publicly picking on individual Council members for what we think they did or didn't do between meetings isn't fair or constructive.
"I think that people will be intrigued by and excited about the plan when it is released."
Seems like we've heard that Peterson line before.
ANON
I have the same question as Ogden Snow Monkey.
Your assumption that no one here on WCF is invested in Ogden is off base. How wrong you are. You assume anyone invested in Ogden has got to be swinging from the mayoral scrode like the rest of the Envisionites. Notice all the SGO signs still up? Those are homeowners, each and everyone of them invested in Ogden.
I would have been interested in the Wall parcels. I believe in Ogden and support some of the mayor's vision. An urban gondola and selling any foothill land for development is not on the plate for most of us with enough pride in Ogden to not go selling off all the best public assets in desperation "we must do something" mode.
Bill C. and one of the anons raise an interesting point. Potential developers of properties in Ogden's other RDA, the River Project, have been told "no" because their developments were deemed inappropriate. Hell, according to the SE, the city RDA is bidding against a developer of town homes who tried to buy options on residential sites within the River project RDA.
So, land within another Ogden RDA zone downtown has been sold to a developer and known FOM without, apparently, his having submitted a development or project plan for the property. [If he has submitted one to Godfrey, Friends & Co. the public has not been permitted to see it and the SE is apparently unaware of it.] Why are some offering to buy land within RDAs for development having to disclose their plans for end use, while others are not? Good question, Bill.
But we have Mr. Peterson's promise that he has a plan and once he condescends to tell us about it, we're going to love it. Uh huh. Well, then, no reason to be concerned. I'm sure if we all remain docile and quiet and tug our forelocks politely now and then, he'll tell us when decides it will amuse him to do so.
There does seem to be a double standard at work here in Ogden. One set of rules applied to FOMs, and another to others. That may not be illegal under current Ogden ordinances, but it certainly is unwise. And wrong.
And Tec, thanks for pointing out that homeowners in Ogden have invested in the city. Most of us having made, when we bought a house here, the largest single investment of our lives.
The mouthy Anon:
Where did you learn that the Wall Ave properties were for sale?
Were you in a back room deal with your FOM's?...are YOU a FOM?
What was done for Peterson smacks of collusion and accaording to the code that was posted above is clearly illegal.
The council has to start saying no when all facts THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED are not given to them. See Jesse's remarks in the SE today.
Dan S...I'm sure the Council members have a helluva job...no doubt about it. One of their jobs is to do due diligence. When information they've requested isn't forthcoming...do as Nacncy Reagan would: "Just say no!"
Bill Cook must be fired....Godfrey must be removed as RDA dir. The Council can and should do both immediately!!
I nominate Dan S. as RDA Dir!
Sharon,
LOL! I'm a physicist and back-seat driver, hardly qualified to be RDA director. But I appreciate your kind endorsement.
Personalities and qualifications aside, there's something to be said for having an RDA director who isn't the mayor. Keep the jobs separate and make sure no one person has too much power.
Whilst being cognizant of the efforts of the council members and the difficulties they face, we should not forget that the only reason we are discussing this – the only reason we even know about it – is the WCF, and its proprietor, for which we are very grateful.
Thanks for the oh so very kind words, Danny.
In truth however, the real credit goes this time to Gentle Reader Ogden Red, who did all the research, and basically dropped the story in our lap.
Once agsin the true strength of our reader-driven public forum shines through.
We wouldn't have a vigorous robust community forum without the help of ALL our gentle readers.
Dear S
I do not know what I said that was mouthy.
It has been pretty obvious that most of downtown Ogden was for sale.
Vacant lots are a clear indication that a property is not being used. The buildings have had signs on them.
My point is that any number of people could had inquired about a vacant lot and an empty building with or without a sign.
Most people would be happy that someone has bought a property and will do something with it.
My question to the FORUM folks is how many of them are investing? It was a sincere question not an attempt to slam anyone.
