We'll kick off the new weekday thread with a wrap up of several Standard-Examiner weekend items which we believe to be of particular interest to our Weber County Forum readership.
First, we link a Sunday Guest Commentary by Smart Growth Ogden's Mary Hall. This excellent guest piece provides a succinct overview of the concept of mixed use development, together with a discussion of Emerald City's General Plan, and the manner in which it was compiled to guide development in our community, as a reflection of our community's collective vision. It also cites a series of "elements" which are addressed in our community's General Plan, and are also common to successful mixed-use ordinances in other communities.
All-in-all, we consider Ms. Hall's Sunday piece to be "must reading" for anyone interested in local zoning issues. And keeping in mind that another mixed-use zoning ordinance discussion is on the planning commission agenda this coming Wednesday evening, we hope everyone will read and re-read Ms. Hall's commentary in advance of that meeting.
Secondly, we direct our readers' attention to Sunday's delightful lead editorial, in which the Std-Ex editors clumsily attempt to clarify their newspaper's position with respect to "Ogden's gondola proposal." What's apparent here, we think, from a reading of the following language, is that even the Godfreyite/Gondolist Std-Ex editors are finding it increasingly difficult to remain nominally "on the fence" with regard to the Landgrab Swindle:
"We urge Peterson to make the specifics of his development proposal public as soon as practical. Until these details are thoroughly aired, we cannot in good conscience throw complete support to, or completely reject, what could be one of the largest developments in Ogden's history."
That's right. The Std-Ex still remains "on the fence," notwithstanding the complete absence of any specific information on what Weber County Forum readers label "The Peterson Non-proposal Proposal." The Std-Ex editors have now taken to mentioning their conscience, however, so we guess that has to be something positive. And the fact that they're at least bringing up the option of "rejecting" this ridiclous concept altogether could be interpreted, we suppose, as a plus.
"Write it down so you don't forget it," the Std-Ex editors say.
"What a pack of gullible and spineless schmucks," say we.
And lastly but not leastly, we link yesterday's fantastic Calvin Grondahl cartoon, which graphically summarizes the current Emerald City political atmosphere, re the Godfrey/Peterson land grab/gondola scheme. Particularly astute readers will carefully note Grondahl's insertion of several of your blogmeister's personal favorite political action motifs: tar, feathers, a rail... pitchforks and torches. If the Std-Ex publisher had half a brain (which it doesn't) it would be handing the editorial board its walking papers, and putting Calvin Grondahl in charge of the whole operation.
So what's on our readers' minds this fine Monday Morning?
Update 2/6/07 7:29 a.m. MT: Mary Hall informs us that the Planning Commission's Mixed Use Ordinance discussion, originally calendered for this coming Wednesday, has now been dropped from Wednesday's PC agenda. "The discussion will be continued for another month," according to Greg Montgomery, inasmuch as "it is not ready."
Wednesday night's agenda will however include discussion of equally-controversial proposed Sensitive Area Overlay Zone Ordinance Revisions. We link here PDF formatted uploads of the most recent version of the proposed SA ordinance, together with the Planning Commission's revised SA Report, wherein PC staff recommend "approval of the proposed ordinance language revisions to the sensitive area overlay zone and the addition of a regulation regarding cutting into hillsides over 30% in all zones."
59 comments:
So, the Standard's editorial board (presumably Lee Carter, Ron Thornburg, Andy Howell, Don Porter, Doug Gibson, and Dave Grieling) "support" the building of the urban gondola, absent any feasibility studies, ridership potentials, even the actual cost, not to mention that it doesn't go anywhere. They may as well have stamped "goddamned idiots" on their foreheads. Wait, they already did.
Anonymous, I agree! And joining them are an amazing number of business men (The Chamber Officers, the Pres. of the Bank of Utah, the Ogden City Administrators, just to name a few) whom I had previously thought were smart until this gondola business surfaced. They're willing to commit Ogden, the residents and city, to millions of dollars in debt for:
1. A Dream (or nightmare) with no plans, not even estimates of cost
2. A gondola (like you said) that goes nowhere
3. Without any idea of what infastructure (water and sewer pipes)the city will have to relocate to install the gondola poles along 23rd St. and Harrison Blvd. and WSU, which will add dramatically to the cost of the gondola
4. No idea how those poles will affect property values along 23rd and Harrison
5. Without knowing how a gondola will impact plans for a future valid transportation system that is needed much more than a so-called tourist gimmick
6. Willing to sell a top nationally rated golf course that could operate in the black if a lot of expenses for other city amenities (the cemetary, Lorin Farr pool, "administrative fees," etc.)weren't added to its account
Surely, common sense dictates that Chris Peterson build his resort and gondola BEFORE the City commits to the urban gondola.
