"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
George Bernard Shaw
Government Quotes
1944
OGDEN — It may be easier for the city to acquire private property for the long-awaited Ogden River Project if the state Legislature approves a bill restoring eminent domain as a tool to tackle urban blight.While sponsors and proponents of this bill are deceptively framing this legislation as a purely anti-blight measure, with important property rights protections built in, it is clear from the above statements of Mark Johnson and Dave Harmer that the true effect of the bill will be to restart the Big-Government Economic Development Juggernaut, to put centrally-planned schemes like the River Project back on track -- and to allow petty politicians like Boss Godfrey to continue to build monuments to themselves -- on the backs of Utah property owners.
House Bill 365 would allow cities and towns to use eminent domain if petitioned by 75 percent of property owners with at least 50 percent of the land value within an urban-renewal project area.
“It would definitely help the river project,” Ogden Community and Economic Development Director Dave Harmer said of the bill’s potential impact. “We would like to see it pass.”
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, is awaiting a final reading by the House and, if approved, will be forwarded to the Senate.
The measure is being pushed by the Utah League of Cities and Towns with support from several municipalities including Ogden, said Mark Johnson, the city’s management services director.
“There are a lot of cities that have (blighted) urban downtown areas that need help,” he said.
What is particularly ironic is that the Utah legislature, which launched a national property-rights revolution in 2005, seems now to be leading the charge on behalf of government schemers and central planners, to restore the power to government to seize the property of private citizens and turn it over to selected private developers. Once again there are elements in the legislature who believe it's okay to balance fundamental private property rights against a vague concept of "public good" -- mostly for the benefit of private developers.
The Castle coalition, a national property rights advocacy group, neatly sets forth the case for the American people below. In this connection, the coalition has assembled the 2005-06 national polls to prove up the true sentiment of the American public, who overwhelmingly oppose the use of the eminent domain power for private economic development:
Tax-hungry bureaucrats and land-hungry developers generally support eminent domain for private commercial development. That’s no surprise. After all, when cities can take any apartment building and replace it with luxury condominiums, or condemn any corner store and replace it with a Wal-Mart, using eminent domain is much easier than buying property from willing owners.
Ask pretty much anyone else, though, and there’s clear consensus. Americans across the nation from all walks of life-regardless of their religious or ethnic background, political affiliation or geographic location-say the use of eminent domain for private gain is wrong. There is near universal agreement that taking private property should not be taken just so someone else can make more money-regardless.
The following polls all reflect this sentiment. Since the Kelo v. City of New London decision, polls all across the country have reflected the fact that Americans find the landmark-and now infamous-Supreme Court decision just plain wrong.
Make no mistake. House Bill 365 is barrelling along full-steam. The bill was approved by the House Rules Committee by a unanimous 10-0 vote. It's no wonder that powerful pro-development lobbies like the Utah League of Cities and Towns consider the passage of this legislation a fait accompli. For a real eye-opener, be sure to listen to the audio record of the House Rules Committee's 2/15/07 hearing. We were astounded, frankly, at how easily the Rules Committee rolled over.
If the citizens of the state of Utah wish to nip this latest attempted encroachment upon fundamental private property rights in the bud, the time to act is NOW!
In our never-ending effort to seamlessly provide our gentle readers the tools to effortlessly contact their legislators, we provide Utah House contact links here. The House vote is not calendered yet, but it will no doubt come up on short notice. It took a tide of citizen input to thwart Utah's land-grabbing bureaucrats in 2005; and now's clearly no time for Utah citizens to rest on their laurels.
Your legislators apparently need to be reminded again about the difference between right and wrong.
Your property could be the next to be seized.
Snoozers will be losers.
Comments, anyone...?
35 comments:
GBS got it right: money talks. Private home owners in "blighted" areas do not make major contributions to the campaign funds of state legislators. Major developers and their allied business associates do. Sometimes, I'm afraid, and not infrequently, it really is that simple.
It is no coincidence that on the same day the SE ran the story referenced above, the Salt Lake Trib reported that legislators had killed, yet again, a bill to ban gifts from lobbyests to legislators. Imagine that....