ANON
"there's something to be said for having an RDA director who isn't the mayor. Keep the jobs separate and make sure no one person has too much power." - Dan S.
And it would be extra nice if a new RDA director weren't one of Matt's relatives. Don't forget, City government also employs ROMs, like the head of the Planning Commission.
ogdenlover,
Greg Montgomery (the head of the Planning Department, not the Planning Commission) has worked for the city much longer than his nephew, Matt Godfrey, has been mayor. So I'm not gonna accuse anyone of nepotism there--it's the voters who decided to put them together in the same building. On the other hand, it would be wise for everyone to be aware of this relation and to take it into account when listening to what Greg says. He's told some pretty tall tales in some of his recent presentations to the Planning Commission.
Hey There....isn't Sen. Jenkins also related to the mayor?
Anon...think you miss the point that the RDA/Mayor should not be competing with private developers. Those other 'would be developers' who could have bid had they known. Again... were there public notices on these properties?
I have a good ear, nose and throat dr in case you need help smelling something fishy.
Hey anon, your line of reasoning intentionally misses the point. This transaction was not conducted properly and above board,withholding a direct request for information from the council cannot be excused and should be an indictment in and of itself. Harmer's response is all one needs to hear to make that judgement.Obviously he places himself above the Council. Does he have that authority?
Can anyone here give an update on the City Planning Commissions work session last night regarding Mt. Ogden Community plan? I hear it was a good one and heard some reports but thought someone from here could give a more thorough report. It is going to go up for approval in May to the CP and there will be one other session with the public before it is passed to city council to be entered into the General Plan.
Also mixed use ordinance is coming up in March.
Thanks, ogdeniii
p.s. can blogmeister give me some hints on how to get an account to stick. I have to register each time I want to blog and end up just posting as anonymous because of that. Perhaps others have the same troubles and why there are so many anon's... or I am just a blogger idiot. Some direction would be helpful... thanks.
Bill
Everyone on this site keeps talking about indictments.
Are any of you qualified to make a legal judgement?
There are qualified people in another (D or R) party who can bring action. Why do they not do so.
I am just trying to calm the masses and ask a question ot two.
Let's put our money where our mouth is.
ANON
If I had any money, I'd buy a lot of property that have for sale signs on them on Wall Ave that you have told us are out there, anon.
Are YOU qualified to make a legal judgment?
Seems to most of us that Harmer, Godfrey, Cook, and others are very indictable.
Anon:
If you are complaining about groundless generalizations [in re: indictments], you might try to avoid groundless generalizations about WC posters. Everyone on this site is not predicting or calling for indictments. Sticking to what facts support is, I agree, a very good idea. You should try it too.
Planning Commission meeting report:
The commissioners first considered a matter pertaining to the American Can site, downtown. I arrived late and didn't fully understand that discussion. But they approved the recommendation unanimously.
Then they adjourned the regular meeting and moved to the conference room for their work session. Seeing me and a couple of other interested parties in the room, they graciously decided to discuss the Mt. Ogden Community Plan next, even though there was another discussion item that appeared first on the agenda.
Jeff Sanders of the Planning staff then called their attention to a rather thick document that he had prepared, summarizing all the comments that participants wrote on their sticky notes at the public meeting held at Mt. Ogden Middle School last November. He indicated that most of the public comments were in agreement with the steering committee recommendations, but that there were some dissenting comments, and he had put these in italics.
Commissioner Wright then began making remarks about how she thought the comments were one-sided and lacking balance. She said she especially appreciated the italicized comments. She also asked why residents of other parts of the city didn't have a chance to participate, given that the decisions made will affect them too. Commissioners Maw and Hyer chimed in with some similar concerns. Hyer even said he thought the process had been "tainted" by the Peterson proposal (which nobody was willing to call by name) which was foremost in the minds of many community members during the public meetings. However, during the discussion that followed, he said he'd like to take back the word "tainted".
