Updated with Curmudgeon's Detailed Planning Commisssion Notes
It appears to us at first blush that Boss Godfrey and Uncle Greg got pretty much everything they were asking for at last night's Emerald City Planning Commission meeting, according to this morning's Scott Schwebke story.
Although the commission wound up amending the proposed Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance language to include a +30% slope building restriction, even that slight concession to popular opinion appears NOT to be engraved in granite. As we learn from Curmudgeon's "quick and dirty report" in last night's lower comments section, the slope restriction prohibition will be revisited by the Planning Commission in the near future, upon presentation to the commission of a new "Hillsides Area Zoning Ordinance."
So as it now stands, we now have 1) an SAO ordinance emerging from the Planning Commission for City Council approval, 2) a yet unrevealed Muxed Use Development ordinance which will be considered by the Planning Commission in about a month, and 3) a new Hillsides Area Ordinance, the apparent hip-shot brainchild of last night's PC meeting. All of these ordinances involve foothill development. And now we find them broken up into three separate PC calendars, with one already headed to the Council for approval.
Oh boy.
And by the way... does anybody know what happened to that Mt. Ogden Neighborhood Plan process, which kept many lumpencitizens busy over the last summer?
While some may conclude that Boss Godfrey and Uncle Greg simply have absolutely no clue what they're doing, the skeptics among us could easily make the argument that Chris Peterson's zoning wish-list is now being craftily carved up into little bite sized pieces to be handed to the council for approval piece-meal. Administration of bad-tasting medicine in small doses is a time honored tradition both in folk-medicine and government. Some of us believe this is exactly what's happening here.
If we had our druthers, we'd urge the council to take the following approach to the flurry of foothill development zoning ordinances which are even now streaming out of the Planning Commission Chambers:
Abstain from approving any of these zoning changes piece-meal. Insist on a comprehensive rezoning scheme. Don't be steam-rolled into altering Emerald City's zoning status in any respect, until all PC recommendations are on the table. Above all, refrain from approving any of these until the underlying Mt. Ogden community plan has been completed, and amended into the general plan. The council demonstrated no hesitation a few weeks ago in imposing a six-month moratorium on River Project Area development, for the purpose of allowing the Emerald City Planning Department to get their ordinance "ducks lined up." We merely propose the same for Emerald City foothill development. What's the big rush, we ask?
Just a few helpful tips from yer old pal Rudi.
The floor is now open for any gentle readers who can explain the meaning of all this.
Update 2/8/07 9:34 a.m. MT: In the interim since the posting of our original article, gentle Curmudgeon has graciously drafted and submitted a detailed and extended article, reporting on the Planning Commission discussion of the Sensitive Area Ordinance portion of last night's meeting. We believe our gentle readers will find the interchanges between and among the various commissioners extremely interesting. Read Curmudgeon's most excellent and thorough report here.
Curmudgeon acknowledges that this article may contain inadvertant recordation and/or transcription errors. As always, readers are thus encouraged to chime in with any alterations or corrections which may be in order.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
54 comments:
Gee look, I’m in the paper this morning (or so it says on the WCF.)
Let me get in a few quick points. First of all, thanks to Curm for the useful notes, but it is imperative that we understand some math first.
There were SIX commissioners present. There are a total of NINE. THREE were missing. (If I’m wrong let me know, but I don’t think I am.)
Therefore to approve the ordnance AS IS, there were only THREE in favor. To approve but modify to keep the ban on building above 30% slope in place, there were FOUR in favor. All of these numbers remember, are out of NINE. My guess is had Holman and Artencio been there, it might not have passed at all. The city council should keep in mind this was a very WEAK endorsement of this ordinance. (BTW the whole thing was a mess and needed much more work. Commissioners: had I had more time than two minutes I could have shown you!)
Second, note that the really big thing the public raised at the hearing was the 30% slope issue, and the Commission took that out. Once again, they listened. This is an important point! Show up. Speak. Persevere. It makes a difference!
Curm, can you give us the vote breakdown, especially for Hueton (the young fellow.) This guy, after much probing got Montgomery to reveal the fact that the ordnance is totally lacking in terms of enforcement. Basically, if somebody strip dozes the hillside all he has to worry about is having Monty send him a fine for a couple hundred dollars a month until he fixes it (and how could one fix it??), and that’s only IF Monty feels like it! This was a huge gap this fellow found in the proposed ordnance. After Hueton hammered him over and over on it, Monty finally said he’d “have Legal look at it”. Well so what happened? Why did they recommend to the council an ordinance with a hole that big in it? Did Hueton vote for it after finding that huge gap? Herman stuck up for the 30% issue he asked about (where was Hyer who asked about that extensively last year?) What happened to Hueton? Finding an issue like that does no good if you don’t stand up and demand it be fixed!