Well, there you go again Curm, slamming our fine Republican legislators!
I'll have you know that Utah has the very finest State Legislature that money can buy.
Dear Curm and Oz Boy
The last time I was at a CC Meeting. Citizens we complaining that they wanted to get out of their homes in what you are calling the blighted areas.
They wanted to city to XXXX or get off the pot.
ANON
Anon:
In such instances, there would be no need to employ eminent domain powers to acquire their properties. They are, it seems, eager to sell. So how your example bears on the question --- the power of the state to force an unwilling home or business owner to sell so his property can be conveyed to other private owners or investors --- escapes me.
Dear Curm
It seems that many or perhaps most to the residents were ready and willing to sell.
A few wanted more for their property than was fair and the project was stopped. ED was at the time not an option and the people at the CC Meeting were frustrated as they could find no other buyers except the city for their property.
My point is that all of the people in the blighted area were not unhappy with ED.
They wanted out and ED was the only way they were going to get out.
ANON
Did I miss something? The bill only allows government to excercise its power of ED if 75% of the property owners (comprising 50% of the total property) petition the government to do so. In other words, the private property owners themselves must trigger the use of ED. This bill is not simply handing over people's property to governmental entities looking to pad their pockets.
Dear Publius
I was for years, absolutly against ED. It was not until I was at a City Council meeting listening to people talk about the positive use for them as property owners. Many areas of a city are so blighted that they cannot sell, except at very low prices.
Each year that passes, the value of their home or thier mothers, or grandmothers home, becomes less valuable and not worth fixing. The city cannot rejuvenate the area because of the blight.
My grand father built a home in central Ogden in 1906. It is far to small for todays family needs and has therefore become a haven for transients. No developer will build a new home in the area unless the entire area can be updated. To do so, it would require the neighborhood to sell.
There is, I am sure, one or two who will hold out to get much more than the home is worth and therefore stop the modernization of the area.
The city therefore looses tax base for the schools and the neighborhood continues to decline.
Tough choices.
ANON
It's scary for me when I agree with the Utah Legislature, but I'm glad to see the use of eminent domain restored for economic development purposes. I always felt the initial banning was a knee-jerk over-reaction of an overly conservative legislature. In their haste to prove Utah is the most conservative and property lovin' state there is and ever will be, the legislature outlawed one of the most rarely used and important tools cities have at their disposal.
Let's not forget that the Supreme Court found that eminent domain for economic development does not counter the US Constitution and that the unfortunate people that are evicted from their property do receive fair-market compensation. Also, let's not forget that a city that unfairly abuses its powers will certainly face the political results of doing so.
Just because I disagree with Godfrey and am concerned with his propriety in (mis)using eminent domain doesn't mean every city in the state should suffer. I applaud the safeguards the Utah Legislature is proposing to ensure that eminent domain isn't abused and hope to see it benefit communities all across the state.
Anon:
Ah, so we have willing sellers [to the city] who will not have to have eminent domain used to acquire their land. Then we have unwilling sellers. And you and the willing sellers want the unwilling sellers to have their property seized and sold against their will via eminent domain powers in order to be transferred to another private owner. That about it?
None of which deals with the main problem: a homeowner in the RDA area who does not want to sell, should not be forced to sell to accommodate neighbors who do want to sell. It's the homeowner's land. He gets to decide, or should, whether he will sell, who he will sell to, or what price he will take. The fact that you want to sell your land should give you no right to force me to sell mine, in order to turn over the combined property to another private owner. It really is that simple. It's wrong.
Publius, your math is right. It's your reasoning and your generalizations that are off. It is not "the property owners" who "trigger" ED. It's some of the property owners [half as I recall]. Last time I checked, whether I am allowed to keep my house is not up to a majority vote of the neighborhood. If, by way of example, Mayor Godfrey buys the house next door to mine, and 86.7% of the neighborhood should vote that he be forced to sell it immediately at a price set by an arbitrator on grounds that his moving in would lower property values [as surely it would], that would be wrong. And I would defend his absolute right to keep that property, regardless of whether 50% or 75% for 99%[I'd be the one voting "no"] of his neighbors would rather that he sell. It's not their property; and so it's not their decidsion to make. Because a developer or the City or anyone else convinces half my neighbors to sell out should in no way obligate me to sell if I choose not to.