Other commissioners and staff pointed out that everyone in the neighborhood had ample opportunity to participate in the process. Short of a scientific poll, the process was as open and democratic as it could have been. Aside from the unusually large number of participants, the process was the same that has been used in developing other community plans. Also, it's been only a few years since the city as a whole participated in the development of the General Plan, and the recommendations of the steering committees are very consistent with what's in the General Plan.
[Editorial note: Smart Growth Ogden went out of its way to invite the whole neighborhood to participate in the planning process, not just its supporters. I have it on good authority that SGO sent two invitation postcards, at its own expense, to the whole neighborhood. Even Bob Geiger would have received these postcards. So the steering committee membership and public participation were not unfairly stacked in any way, as Commissioner Wright seems to believe.]
After these responses, Commissioner Wright became rather quiet and the discussion moved on to some of the particular recommendations.
Later in the meeting, Commissioner Atencio remarked that it's hardly surprising that people are concerned about the [Peterson] proposal, since it was being promoted in a very high-profile way for many months last spring. Yet it was clear that the overwhelming opinion of the community participants was that the city-owned park land and open space should be preserved, and even increased.
At the end of the discussion, the commissioners agreed that staff should prepare a draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan by their next work session, March 21. (Jeff Sanders indicated that he would be the one to do this. However, Greg Montgomery was also present and will undoubtedly play a role.) They then debated whether to formally consider (and hold a public hearing on) the plan at their April or May meeting. One commissioner pointed out that they should put the draft plan on the city's web site and give the public plenty of time to read it before the meeting. The commissioners then agreed that the public hearing should be on May 2.
I heard only the beginning of the remaining discussion item, which apparently had to do with commission procedures and how to read their agenda packets.
Dan:
Thank you. The meeting slipped my mind. I would like to have been there. Appreciate the report a great deal.
As for Ms. Wright... well, that's the problem with asking the people's opinion. Sometimes the people think differently than you do.
Thanks again, Dan.
Dear Mr. Anon, I suppose it would not occur to you that indictment could be used in some other than legal fashion, guilt and wrongdoing might not always rise to the level of criminality,but impropriety,may justify the use of the word. Could be you have offered some insight to your own morality?
Thanks Dan. That is close to the report that I was given. The person who did tell me said that the discussion regarding "tainted" and off balance viewpoints was even more emphasized and heated. She said that Commissioner Wright was talking as if the entire report was inaccurate because of the people in that community having such strong feelings regarding the open space, development and stated that perhaps the other side did not have a chance to speak out. Commissioners Hyer and Maw seemed to agree with her and Hyer did use the word tainted which he took back after he was confronted on it. This got Commissioner Herman and Atencio to make strong statements regarding the fairness of this process and Atencio brought up the Peterson proposal for the first time which seems that some on the commission do not want to even acknowledge even exists because of lack of formal petition. Wright seems to be out in lala land from what I can tell in other meetings and what was told to me. She is new and I dont think too bright. It is clear her position on this subject and why the Mayor appointed her before it was made known like it was with Dustin Chapman. But to ask that the entire community is involved because she finds the results not in her liking was ridiculous and that perhaps it was one sided. And does she understand what a community plan means? She was also not involved with this process which took months and many hours of meetings. Nor has she been involved with any other community plans. She, Maw and Hyer seemed very insensitive to the findings of the Community Plan which was done over many months and many meetings with incredible attendance. Herman and Atencio seemed very supportive and understanding of what the majority was saying in this plan and how it is written and defended the community's position. The others apparently stayed very quiet. It is important that we, the members of the Mt. Ogden community attend the next meetings to be sure it goes into the General Plan as it should. Much ahead and we need to stay on top of it. Thanks for confirming Dan and clarifying what was told to me. I wanted to attend but had prior engagements. Ogdeniii
Commissioner Wright is another example of what this mayor is all about.
I feel sorry for Ms. Wright because she thinks she is helping the city by helping her buddy the mayor. She deserves better from the mayor.
I think she’s really being used by the mayor in that he knows she can't do the job that he's given her but he's willing to sacrifice her dignity because he knows that she will vote the way he wants.