Rudi is right, the city council should table this for now. What’s the rush? Monty can update his maps and do the other things he wants without this new ordinance (although he won’t admit it.) The council should hold off on whatever it can until early ’08 when the city will have a mayor and administration we can trust, or at least one that we don’t heavily and deservedly mistrust. BTW, for those who have asked, I am NOT a candidate for mayor or for city council and will not be anytime soon. But it doesn’t matter, because there are lots of other good people who will run. We just need to find out which ones they are.
David:
You are right. There are nine members, not seven. Six of nine were present, not six of seven. My mistake.
Members: I thought the commissioner who sat on the far left of the Chair, he seemed to be the youngest, was name Hyer. That's how I heard the name on several occaions, at least.
On the first vote [again, I am not familiar with the names of all] to approve the Ordinance as recommended by the staff:
For the Motion: Chair Blaisdel, Janith Wright and Bryan Schade. Opposed: Herman, Hyer [the new member, youngish guy formerly from California], and the remaining member whose name I did not get.
On the final motion, to send the ordinance to the council, with the 30% limit intact pending new foothills zone creattion: Wright and Schade opposed. The three opposed to the former motion for this one. By the time it got to the Chair, Ms. Blaisdel, she faced the choice of another lost motion by 3-3 tie. She voted "yes" I suspect so that at least some of the provisions of the new ordinance would have a chance to go into effect.
Curm,
One more question. You said:
One other interesting comment. The Commission member who sits just to the chairwoman’s left [I did not note his name] expressed some concern that the Commission was acting to accommodate “a proposal we have not seen.” The propriety of shaping the city’s zoning to meet the requirements of a development proposal that no one had yet seen concerned him, and he thought that might in fact be what was happening.
Are you talking about the red/yellow card flipper to her right (Hyer), or the white haired guy to her left (Schade)? (I believe the former Californian is Hueton.)
I suspect it was Hyer who said it, since Schade seems like a rubber stamp, at best. But it would make me feel a lot better about Schade if he said it – and I want to feel better about him since he’s in my Stake Presidency. I still don’t know to what extent Godfrey uses his church connections to finagle his diabolical plots. I’d love to hear a Conference talk sometime on the importance of simply telling the truth.
BTW, it’s interesting that Blaisdell has maintained – and Montgomery maintained last night – this wasn’t about Peterson. So what do we make of the comment itself? Are the commissioners in the dark and just starting to come out of it, or do they know what’s going on and some are just too cowardly to stand up?
David
I am very dissappointed to hear that you are not going to run for office in Ogden this fall.
After hearing your speech to the council last fall (for the appointed position on the council), I was very impressed with you and your position vis-a-vis Ogden city government. Your posts here have re-inforced my belief that you would be very good for Ogden's council.
Ogden needs you and people with your intellect and understanding of how it's supposed to be.
Please re-consider.
The old Bishop lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of Ogden. He motioned for his nurse to come near. "Yes, Bishop?" said the nurse.
"I would really like to see Matt Godfrey and Stu Reid before I die."
whispered the Bishop.
"I'll see what I can do, Bishop" replied the nurse. The nurse sent the request to the Mayor's office and waited for a response. Soon
the word arrived. Godfrey and Reid would be delighted to visit the
Bishop.
As they went to the hospital, Godfrey commented to Reid "I don't know why the old bishop wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images." Reid couldn't help but agree.
When they arrived at the bishop's room, the bishop took Godfrey's hand in his right hand and Reid's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old bishop's face.
Finally Mayor Godfrey spoke. "Bishop, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?"
The old bishop slowly replied "I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Amen" said Godfrey.
"Amen" said Reid.
The old bishop continued..."He died between two lying thieves. I would
like to do the same."
David:
The Commissioner who made the "proposal we have not seen" comment was sitting to the left of the Chair [from the audience POV]. He had a brush cut. I wish I could be more specific than that.