Eminent domain powers have a long history, and they are properly applied for public purposes [acquiring land for roads, dams, schools, public facilities]. Such powers are never justified to take property from one private owner for the benefit of another. No, not even here in Ogden.
I think that the city should use ED on the mayors house, the other day I saw some litter in the yard and it is now blighted and now we need to tear it down so we can now put up a new gondola post on that property.
Can someone educate me on the role of the "blight" declaration in a redevelopment area, with or without the subsequent use of eminent domain?
I'm mainly wondering whether there's a time limit on the project. If the city declares my block to be blighted today, can it then wait five or ten years before redeveloping the area? What if, during the intervening time, my neighbors and I clean the place up and it would no longer qualify as blighted?
Obviously I'm thinking here about the River Project but my question is actually a general one about RDA procedures.
Curm,
You don't seem one willing to engage in scare tactics to prove a point...why do it now? Eminent domain can not be used simply because someone doesn't like their neighbor or simply because a city wants to turn a mom-and-pop shop into a Wal-Mart.
The process proposed by the legislature for cities to even consider using eminent domain demands much more than simple arithmetic of a neighborhood. It also requires an area to be part of an "urban renewal project area plan". That process is outlined in the Utah State Code Title 17 and requires much more than litter or trash in an area. The public process to do so is also quite transparent in order to avoid any under the table shenanigans.
The basis for "urban renewal plans" are found in the general plan of a community. Certainly achieving the goals of the general plan are within the "public good", don't you agree? Show me where an urban renewal plan, based on the general plan, tells me that Matty G. cannot live in my neighborhood and I'll agree that it has the potential to qualify for eminent domain.
Certainly eminent domain should be a last alternative and have very limited use. However, in some cases it is absolutely needed for a community's public good...and that is entirely within the scope the U.S. Constitution has placed on eminent domain.
Jax:
Of course it can't be used to oust disliked neighbors. Never suggested it could. Merely used the example as a tongue-in-cheek illustration of the general point that someone's right to keep the house he owns should not be subject to majority vote of his neighbors. Which can happen, has happened and will again happen if cities regain the power of eminent domain to assemble properties for private investors to buy under the proposed law now pending. That's all.
As for the Kelo decision, are you sure you understand the scope of what the Court ruled in Kelo? Not simply that eminent domain can be used to acquire property by force in "blighted" areas. The home owners involved in the case did not own blighted properties. Not even the town seeking to take their property claimed that. The issue was, could their homes be taken because the land could be developed by others to pay more to the city in taxes than it got from the homes already existing there. The issue was "does an increased revenue [i.e. tax] base justify a city using eminent domain powers to force homeowners to sell so more valuable private development can take place on that land? Is that enough of a public purpose to justify the use of eminent domain powers?" And the court said "yes." That may not worry you, Jax. It worries me.
We in the US have a history of cities abusing eminent domain powers to benefit private developers of what had previously been private land. Some cities have declared wild land [never built upon at all] "blighted" so it could be siezed under eminent domain powers to assemble parcels for Wal-Mart or other private developers.
If you are asking if I'm confident that Ogden [or other cities] will not abuse eminent domain powers in order to serve well-heeled developers of commercial properties who cannot acquire those properties on the open market, then my answer is "no, I am not confident at all." And the history of municipal abuse of the eminent domain power to benefit well-heeled developers in the US gives me good reason, I think, for my lack of confidence. We have a history, Jax. It is unwise to ignore it for momentary gain.
Curm,
I likewise am naturally suspicious of government and any effort on its part to push those nasty, beligerant landowners out of the way. However, I am not afraid that the proposed Utah law will result in a sudden rash of Utah cities robbing the poor to give to the rich.