If she only realized how ill suited she is to be addressing the issues that are coming before the commission (all she would have to do is look at the capabilities and qualifications of the other commissioners) and how obvious it is that she is lost thru most of the discussion, she would realize that she is being used. Maybe that OK with her but I find that deplorable of the Mayor.
I don't live in the Mount Ogden neighborhood, but am close by. I attended that meeting at which we ALL had plenty of sticky notes on which to write our comments.
If the MAJORITY said hands off the open space....then that is the will of the MAJORITY.
Other than being a lackey of Godfrey, what else is wrong with Janith Wright?
One would think she'd be embarrassed to make such remarks. I wonder if Chapman would have agreed with her if he'd made it on to the PC. (shudder)
Thank you, Dan, for excellent reporting.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on this subject, except to say that I hit a million road blocks every time I try to do anything, but I am going to change the subject for a minute and let everyone on WCF know that Officer Ken Hammond has been nominated as one of John Walsh's Most Wanted All Stars. You can go online and vote for him. The nominee with the most votes wins some very nice prizes. The instructions and the link to the site are below:
"Officer Ken Hammond has been nominated on America’s Most Wanted-ALLSTAR. Click on the AMW link at the bottom of the page. On the lower left hand side, click on the blue star that says ALLSTAR. The next screen has a picture of Jim Walsh above the 8 All-stars in 8 weeks; on the right hand side of the screen, in the brown box, type in KEN HAMMOND under the “find a nominee”. This is the screen to vote on. Under Hammond’s picture is a red vote button, click on this and type in your email address.
You can only vote once a day. Please send this out to as many people as you can. The voting ends on 2-25-07 at 1159pm EST. The weekly winner announcement will be on AMW on 3-3-07 and their website. The final prize winner will be announced in April. If Hammond wins, he will get the following:
All-Star Winner Prize: 1) two (2) admission tickets to the NASCAR NEXTEL Cup Series™ All-Star Challenge on or about May 19, 2007 in Charlotte, North Carolina; 2) round-trip coach airfare for two (2) to Charlotte, North Carolina on dates selected by Sponsor; 3) hotel accommodations (a standard, single, double-occupancy room- room and room tax only) for 3 days/2 nights at a hotel to be selected by Sponsor; 3) non-exclusive ground transportation between the airport in Charlotte, North Carolina and the hotel and between the hotel and certain Challenge – or All-Star-related events to be selected by Sponsor; 4) a check made payable to All-Star Winner in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000); and 5) one (1) AMW varsity jacket. Approximate Retail Value: $12,500 (depending on dates of travel, All-Star Winner's point of departure and destination city). The difference between the ARV and actual value of the prize will not be awarded.
http://www.amw.com/
Let’s support Officer Hammond and help him win."
Sorry, I can't get the link to work, but you can copy it and use it in the "address" line at the top of your screen until Rudi can make the link work. I've left a message asking him to fix it.
Thanks! Officer Hammond is a real hero and deserves to be recognized and rewarded for saving many lives while putting his own at risk.
Thanx, Dorrene...we know you do many things right!
I've voted for Officer Hammond, and sent the form on to many others. Let's all do the same. He's brot honor to his family, Ogden, Utah and the OPD.
Ogdeniii asks:
"p.s. can blogmeister give me some hints on how to get an account to stick. I have to register each time I want to blog and end up just posting as anonymous because of that. Perhaps others have the same troubles and why there are so many anon's... or I am just a blogger idiot. Some direction would be helpful... thanks."
I'm not Rudi but I answered this in a snarky way a couple of days ago. I'll post it again, in a less snarky way.
Under "Choose an identity", press the radio button for "Other".
(It wants my identity to be my real, true first name, and I don't want that.)
When you do that, you have the option to enter a name and web page address. You can just enter the name and leave the webpage address empty. That's what I do.
If you take too long posting, it won't show at first. It will send you back to the page with word verification, and you need to re-enter the new code that comes up.