If Chris Peterson is half the businessman that he claims he is, he should be able to do that without the "land grab" he, the Mayor and Tom Ellison are proposing.
Chris Peterson has proven that he is NOT a man of his word (he's promised plans for his project were forthcoming "in a couple of months" for over a year!). Yet these people are willing to put the City at risk for the above. Anonymous, you tagged them correctly.
I have a couple of comments,I was mad as hell after reading the editors idiotic attempt at logical fence sitting. These guys have paid no real attention to what has or has not transpired over the couse of the life of Godfrey's proposal,(Chris P.'s non proposal) They still seem this can happen thru the private sector.How much thought has been spent pondering that possabiltity. A private entity would have to secure every patch of ground om which there would be a tower,terminal,gondola storage and the massive transfer stations. They would have to,I assume buy Public right of ways from both the city and state. Even Godfrey and Peterson trying their hardest to minimize public envolvement(investment),even with their penchant for stretching the truth beyond its limits, have never suggested this could be a fully private endeaver.In short this idea is beyond any reality.The next item I was quite disturbed by was their subtle downplay of the petition.Like 3100 names is a small voice,and wondering whats the broader opinion.To address this you must first know some particulers. This petition was one little semi handicapped lady,who owns no mode of transportation and has done it on her own.Another interesting tidbit,she would only allow registered voters that reside in Ogden City to sign,unlike the sham Lift Ogden pulled last year with their petition with signatures from around the globe,not many Ogdenites. You may wonder why I don't like downplaying the significance of the no.3100,I'll explain. In the 2003 primary election for Mayor,Godfrey claimed a Whopping 3191 votes.This little lady of very limited resources reached damn near as many as Godfrey did to get elected.
The SE editors it's their job to ask questions...to poke and prod...oh really.
Had any desire to ask a basic question like, Is a gondola a suitable conveyance to move people from downtown all the way to a foothill resort base?
That single question has been addressed hundreds of times here on the WCF and shredded to bits by myself, Dan S., and so many others with insightful and informed opinions and facts from around the world.
That single question should determine the foundation and grounds for selling the golf course altogether and allow Peterson to move on or just move the hell on and out of the way.
If the Urban Gondola component can be shown in no uncertain terms to be a poor use of anybodys funds, public or private, and if the demand for the capacity to move so many people so slowly OVER an urban landscape to an as yet to be proposed resort destination that can be just as well served by the multi-modal transit infrastructure already in place and that proposed by UTA....
Whew ...then...we do not consider selling the golf course since that is dependent on funding an urban gondola (debunked (or bunked for Seinfeld fans) in the above paragraph....
As a newspaper why do they not research urban gondolas themselves. Hell, I'll do it for them. I will gladly divulge my research and conclusions that revaal basically..THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE URBAN GONDOLA IN OPERATION IN THE WHOLE WORLD.
Get a clue SE. You are lazy and unmotivated to vet out the information. Instead you expect Peterson to anwer that question for you. If not him, than who. Some other self annointed expert like myself. Come on, fools, take my challenge. Start the google searches on your own damn time, talk to doppelmayer yourself. They are just down the road in SLC. Get some operational facts from them. They build the darn things. Talk to some lift managers. You should be able to find a few among Utahs huge ski resort industry. You are quite obviously sitting on your hands. You don't even know what questions to ask that would help lead to a conclusive answer to the one key question. Yes or no...Is the gondola suitable for this or ANY urban deployment.
With that answered conclusively and overwhelmingly against the stupid thing it will sure relieve us from the burden of all the rest of the tailing questions,like..
should we sell the golf course?
how many homes can be built there?
Impact on traffic infrastructure?
will it help ogden's economy?
etc. etc. etc.
all moot, in the face of the fact that the gondola is a stupid idea. It cannot meet the test.