I do understand that the Kelo case resulted in the case that cities can take unblighted property and give it to another private party for increased economic value. However, the city of New London didn't decide over night that they wanted the Kelo property. In fact, it was only after years of discussing and debating redevelopment plans that a master plan for the area was approved. From what I understand, one of the strong points of the case for the city was that the property was part of an official redevelopment plan that had been vetted through years of public process. That redevelopment plan created the "public use" and helped satisfy that clause in the constitution.
I see that same thing in the proposed Utah law where eminent domain for economic development can only be considered once an area is part of an urban renewal plan. While this certainly still opens up the chance that cities can abuse eminent domain powers, it decreases that chance by creating a transparent process open for public input on many different levels.
What are some of history's examples of municipal abuse of emminent domain (I am not familiar with any except Poletown)? On the contrary, great cities of the world owe much of their greatness to eminent domain (Paris, London).
Jax:
OK, that defines the nub of our differnces: you accept that a public process can define an area of public interest [redevelopment] sufficient to overcome the private right of homeowners in the designated redevelopment area who do not wish to sell. I don't accept that such a generalized public purpose can or should vacate private homeowners' rights to their property in such areas. On that, we'll have to agree to disagree.
It does bother me that these generalized public benefits nearly always seem to be applied by the relatively powerful [City Councils, redevelopment boards, etc] against the interests of the relatively powerless [homeowners in low value neighborhoods] for the benefit of still more powerful agents [developers, major corportations, etc.]
Say, the indicted tile layer bought up a lot of inner city property and only paid about 1.28 million dollars. Were those properties advertised on the open market??
Now, comes Peterson aka BootJack LLC who for only $1000. has an option to purchase three prime properties right where the Frontrunner station will be...this Option Agreement to be exercised in 90 days is signed between Peterson aka Bootjack and the RDA.
Yet, some CC members are saying they knew nothing about this latest deal. Why not? The CC members wear RDA hats.
How can the mayor go behind the RDA/CC backs AGAIN to help out his best buds. The Wall Ave properties were not published for sale...no one from the 'public' had an opportunity to bid. WHO signed for the RDA...Garcia?
The indicted tile layer stands to make a bundle. Who wants to wager that the indicted one sells his property back to the RDA?? For a very tidy profit?
Who is supposed to investigate malfeasance in the mayor's office? DiCaria? He sits on his butt like he's superglued to the chair.
Shurtliff? When is the last time he showed up in town?
IMHO Godfrey must be investigated. There are plenty of people in this town who know where the skeletons are...no dead bodies...this has been going on for so long...that the corpses have become skeletons.
If these people with facts of malfeasance have the guts to come forward, this crooked mayor and his parasites will be brought to justice.
Maybe a grand jury should be convened and all the scams can be laid out.
There are those who are and were complicit, including 'employees' of the city, and those who have benefitted by Godfrey's largesse...and those who have been in collusion then and now and hold positions of some 'power'.
Where are the ones who know it all? Are they gusty enough to come forward? Do they fear the little mayor?
ED is not to be used to enrich private 'developers'...but for the public good.
What does Peterson plan to do with the Wall Ave parcels? It's rumored that Godfrey wants his gondola terminal there!
Let's send Godfrey to Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico or any other place where he will be right at home 'doing business'.
Did anyone catch the parallel in Trentleman's fine column today?
Ogden had a Mardi Gras ONCE. A fast talking 'developer' came to town and promised fame and 'economic development' right here in Ogden!
Must have been a grand sight. Only problem was that the 'developer' lost his planned subdivision, his ranch, and all his money.
The only difference that I could see is that this fast talking huckster lost HIS money (along with a lot of the common folks' too)...but even the Chamber of Commerce wouldn't buy in to the grandiose scheme to put Ogden on the map....
Now, when the gondola/Peterson gated community/Malan's resort fails....it won't be HIS money down the in need of repair sewer, it will be OURS.