I did try to get the names straight before the meeting began, but the only nameplates up were the Council nameplates. By the time Commission nameplates went up, the meeting was starting. [Superman may be able to read the nameplates from the public seats. I couldn't.] Couldn't get them at the end of the discussion since the meeting was moving on to other business. Tried the PC website but as of last night, it still had Ms. Larsen up as a member, so it was out of date. Just took my best shot on what I heard. Sorry for the confusion. Anyone there who can correct any wrong attributions or other mistakes on my part, I would very much welcome the corrections.
David:
One more comment. You posted that one member of the Commission seemed to you "like a rubber stamp."
I'm not a very dedicated PC watcher. In my five years in Ogden I've been to two PC meetings and one and a half PC work sessions. But I was surprised at how seriously the members take their work, at the ungodly amount of time they put into it [sans compensation]. Most of them [not all, but most] seem to me generally well prepared [i.e. they've clearly read and thought about the drafts, etc under discussion], willing to argue points out on the basis of evidence, experience [here and elsewhere], willing to consider compromises and alternatives, and willing to take each others' concerns and comments seriously. The one you singled out has been, every time I've been there, among the well-prepared.
Frankly, I was impressed the first time I attended a PC meeting and work session. Still am. Both with those who've taken stands I favor and have raised matters I thought should be raised, and those whose opinions differ from my own on the same issues.
The time and work they put in as citizen volunteers on the PC would stun a mule. I wouldn't do it on a bet.
Curm,
Your comments about the level of work and dedication of the PC members are very true.
And as long as the members are truly acting in good conscience I would agree: differences of opinion are part of the political process – I don’t fault somebody who is doing his/her best for disagreeing with me, as I know that this is sometimes because I am in the wrong (although I do maintain there is a best/worst, right/wrong outcome for each argument – the hard part is sometimes knowing what it is.)
What concerns me is when I sense that people are sometimes more interested in maintaining a veneer of civility than in doing what they think is best – of being more interested in being popular or avoiding conflict than in standing for something. To me, contention is pointless arguing, where as conflict is what happens when right and wrong come in contact with each other. One is bad; the other is crucial.
Thanks for helping me say it better than I did. And thanks Ozboy, for another "good one."
Who'd beleive it,I'll make an attempt at being some what fair and balanced.(curm) I have sat thru more of these PC meetings and work sessions than alot of the commisioners,and given what I understand now,Rudi I respectfully disagree with your take on last nights meeting.I thought we got a pretty substantial victory. Keeping the 30% prohibition in place while tabling the TDR's, to me seems huge.The final product of last nights meeting,it could be argued,strengthened our position rather than weakend it. The real teeth yet to come with a new very restrictive underlying foothill zone.Hopefully the 30% prohibition will remain in this as well,i.e. Saltlake City and Farmington. I realize our bias,if it comes from the desk of Montgomry, it can't be good,but what Ellison Godfrey and Greg were most desireous of,they failed to get. If the General Plan's intention is to preserve and increase open space and discourage development on the foothills,this can be accomplished with the Foothill zone. I wish Dan S. was around to elaborate.
Forgot one thing of great importanc ,all the property Chris P. wants is currently zone open space.He would have to make a separate petition to change that after,God forbid, he aquired title to the land.
Good old (?) Curmudgeon has once again topped himself in the unnecessarily fair-minded commenting department. At least one member of the PC is a clueless Godfrey sycophant who does nothing, adds nothing to the discussion but to ask how quickly she can vote to further Mr. Integrity's agenda. Interesting meeting tonight at the Historic Ben Lomond, sponsored by the Ogden-Weber Chamber. For $1,000 a table or $120 a pop, you can mingle with the Amer president and sundry execs, and discover what Mike Dowse means when he says, quoting the invite, "We look forward to meeting people of Ogden that we can do business with." I'll forgive his sophomoric pronoun and syntax error (people with whom we can do business, natch), but it's curious that all proceeds benefit a new propoganda arm: Envision Ogden -- Working to Promote Ogden's High Adventure Recreation. Cocktails are at 6, dinner at 7 in the ballroom. Can someone be persuaded to attend and give Mr. Dowse a fact file on the gondola-to-nowhere fantasy thus far, documenting Mr. Integrity's duplicitousness and dishonor, as to assuage his "disappointment" when it's evidenced as a sham? Anyone have a sandwich board I can borrow? Methinks I'd get shoved out of there in less time than it would take for Mr. Integrity to run my plate. Wait a minute, who's that outside my office window?