All the LO spodum is emotional hogwash and masks the facts with the usual linkage to needing this for Ogden ..ad nauseam.
Get the facts SE. I'll be calling in a few days to check up on you. I'll be talking to Kristen Moulton first though.
One other comment,the editors close their discourse by claiming they only want to provide a forum for public debate. If that were so, why have they refused to print so many good letters and bannish so many that the administration nor Chris P. have no response to,to the Siberian existence of Flowers and Darts. We all know what it took to get them to run Don Wilson's evaluation, to which there has been no rebuttal.
Two things:
I'm a registered voter living in Ogden and I would have been proud to provide signature 3101 on that petition. I wonder how many others would have signed if we'd known about it.
You'd have to be pretty clueless to miss the lack of snowpack this year. If this trend continues, we will be far from flush with water this coming Summer. Consider the hypothetical impact 500 or more additional homes at the base of Mt. Ogden would have on municipal water needs. Wanna bet these rich folks would enjoy "not flushing for everything" and looking out at a brown golfcourse? Actually, they'd probably get first crack at the water while the rest of us go wanting.
One more thing,the sensitve overlay is on the agenda,and the most disturbing part of that has been the TDR portion. Mr. Montgomery has been presenting this to the commioners in one might say,a disengenuous fasion. The real purpose behind this concept is not to enrich the developer by giving credit for buying undevelopable land,it's to encourage creating open space,by allowing higher density in one area for leaving another open. If the land could not be developed in the first place,there should be no credit applied elsewhere for higher density. Montgomery is pushing the opposite. This is why I stress to the commisioners,leave the 30% slope prohibition in place.
With respect to the comments about the local newspaper editors, I say ditto to all the disparaging comments, but those guys have been disconnected, arrogant, and condescending for years. And Grondahl is the odd one in the group, inasmuch as he actually thinks. Maybe it’s good to remind ourselves of these things, but most intelligent people have taken these as axioms for years, and it’s why they haven’t taken the paper for years.
I wrote the following last week. Perhaps this would be a good time to post it here. I wanted to start the ball rolling on “Peterson Falls.”
I got an email from Rick Saftsen last week, and I tossed and turned that night because of it. He can sit in a room packed with people who are all expressing the same, sincere, intelligent opinions, and then infer that everyone in the room is acting foolishly but himself, including the other Council members. His email made no sense, but now I think I know what is going on, and what to do about it. Please consider the following thoughts first.
1) Chris Peterson wrote a long letter to the SLTrib where he used words like “Earl and I” a half-dozen times. He implied that he and Earl Holding were virtual Siamese twins sharing the same brain. He implied that for all purposes he is Earl Holding, and the work that has been done at Snowbasin was directed by himself. The Trib’s objective observation followed: The Sinclair Companies said last spring that Peterson “had an informal limited role in the creation of the [Snowbasin] master plan.” Chris desperately wants to be like the great Earl Holding, but as Holding’s people have dryly pointed out, he is not.
2) Earl Holding has gotten a lot of what he has the old-fashioned way: By getting the government to give it to him. Years ago, faced with an uphill battle to get the Snowbasin land he wanted, he simply had Jim Hansen pass it through an act of congress! In spite of my own dealings with the politically deft Hansen, this still left me in total awe! Holding is a master of this sort of thing. Every Earl Holding needs his own Jim Hansen. Just as Chris Peterson wants to be Earl Holding, Rick Saftsen wants to be his Jim Hansen.
There have been months of selling, with the Geigers donating both time and money, with the mayor doing his hard sell road show around town, with all the other things that have been done to push Peterson’s wishes. Peterson himself submitted a “review process” for our City Council to “consider” that included a proposal coming from him only after the city changed its laws and General Plan and got fully into bed with him.
”Surely if Jim could get what Earl wanted with congress, Matt and Rick could get what Chris wants with the City Council, especially with the Geigers running the PR show.” But as we have seen over the past year, Chris Peterson is no Earl Holding, and Rick Saftsen is no James V. Hansen. Not even close. Instead, they moved the process into reverse.
Both WSU and the SE demanded a proposal from Peterson up front , as has now the Ogden City Council, all saying: No proposal - nothing to talk about. And the public, after all the selling or because of it, appears now to have no interest in Chris Peterson whatsoever, proposal or no.