Observer:
Do you have a source for CC members saying they were unaware of the latest sale? And, did the sale involve city-owned land w/in the RDA area? I thought it was outside the RDA area but adjacent. Was I wrong? If it was not RDA land, the CC members would not have necessarily known about it as RDA members.
Anyone know for sure?
Jax said:
"What are some of history's examples of municipal abuse of emminent domain (I am not familiar with any except Poletown)? On the contrary, great cities of the world owe much of their greatness to eminent domain (Paris, London)."
I do not recall seeing any Mall Warts (motto: "Your Source for Cheap Plastic Crap") or automobile assembly plants built on land seized by eminent domain in Paris or London.
(Unless you mean Paris, Tennessee or London, Ohio.)
No, the eminent domain in those great European cities was used for parks, roads, monuments, and other civic works.
I agree with Curm. I am not at all opposed to land being seized for the good of the commonweal, but I am against land being seized so that the government can transfer ownership to a new private party.
I would be much more comfortable if the government that feels the need for economic development retained title over the newly-seized land.
I am aware that Mall Wart might not go for such a deal, but that's exactly why I would insert it into any legislation, if I were King of the Utah Legislature, which I'm not.
If the government felt that the land in question was so horribly blighted that it brought down the entire neighborhood or city, then certainly it would not mind spending taxpayer dollars on the razing of crack houses and slums so that a private developer could build on (say) a 99-year lease, with the RDA or whatever government entity retaining actual title over the land.
I was in Mississippi when the state used the threat of eminent domain to force private landowners to sell to Nissan so that a new auto plant could be built. Predictably, the new plant did not bring the economic benefits promised to the area. (In case you haven't noticed, Mississippi is still poor.) Those interested can read about the case in this New York Times article.
Curm,
It was RDA land. Read the Strike Three article, there is a link in there to the document.
Anon:
OK. Thank you for the pointer. In that case, Council members not knowing of the sale, if they did not know about it, does indeed raise interesting questions.
Curm,
Did you know that Cook wrote a resolution (ostensibly for the Council) calling for passage of HB 365 by the legislature?
It was 'signed' by the City Council....which means that only Garcia's signature is on it.
Last year when the Council ordered Cook to deliver their call for a no vote on HB 229 (getting rid of the Civil Service Commission)...Cook had to be told TWICE to get that letter down there!
The Council is unaware of several things until it all hits the fan.
Can you say "St Anne's"??
I have it straight from a Council person that they did not know it was Peterson getting the land option.
It is also interesting that the land he bought the option on is part of the area termed blighted in the last attempt to seize property in the area.
When that whole area was termed blighted for the Wal-mart scheme it was obvious the man doing the blight inspection had made the area blighted by deliberation.
The pictures shown to the Council were taken in the winter with snow all over and the same houses that were in the worst shape were shown several times in the same presentation.
You can drive all over inner City Ogden and see property in the same condition or worse.
You people that see nothing wrong with using eminent domain to seize private property to give to another private party have come late to the party and need to get educated about the abuses.
Go to the Institute for Justice website (IJ.org) and see what the Castle Coalition division of the Institute has accomplished all over this country in helping people fight unjust seizure of their property to make way for multi-million dollar parking lots, condos, etc. Haven't you heard about the huge parking lot in the old gambling section of Las Vegas taken from private owners to make way for a parking terrace?
Because the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June 2006 regarding Kelso did not prohibit eminent domain being used twenty-some states have passed laws making it illegal. The is one more case of the Courts not getting things right.
Utah was recognized across the U.S. when we passed our eminent domain law and that influenced many other states to follow suit.
Read our own Utah Constitution and the U.S. Constitution regarding ownership of property before you make statements that show you are not completely up on the facts.
And stop and think about how you would feel when Ogden City decides one day to seize your home of 50 years and make it into a parking lot or worse.
What you are not taking into account is that the RDA accounts to none of us. They are a government unto themselves.
I do not like that and it is unconstitutional to encumber us with debt without our being allowed to vote on the debt. And you are really wrong if you think RDA debt is not our debt.
And, Matthew Godfrey signed the Option Agreement with Bootjack as the Executive Director of the Ogden RDA.