David,loved your two minutes.What no one has commented on was when Hyer directed your Question to Mr. Montgomry,for those not in attendance it went like this.Hyer{ since 1985 how many complaints have we had over the fairness of the restrictions in the sensitive overlay zone as opposed to lots right next to it?} Montgomry,so softly one hardly hear it,{one}Point to everyone(Council) whats the rush now,adopt what you receive, then insist on a good strong finished product with reqards to the new foothill zone.
I note Jason W's post above, and chuckle a the very idea of "unnecessarily fair-minded commenting."
Seems to me, old as I am [no question mark needed] that fairmindedness is just naturally necessary every time all the time when commenting on much of anything.
Except of course on the designated hitter rule, which is the spawn of Satan and endorsed only the benighted, the depraved and the badly brought-up.
Bill C:
You know you're right. I'd forgotten that. Mr. Montgomery could think of only one time that a property owner of land within a SAO zone had complained about the unfairness of it all. Nice catch.
Great reporting Curm.
I can give you one correction-
--First, Dr. Sam Zebeloff [spelling?],
Should be Sam Zeveloff, author of several great naturalist-type books, including one that tells you everything you could ever possibly want to know about raccoons.
I can give Curmudgeon his designated hitter exception to the fairness rule if he will allow me an Eagles ("seminal" folk rock band) caveat.
Ogden:
Thank you.
Jason:
Done. Though I suspect from the other point of view....
And you don't have to identify the Eagles for me. "Hotel California." "New Kid in Town." "Tequila Sunrise." Ah, the good ol' days....
In the light of all the criticism that Mathew Godfrey is an idiot, the Republicans decide to hold a "Mathew Godfrey Is Not Stupid" convention. 2.8 thousand Republicans meet in the Ogden City stadium.
Mark Johnson says, "We are all here today to prove to the world that Mathew Godfrey is not stupid. So ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Mayor Mathew Godfrey."
After the cheers die down, Mark Johnson says "Mayor Godfrey, we're going to prove to the world once and for all that you are not stupid. So tell us, what is 15 plus 15?"
Mathew Godfrey, after scrunching up his face and concentrating real hard for a moment, declares, "Eighteen!"
Obviously everyone is a little disappointed. Then the 2,800 Republicans start cheering, "Give Godfrey another chance! Give Godfrey another chance!"
Mark Johnson says, "Well since we've gone to the trouble of getting 2,800 of you in one place, I guess we can do that." So he asks, "What is 5 plus 5?"
After nearly 30 seconds of chin-rubbing and grimacing, Godfrey meekly asks "Ninety?"
Mark Johnson is quite perplexed, looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh -- everyone is disheartened.
But then Godfrey starts pouting, and suddenly the 2,800 Republicans begin to yell and wave their hands, shouting again "Give Godfrey another chance! Give Godfrey another chance!"
Mark Johnson, unsure whether he's doing more harm than good, eventually says, "Ok! Ok! Just one more chance -- What is 2 plus 2?"
Godfrey looks down, counts on his fingers, and after a whole minute, proudly announces "Four."
A moment of total silence, then an electric charge surges through the stadium as pandemonium breaks out.
All 2,800 Republicans jump to their feet.
These GOP partisans start to wave their arms, stomp their feet and create a deafening roar: Then Jesse Garcia jumps up and shouts
"GIVE GODFREY ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE GOFREY ANOTHER CHANCE!" Then all of a sudden, all 2,800 join in with the chant”. "GIVE GODFREY ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE GODFREY ANOTHER CHANCE!"
Permit me to quietly note that Rep. Neil Hansen [D-Ogden] was on TV this evening, questioning the wisdom of the Republican-dominated legislature's vote today when it approved subsidizing the Sandy Soccer Stadium with $15 to $25 million dollars of tax money.
However, State Senator Greiner [R-Godfrey Administration] voted in favor of the multi-million dollar tax give-away.
Ah, me... those tax and spend Utah Republicans, at it again. We need to do something about them....
Met with Sen Jenkins yesterday. He told me and the other REPUBLICAN women that he was not in favor of Huntsman's 'save' and was voting 'no'.
That soccer stadium should be financed entirely with private funds or Checketts and his cronies can find a lending institution other than the Utah State Legislature.
I am so weary of Godfrey's creepiness and the whole wheeling and dealing that goes on in the name of Government FOR the People.
Jason...do you think 'meeting people of Ogden that we can do business with' (sic) are the same ones referred to by VanWaggon when he said that we could look forward to a 'different caliber' of people coming to Ogden to buy our old buildings' as cheered on the mayor's gondola visions?