It appears to me that by wearing the two hats of mayor and RDA executive director the little guy and the council have a conflict of interest.
In the official elected roles as mayor and council they have seperate and relatively equal powers. The built in checks and balance if you will, and if the council had the will.
As an RDA board of directors and hired RDA executive director the roles are different. The board of Directors is supposedly the superior governing body, and theoretically holder of all the power. The executive director in this settup being the hired gun that is supposed to act at their direction.
This property deal was an RDA deal, not a city one. Therefore when the board asked for information and was denied it by their own subordinate executive director and his assistants it becomes insubordination for them to not comply. Certainly grounds for removal if the board had the balls to do it.
The Ogden RDA is a mega million dollar enterprise that in theory is owned by the people of Ogden. We deserve a board that will represent us stake holders in an intelligent and honest manner. The board in turn deserves an executive director and staff (Harmer, et al) that will give them honest, intelligent and timely answers upon which they can make the best decisions for the stockholders/citizens.
It is quite apparent that the RDA Board of Directors do not get honest answers from their current executive director and his band of flying monkeys in fancy suits. (FKA "Empty suits")
My recommendation would be for the board to thank the current Executive Director for his service and remove him from the position at once. Then do a good search for the right MBA with experience at running an ongoing business concern of this magnitute and mission. A completely nuetral and non political technocrat/business person who has no dog in this fight. Some one who will give the tax payers of Ogden half a chance to avoid a massive bankruptcy fiasco that we other wise are rushing headlong into.
Well now that really guns my engine. I for one don't spend countless hours participating in the process with my neighbors so we can all be called a special interest group. I sent this email to Commissioner Hyer this morning.
Commissioner Hyer:
There have been some reports this morning that you feel the Mount Ogden community plan process was one sided and tainted. As somebody who spent many hours as part of this process I can tell you flatly that this is untrue. There was a great deal of participation, openness, cordiality, and consideration of all opinions. Sadly, as has always been the case, people who might be generally referred to as Lift Ogden were very sparsely represented, if at all. I didn't know if this was because they don't care, don't want to be involved, or whether it is simply because there are so few of them. Indeed, the only evidence of any Lift Ogden participation was at the final meeting, where Lift Ogden post-it notes comprised something like 5% of the postings compared to the general consensus which was about 95% of the postings. As somebody who has followed politics somewhat and is used to how divisive most issues are, I was stunned at how overwhelming the community participation was, and how little division there was on issues concerning our community. These were intelligent, caring, thoughtful people who turned out en masse, who participated, who discussed a great many things besides Peterson, and who deserve better than being regarded as a narrow interest group.
I for one am tired of people such as the mayor saying they have widespread community support. Where is it? It participates in no community meetings. It shows up at no public hearings. And based on the last municipal election results, it doesn't appear to vote much either. Perhaps that is because it is the Lift Ogden position that has only very, very little support. On the other hand, the expressions we have heard in our public meetings are the same as is currently embodied in our General Plan and in our zoning. That is why the mayor and Peterson need to have both changed.
You seem like a reasonable man who holds the public interest at heart. Hopefully you will not be deceived by the mayor's claims that he has widespread support and those opposed to him are in the minority, when everything indicates exactly the opposite. What the mayor does have on his side, it appears, is a big mouth that he uses to malign people, while at the same time feeling very little sense of constraint in terms of telling the truth.
Thank you and forgive me if I have innacurately characterized your comments last night in any way.
David
When you sent your view to Commissioner Hyer, did you sign it or send it under your blog name?
ANON
Anon:
Can't answer for David, but as for me, when I write to City Council members, the Mayor, the SE, or any public official, I sign my name. If I were a public official, or a candidate standing for public office, I'd blog under my full name as well. Not being either, I see nothing wrong with blogging under a pseudonym. Folks who read my posts can determine pretty quickly if they think what I say is reliable or worth considering or not, based exclusively on the content of the posts, not who I might be.
New comments are not allowed.