The right to own property is the most precious right we have. Without that right we are slaves.
Remember that the persons pushing confiscation of property consider that you have no rights and would make you slaves.
Observer:
I am working from memory here, but I think the Council majority supported the revsion in the Eminent Domain statute so it would not surprise me that Mr. Cook delivered a resolution calling for that in the Council's name.
What I still am trying to find out, definitively, is the City's stand [administrative or Council] on HB233, which will make it financially impossible, or nearly so, for municipalities to deny building permits to builders in geologically sensitive areas. I've been trying to find out if the city's lobbyist has been instructed to weigh in on this either for or against. No luck so far.
I did write to the SE reporter who did a recent story on HB233, quoting representatives from several towns and counties opposing the bill as dangerous and possibly disastrous for towns. The story did not quote anyone from the Ogden City administration either for or against the bill. The reporter replied by email that she had asked Mayor Godfrey about HB233. She told me "he said he didn't think the bill would hurt" Ogden much because the city doesn't have "that many areas that are hilly."
Considering the Administration's deep interest in the pending revsion of the Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance, I found the Mayor's dismissing HB233 as insignificant for Ogden... surprising?
As for the St. Anne's imbroglio, and the Schupe-Williams sale fiasco, it seems clear that the Godfrey administration has been unable to communicate effectively with the Council and with various other stakeholder groups in the city. This is not the sign of a competent administration. Nor is it the sign of a prudent one, since the administration has hung the Council out to dry twice in the last few months via conveying to it information on which it acted and which information turned out not to be true. [Shupe-Williams, St. Anne's Center].
There have been rumors, reported on WC Forum, that Godfrey administration people are lobbying legislators in favor of HB233, but I've not been able to nail that down definitively. Still trying.
Dorothy L:
As you know, I think you are right about how wrong it is for cities to sieze land via eminent domain to make that land available to other private parties. However, I can't agree that, as you write, "the RDA accounts to none of us. They are a government unto themselves."
The RDA members are all Council members; the executive director is the Mayor. All of them are elected public officials. All of them. And they hold their positions in the RDA structure because and only because they are elected officials. We, the voters, put them in office, Ms. L and they are answerable to us, all of them, once every four years. It is just flat wrong to claim they are unaccountable to the public. On that much, we disagree.
To you folks who are FOR ED -
You can use all the excuses you want - the use of ED for ANYthing other than PUBLIC USE (ie, firestations, police stations, etc.) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Army:
Well, sadly, since the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, use of ED for commercial development is not unconstitutional. I think the case was wrongly decided, as do many others, but it was decided as it was, and ED for commercial development is constitutional. Unwise, unfair, ill-advised, yes. But unconstitutional? No.
But it was also not mandated upon the states. States are free to ban the use of ED for private development projects, as Utah did. And as did other states. And those bans are constitutional as well. Sadly, we seem about to overturn ours.
It is too bad that the Standard Examiner doesn’t have an investigative reporter…because I get more information reading these blogs than what I read from the Standard Examiner. I guess the reason for that is the Standard Examiner is first and foremost a business, then secondly or thirdly a reporter newspaper. Which one would ask why they put the news on the front page and not the advertisements since they are in business to make a profit? They pretend to be in business to look out for the community interest and to let the community know what is going on as long as it doesn’t step on the toes of their largest advertisers, like corporations, and politicians with large campaign accounts, If I remember Mayor Godfrey out spend or out raised his opponents last elections by 5 to 1 ratio. Maybe that is why the Standard Examiner either got rid of their investigative reporter, or instructed that person to leave Mayor Godfrey alone and all of the other shall we say well recognized politicians that have extremely close ties to cooperate America.
As Senator Bob Bennett once said, about campaign reform, you can not restrict how much money a person can donate to a campaign; because money talks and the more money involved the louder it talks...