Paying only $120. bucks to mingle with such swells is such a tiny price for a big tingle.
Corrupt Republicans
There they go again; Republicans say their conservative. Republicans say they’re for less government. Republicans say they’re for fewer taxes. Fact they just keep raising taxes and fees in every city and county and every school board, here in the state. Fact “Republicans are HIPOCRITES.” Take from the poor and give to rich.
Today’s Republicans are exactly what our FOUNDING FATHERS revolted from.
go take a nap
I believe the funny joke above about "giving another chance" meant to have Saftsen or Stephenson rather than Garcia saying that at the end . . .
Seems to me Garcia's been pretty good most of the time, actually . . .
Thanks to all posting here for the added detail on the PC meeting, which will form part of the basis for my thank you emails to some of them today.
How can you tell a Republican from a Democrat by their actions?
My vote for Governor Huntsman has certainly turned out to be a huge mistake. It is evident he doesn't understand numbers that affect the average taxpayer but then he has a silver spoon in his mouth.
I vote for these guys thinking they have taxpayers interests at heart and invariably they turn out to have only their cronies interest at heart.
Been had again, stop voting for the bastards.
Permit me to politely offer to disillusioned Ogden Republicans [but surely "disillusioned Republican" is a redundancy like "hollow tube" or "free gift"] a ten month no cost no obligation trial membership in the Democracy. [If you promise not to pass it on, I'll even teach you the secret handshake. No secret decoder ring, though, until you sign up for good.]
Come on down....
where does one "come to"?
If you want things down right and in the right mind, sometimes you have to go to the left. That is what Neil Hansen is all about. The more that I watch him the better I like what he says and does. I hope that he will be our next mayor and that everone else stays out of the way so he can take on godfrey head on.
You're WAY out to lunch when you refer to Rep. Hansen as a "leftie," "my rep."
His political philosophy is definitely "populist," indeed. He's about as far from a "Big Gummint Lefty," however, as any politician couuld ever get.
I like his "bulldog attitude," and his adherence to "Choosing What's Right."
I actually heard he has a very small "CTR proclamation" tattooed over his very big heart.
That's just a rumor, mind you.
And yes... There will be dancing in the streets in November... when the defective little Harrisville dipshit is shuffled off to political obscurity, at last.
Once Godfrey's out of office, the indictments can come piling in.
Unfortunately, NO Republican Utah law enforcement authorities will EVER throttle Republican Tyrants in any jurisdiction until these percipient criminal defendants are ushered out of office by the voters.
I think it is a mistake to assume all Democrats are liberals. To me, the voting often comes down to populism vs. elitism. And often, it is the Demo who is most conservative. Witness Bill Clinton’s steadily turning of deficits to surpluses, and steady reduction of the Federal payroll, both defense and non-defense, followed by GW Bush’s steadily increasing the deficits, and increasing the Federal budget for both defense and non-defense faster than any president since LBJ, all with a Repubo congress!
Since elitism often increases regardless of who is in office for a long time (take Huntsman’s payoff to Checketts as a good example of crony elitism) it is sometimes (but not always) best simply to change politicians regularly. So far, Neil Hansen has been saying and doing the right things, at least from my point of view over the few weeks since he's announced his candidacy for Ogden mayor.
Hopefully the City Council is looking forward, with us, to a new beginning next January, and will hold off on as many major policy changes as possible until the new mayor has begun to set a new and better direction for us that is consistent with our vision and values as already expressed in our General Plan.
As for Jesse Garcia, I have to disagree with you, Anonymous. I feel that Garcia is not a strong leader. He did not defend the Council's position strongly on SB 229, the Civil Service Commission Bill last year. He is another "true politician." He smiles at you and says what he thinks you want to hear, but then will vote differently. I just hope the firefighters remember a little over a year ago when the budget was passed. Did Garcia fight for them? NO! He voted against the firefighters and police at least two different times and I feel that he was partly responsible for the "VanGate Fiasco." GARCIA DID NOT SUPPORT THE FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE in negotiations last year!
The only thing that I've seen him strongly defend are the ILLEGAL immigrants from Mexico! To me and others he is breaking the law by abetting and aiding LAWBREAKERS!
Do we want ANOTHER LAWBREAKER FOR MAYOR?
It is clear that "been had again" doesn't the Huntsmans and Governor Huntsman. He wrote: "My vote for Governor Huntsman has certainly turned out to be a huge mistake. It is evident he doesn't understand numbers that affect the average taxpayer but then he has a silver spoon in his mouth." When Jon was born and was a youngster, the Huntsman family were not even millionaires. Jon had a paper route and worked after school just like most kids. No elected leader is going to do or vote 100% the way you want them to. You need to look at the big picture -- has he done more good and helped Utah grow economically and in other ways that benefit the majority of the citizens? Do you think any of the other candidates would have done as much for Utah as he has? It's easy to find fault with elected leaders, because usually they can't fight back, and remember this - "You can't please all the people all of the time."
John,I believe it billion. Are you impressed with his little 3x5 index card that he constantly removed from his pocket all of last year? Only when the cameras were rolling. It's probably just a tally of who's on board with Envirocare,Opps, Energy Solutions.I read him, this way,no matter how much you got, there's never enough.
You are right about Garcia, Concerned Citizen.
He hasn't shown me that he's a strong leader. He SEEMS to be a Godfreyite. If he doesn't actually kiss the ring...he waffles on the issues.
And how about him and Wicks meeting with the dictator privately? I wonder about HER too.
I think we're going to see three new Council members in Nov...and Van Hooser retained!!!
Then we'll have 6 1/2 good council members (Jesse being the 1/2) to complement an honest, above board, NON-vindictive mayor!!!
Start stocking the bubbly...we's going to have a party that night!!!
Two points in re: Garcia and Wicks
(1) Meeting with the Mayor, whoever he may be, regularly, is part of the responsibility of the Council leadership. Keeping a reasonably skeptical eye on all public office holders as a matter of course is one thing. And probably a good thing. Surrendering to rampant paranoia sparked by the simplest elements of their meeting the responsiblities of their offices is another. I don't have much respect for Mr. Godfrey's conduct of his office this term, but if I were part of the Council leadership, I would expect to meet with him periodically in the normal course of conducting the city's business.
(2) Hurling charges of criminal conduct, unsupported by the faintest trace of evidence that in fact a crime has been committed is one of the things that makes serious discussion of public affairs far more difficult than it needs to be. You think Mr. Garcia is not an effective leader, fine. Have at him. But charging him with crimes is quite another. Makes no more sense to me than the often arcane twistings of presumed [or imagined] law that occasionally appear hear as the basis [politely so called] for claiming Mr. Godfrey or various members of his administration are "criminals." Charges like that, sprinkled around public debate and discussion like salt on fries is one of the reasons it is so difficult now to conduct conversations about public affairs without acrimony. We have "talk radio" [and now similar tv shows] to thank for that I suspect. But that kind of "discussion" [politely so called] does nothing much to help the city. Or the Republic.
Curmudgeon, are you saying that it's OK to support illegal immigrants in their protest marches with claims to repossess their land? That is what Jesse Garcia did last year. I call it treason.
I have been watching this blogsite from a willow tree, high above the fracas, and tonight I realized that you, none of your usage on this blog, is what the internet was designed for. Instead of spreading information you all sit on your keyboards and disseminate division, anger, envy, spite, negativity. You are not watchdogs, you are just pit bulls, trying to figure out who and what you can bring down next. Too bad the internet is being used in such a negative way. Keep it up. It is great fodder for my new novel.
Curmudgeon....you are quite a prolific reader...you can read more stuff into posts than anyone else on here! Garcia and Wicks have met with Godfrey and not been forthcoming with the rest of the Council.
Nowhere in my post did I charge Garcia with a criminal act, unless you're asserting that being an ineffective leader IS a crime!?
Concerned Citizen...we have a very high crime rate, and by the sound of the names and the pictures on the TV NEWS, most look and sound Hispanic. Are they legal residents? Shame on them!
Are they ILLEGALS? Double shame..and shame on the arrogant Chief Greiner for not cleaning up the mean streets.
How will the mall be a success with the armed robberies, muggings, rapes and shootings going on with impunity?
Curm...your continual attempts at 'fairness' and sensitivity is such a democrat response. Do you have the most diverse, tolerant, and sweetest sandbox in town where EVERYONE gets along?
Anon, how many times have you allen out of that willow tree on your head? Wear a helmet, boy.
Some of the new ski/sportswear companies sell them, I believe.