I am furious and sickened to read Schwebke's 'expose' this morning that Peterson's BROTHER is actually the one in BOOTJACK LLC and the two of them have conspired to buy the Wall Ave parcels. The parcels are described
Harmer defended the indefensible actions of himself, Godfrey and the gang of thugs by saying that 'there was no reason to initially tell the RDA who operates Bootjack becasue the Wall Ave parcels are small, nondescript an are not being eyed for any specific redevelopment projects'.
Mmmhmm...we'll see how invaluable these parcels are, won't we? If they are so nondescript and invaluable, why is the city trying to tell us WEBER STATE wants them? WSU knows nothing of this latest pipedream of Godfrey/Peterson(s)....St. Anne's...
Shupe Williams...deja vu, eh?
Then an 'unnamed city official' is quoted as explaining that divulging ownership of BJ "would have created too much controversy and questions"!! Dang straight! One can only hope.
Harmer, in an absolutely true but snide retort blames the council thusly: " I didn't think it was important. If it was important for the RDA to know (who operates Bootjack) THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED THE SALE WITHOUT KNOWING."
Exactly! Council/RDA when in the &*^&^%$#$^&* do you people ever plan to do your due diligence? Can only ONE of you ever speak up and ask questions? Can only ONE , possibly two, ever dissent?
Curmudgeon is right: All of you were elected and can be UNelected...but the damage you do with your heads in the sand for four years is enormous.
You owe Ogden better than we're getting.
You've requested the legislature to vote FOR HB 365. Now, we see from Curm who was smart enuf to question the writer of a story on HB 322, that Godfrey isn't worried about THAT bill because' we don't have much land that is hilly"!!
Do you wonder if these amoral guzzlers at the public trough ever BLUSH??
PS to Schwebke" Stop dragging out your file notes on Godfrey and Peterson's visions of gondolas and resort. We've all memorized them by now. Do some digging and be a real 'investigative' reporter, and cease cramming that OLD C R A P down our gagging throats.
Some points on the SE:
Well, anon, the day you complain about lack of investigative reporting [which I have complained about as well], the SE leads with an investigative piece by Mr. Schwebke, uncovering matters the un-named administrative spokesperson admits the administration wanted kept quiet. Kudos to both the SE and Schwebke on this one.
As for the SE being a profit-seeking business: well of course. ALL newspapers [except those run by fabulously wealthy cult leaders like the Rev. Sun Y. Moon, who bankrolls the money pit called the Washington Times] seek to make profits. That is not necessarily inconsistent with their stated aim of informing the public. I don't think the Administration will be all that pleased about this morning's expose, nor was it about the Schupe-Williams sale fiasco story the SE broke, nor was it about the SE revealed St. Anne's bungle. The SE is not what it should be, but it's not nearly as poor a home town paper as is often suggested here. [Get ready: I'm about to pitch for more subscribers. Thought you all deserved a warning.] If it were more profitable, and had many more subscribers, it might in fact be able to be more independent in both its reporting and on its editorial page. If you live in Ogden and can afford it, you ought to be a subscriber. It is our home town paper and [now and then] it does important digging and reporting. Like this morning. But it should, I agree, do more of it.
As for Sharon's PS about Schwebke and the paper not continuing to summarize the Peterson and Gondola/gondola proposals because "we've all memorized them by now." I wish "all" meant most people, but, Sharon, I'm afraid... in fact I'm absolutely certain... it does not. And I can see why the paper thinks it needs to provide enough background so that a reader not as up on the issues as you are can understand the implications of the story, can get its context.
As for today's story: well, the Council-as-RDA has only itself to blame on this one. Apparently it asked for informtion about the buyers, didn't get it but approved the sale anyway. So we have to ask, yet again, how many times will the Administration have to treat the Council with contempt [remember Ernest? Remember Shupe-Williams? Remember St. Anne's?] before the Council, collectively, says "enough!" Long past time for that to happen, I think.
Long past time.
And I note Councilwoman Wick's concern about the sale of public property quietly to FOMs [Friends of Matthew] without putting the land up for bid. She has, I think, nailed what is happening: crony government. You have, it seems says Councilwoman Wicks, to "know" someone in the administration to buy surplus property. Meaning it seems you have to be a crony of the Mayor's, an FOM to learn what's available, what you can get it for, and to have the sale arranged quietly for you alone.