Let's get back to what this thread originally was about. Are you aware that there is a Bill at the Legislature that may make Ogden's Sensitive Overlay Zoning Ordinance (whatever it turns out to be) obsolete? I believe that we have a big reason to be concerned about it. I have copied it below FYI: "H.B. 233 This document includes House Committee Amendments incorporated into the bill on Mon, Feb 5, 2007 at 12:57 PM by jeyring.
1 ENVIRONMENTALLY RESTRICTED ZONING
2 DISTRICTS
3 2007 GENERAL SESSION
4 STATE OF UTAH
5 Chief Sponsor: Michael T. Morley
6 Senate Sponsor: ____________
7
8 LONG TITLE
9 General Description:
10 This bill amends county and municipal land use provisions.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13.enacts a definition for environmentally restricted zoning districts;
14 authorizes counties and municipalities to enact an ordinance creating an
15 environmentally restricted zoning district, but only if specified conditions are met;
16 limits the factors on which a county or municipality may base an environmentally
17 restricted zoning district;
18 limits the ability of counties and municipalities to deny a land use application for
19 land located within an environmentally restricted zoning district;
20 requires approval of land use application to the extent that land located within an
21 environmentally restricted zoning district complies with requirements, even if the 22 remainder does not;
23 establishes a presumption in favor of a land use application relating to land located
24 within an environmentally restricted zoning district;
25 provides an option for review by binding arbitration of an appeal authority's
26 decision on a land use application for land located within an environmentally
27 restricted zoning district; and
28 requires a court to award a reasonable attorney fee to a prevailing applicant in a
29 court review of an appeal authority's final decision of a land use application relating
30 to land located within an environmentally restricted zoning district."
This Bill definitely favors the developer and removes from the hands of local governments (the ones who know the conditions and history of an area) and makes all sensitive areas fit one size. This is bad legislation, and these conditions are what make it so abominable: "limits the ability of counties and municipalities to deny a land use application for
land located within an environmentally restricted zoning district; requires approval of land use application to the extent that land located within an
environmentally restricted zoning district complies with requirements, even if the remainder does not;
establishes a presumption in favor of a land use application relating to land located within an environmentally restricted zoning district;" This HB 233 would allow Chris Peterson or anyone else to build on the mountainside or any place else and the Planning Commission nor City Council could stop him. Please contact your legislators tell them that you are opposed to it and it is bad legislation when it removes control of local land issues from the local governments. Don’t know who your legislators are? Go to www.utah.gov and on the top bar, select "Legislature" and then chose Senate and then Representatives. Go down the list until you find your legislaotrs. It helps to know what district you're in.
Observer:
You didn't charge a crime. Observer did. I note now that he's escalated it to charges of treason. Nuff said.
Sandbox my patoot. Arguing that it serves no purpose to go flinging wild charges of crimes, and treason, and paranois-based sellouts is the equivalent of wanting to play patticake instead of engage in politics is nonsense. Paranoid-driven suspicion is a bad idea becauses it's ineffective politics. I recall the extended bout of parania we saw here when the new Councilwoman, Ms. Van H. was seen having lunch shortly after her appointment to the Council with the Mayor and Curt Geiger at Roosters. Dark charges here of her having "sold out already" and speculations about her being swayed by a mango chicken lunch and the Geiger full court press, claims she should have turned the offer down and told the Mayor to stuff it, etc etc. Same woman now hailed as a model of council behavior, etc.
But the suggestion, which you seem to be making, that the options here are to turn into local Sean Hannity clones [seeing traiters, turncoats and criminal conduct wheneever someone dares to disagree] on the one hand, or to play patticake and hold decorous teas on the other is nonsense.
Damn. Sorry Observer. You didn't charge a crime. Concerned did. And now he's escalated it to treason etc. Apologies for the mistyping.
Councilwoman Jeske:
There was a warning about this bill up on WC forum some threads ago. Thanks for the reminder. Those who've looked at it carefully warn that it would make challenging a developer's or private homebuilder's purchased study indicating the safety of building on any lot so prohibitively expensive that no city could, as a practical matter, challenge many if any of them. Virtual carte blanche for any developer or building who successfully goes "consultant" shopping to purchase a favorable study. Thanks again for the reminder. This one is such a stinker that even the largest trade association of homebuilders in Utah [including the builder of Ivory Homes I think it is] is opposing it.
Thanks, Curm, for the reinforcement. The discouraging thing is that some of our Weber County Representatives voted FOR this Bill. We really do need to call the Senator who represents us, and maybe even our Representatives to see if they will change their minds and revisit this Bill. There is much at stake here, so please take a few minutes to make a couple of calls.