Ogden City government, Matt Godfrey style.
Dear Curm
Your argument is well taken. I had exactly the same point of view regarding property rights and ED.
We still have the problem of a city that is run down. A city that lacks a tax base to support the schools. A city that cannot support retail sales.
Does anyone have an answer to these problems other than redevelopement and the need to acquire all of the property?
How do you get a private investor to invest his money in a blighted area?
ANON
The SE doesn't have Schwebke insert his file notes because people may not have heard all the details about the vision...the SE is promoting that vision! I think (and it is my opinion) that the SE wants to make sure that if they say it long enuf, the people will believe that this is nearly a done deal, and furthermore, that this is going to be GOOD for us!
Quiet bitching. You greedy people. Just give your property to Mayor Godfrey and Chief Senator Greiner, so they can sell them to their buddies so they'll have funds for their Election Campaigns. Goosshh
Anon:
Fair enough questions to ask. I am not unaware of Ogden's problems [it's my town too], though I think perhaps the arrival of Frontrunner may have a substantial impact in ways that will alleviate some [granted, not all] of the problems you mention.
I'm a big fan of not re-inventing the wheel. Other small to middling sized former industrial towns/cities have managed to pull themselves back into prosperity without engaging in massive one-developer projects [bringing in a Wal-Mart or creating a huge new commercial development]. We might profit by looking at what has worked elsewhere. For example, NYT ran an article last year about an industrial town in Ohio that was run down, closed store fronts, etc. The city put it's money in to bringing to downtown not chain stores, but owner-operated shops that could not be found in malls, etc. Some failed, but most did not. Town now drawing business from outside because it offers what cannot be found at competing area venues. Certainly worth looking at for Ogden, I would think. Just as a possibility. [By the way, the NYT found that some of the shopowners were expanding on line, and beginning to establish wider customer bases by expanding on line. They got city help there too.]
NYT business pages ran just a few months ago a story about a suburb, former industrial town, of Washington/Baltimore now rethinking a massive redevelopment project that was failing, moving it more in the direction of [again] drawing smaller, unique, owner-operated businesses and catering to "walking condo/apartment" residents who work in DC, but want to live outside and be within walking distance of services, entertainment, retail, etc. [Seems to be the model emerging in downtown SLC and it is going in now, not dependent on the mega-LDS financed City Creek project.]
There do seem to be other models out there, examples of successful turnarounds that did not involve huge redevelopment projects, but rather concentrated on drawing smaller successful businesses and creating living-friendly downtown residential options. Some of that seems slated for the mall redevelopment project, but Ogden's administration still seems to be seeking a mega-magic bullet solution to the city's economic problems. That does not seem wise to me; it seems a risky "all our eggs in one basket" approach; and it involves quality of life trade offs that may in fact harm the city's potential for growth and greater prosperity [e.g. selling off the benchlands for private residential development].
As for run down buildings, etc. There are ways to deal with them. If they present hazards, or have been abandoned, there are procedures available to force owners to make repairs, or which, in the case of abandoned properties, permit cities to move for seizure. In other words, the question of urban renewal in re: derelict properties is not "all or nothing," ED/RDAs or Ft. Apache, The Bronx. In my view, though, the current administration has had its eyes fixed nearly exclusively on "the big fix" option to the exclusion of perhaps more modest, but more workable, solutions. [But not exclusively, I agree. The "Ogden Sports Hub" notion is a good one, and note, it has worked to bring relatively small out-door oriented businesses to Ogden. Now if the Administration would just divorce the concept from the all or nothing, Gondola/Gondola Peterson Proposal mega-gamble, it might have a model that would continue to work well for the city.]
Well, you asked....
How much are those outdoor businesses paying their relatively samll workforce, Curm?
Take a gander at the flags on WA blvd...telling anyone who can read English that Ogden is the ski hub of the world!'
Which of my pockets did the money come from for those things?
New comments are not allowed.