I just checked the status of HB 233, Environmentally Restricted Zoning. It has not gone to the full House for a vote yet. But it did pass its third reading in the House last Thursday, Feb. 8th.
In reading the Bill, Subsection 17-271-403(3)(a); and (2) "A county may not base the need for an environmentally restricted zoning district on: (a) a desire to preserve a view of or from the property; (b) the aesthetic appearance of the landscape; (c)the protection of wildlife habitat or vegetation, unless required by federal law; (d) the unwillingness of a county to provide essential services to the property such as water, fire protection, garbage collection, or snow removal; and (e) a slope less than 30 degrees."
Here is the argument to keep the 30 degree slope and above restriction in the City's proposed sensitive overlay zone ordinance.
SB-233 shouldn't be passed even if we can get around it. It is so biased in its wording and intent toward the developer that it is just really bad legislation. I know I sound like a broken record, but it's true. Contact all the Legislators that you personally know, and especially the ones you vote for. Remind them of that. A more direct route to the Legislature on the internet is:
http://le.utah.gov./
You will be able to find all kinds of information there -- who they are, and how to contact them, etc. When we met with a few of the Weber County Legislators last Wednesday, they told us that the most effective way to communicate with them is by telephone. They said that they receive so many emails that they can't do justice to them all, and they feel that a lot of the emails that they receive are "spammed," therefore they don't take them as seriously. That is just a hint, but please contact them in whaterver way your time allows. Thanks!
I still think a conservation easement, as practiced in our neighboring state of Colorado, is the best way to go here.
For those of you too obsessed with pointing fingers at imaginary "crimes", and those too obsessed with pointing out the motes of "division, anger, envy, spite, negativity" in this blog's eye while ignoring the beam in your own eye, here's the link again.
"Mountains for the Centuries" from The Economist, Feb 1 2007.
Dorrene,
This legislation seems to also negate considerations that are required for a city or county to annex a piece of property.
Specifically what you cited above, Subsection 17-271-403(3)(a); requires a city or county to provide essential services to the property such as water, fire protection, garbage collection, or snow removal irrespective of the cost of those services to that area.
Residents of the involved community could be saddled with the costs that rightfully belong to the developer or new property owners, if I read this right. This would mean that communities would have no say over annexation or of property owners or developers that want something for nothing.
If my reading is accurate, then this is another reason why this is bad legislation.
Apparently, though his comments sometimes spring from a shallow well critical thinking and are shaped by a worldview that's rounded, Curmudgeon is so fair and literal that he's capable of detecting satire or making a proper inferrence based on the tone of someone's writing. That post about the mayor having lunch with the newly appointed councilwoman was not intended to cast aspersions on that act (it's entirely proper), it's meant to point out that Mr. Integrity felt compelled to bring along champions of the gondola-to-nowhere. Get it? Instead of the mayor sitting down (which requires very little effort) with a council member and talking about how they can work together to benefit all those they serve in Ogden, the little man interjects his stupid gondola pitch as an opening salvo in meeting a new council member, which is inappropriate. And I made it very clear the information was second-hand, so it may not have been accurate. Curmudgeon must divine his public activism from the Torrie model.
well of critical thinking
incapable
Jason:
I didn't recall who posted the lunch item first. I do recall there there was kind of WCForum hissy fit touched off by it. Lots of heartburning posts. If you were the original poster of the item, as I guess you were, please be assured that I don't recall the post specifically, its tone, or anything else about it beyond its having appeared. My comments above referred to the many comments the post elicited. I think I characterized their general tone fairly.
In defense of Council member Van Hooser, I'd like to set the record straight. She did NOT have lunch with the Mayor and Curt Geiger. It must have been someone else they were having lunch with. In fact last week when the Mayor asked Council member Van Hooser to meet with him and have lunch, her reply was that she would meet with him, "But I don't do lunch."
Council member Van Hooser is a great asset to the Council.
Ms. Jeske:
Ah, thanks for the correction. So much heartburning over nothing. But, just to be clear, even if she had, it would not in any way have been improper, out of the ordinary or reason for concern. I expect my elected representatives to communicate between legislative and executive levels, officially, unofficially, formally and informally. I have never worked in any organization [government or private] which was not made more efficient in its operations by having varied channels of communication between levels open and used.
And I couldn't agree more about Ms. Van H.'s service on the Council so far. You guys picked her. Ya done good.
New comments are not allowed.