Peterson has been moving steadily backwards, all the while his capital is tied up in Malans for months and years, his bank account is bled by Tom Ellison, and his public opinion points sink further into the red.
After asking us to give Peterson the moon, even Curt Geiger in his more recent posts here in the WCF is now asking only for patience, stating that “I am as in the dark on detail as anyone else.” (November 16, 2006 6:03 PM). Like the losing gambler, the Peterson forces now wish they could simply return to the place where they began.
Peterson, far from becoming Earl Holding, is becoming a pariah. This can only continue to spread from Ogden into the rest of the State. But there still remains one path of salvation for him, if not immortality: Return to his original plan to trade Malans to the Forest Service for build-able land elsewhere (or trade with the city, the county, the State, etc.) Such trades are something Peterson is good at. If he would do this (convey all Malans property into a covenant where it will remain perpetually natural), I would personally support naming the falls therein, “Peterson Falls” , with a permanent marker at the site. After all his efforts, not even Earl Holding has a major geologic feature near a major metropolitan area named after him. Chris would leap over Earl in one bound, leaving a devoted and admiring public, and a waterfall to proclaim his name to generations yet unborn.
Why would Peterson continue all this pain when he can now have all he ever wanted, and more?
David,
In every sense of the words (as noun or verb), "Peterson Falls" is perfect.
Don't know where "David" came from but I sure hope he keeps on writin.
I think he's got this drama and these players nailed!
Bill C:
Nice catch on the Petition signers nearly equalling Hizzonah's vote in the last election. Really nice catch. And yes, the SE should have been the one to notice and report that, not you. If they were doing the kind of job they should be doing.
The woman who got all those signatures is, of course, another one of those troublesome Ogden city Democrats, working hard to make a difference. [First met her as a fellow delegate to the WC Dem. convention some years ago. She's a pistol.] Damn, we need more of them, I think. Many many more.
There was one statement in the editorial that left me pretty confused.
"We mention this because, lately, there have been misstatements in the community about our support of [sic] Ogden's gondola proposal."
I'm not aware of any persons on this blog or within the Sierra Club or Smart Growth Ogden making claims as to the Standard-Examiner's support (or lack thereof) for the non-existent gondola proposal.
Could it be that the S-E is taking heat from the Mayor's office? I'm just wondering, because I tend to believe that any such editorial must have a precipitating event (or events). I'm not offering a conspiracy theory, I'm just speculating on the positively queer timing of this editorial.
Dopplemeyer is down the road in SLC????? Cripes...I wonder if anyone told that to Godfrey and Peterson? They dashed off to Italy, ferpetesake, to meet with Dopplemeyer. And, Mrs. Godfrey had to tag along...how dull for her, eh?
And to think that Godfrey could've invited the Dopplemeyer folks to Rooster's on our Historic 25th Street! Another missed opportunity to show off Ogden.
Oh yeah...I forgot, he's selling Ogden to all the ski companies.
I think we should take an informal poll in the inner city asking how many residents want a gondola...will ride it (often), can lay down $15.00 a minute for a ride in the rec center?
The little lady who gathered those signatures, while walking, is a marvel! Theresa Holmes, I think. But, Chris Bentley, a student at WSU gathered 1400 names in one week! While carrying 20 credit hours. Chris was one of the 36 who applied for Glasmann's seat. Very articulate. (oops) don't sue me for denigrating you, Chris.
I'll say it again: IMHO Peterson never intended to put a 'resort' in Malan's. He's always wanted our land. He knows the psychology of flattery and appealing to Godfrey's massive ego...give me what I want and you will have fame as the only mayor in America with a gondola to nowhere! Godfrey always wants to be first in the country, or world (even better!), no matter how assinine or unattainable his goofy ideas are.
Can you imagine how foolish we've been....the whole city...being up in arms, dividing our city by talking about the goofdola, spending tax dollars, wasting the PC and CC's time over a NON-proposal....just a pipedream of Peterson and Godfrey who are attempting a massive manipulation of our General Plan and resources aided & abetted by the PC and CC??
Peterson, take your dog and pony show to Morgan, Hunstsville, or Wanship. Those places are the new 'bedroom' communities for SLC. They're becoming very 'toney'. And after the first week in November, Matt will come over and be your partner. Again.
David, what an outstanding post! You stated: "Peterson himself submitted a “review process” for our City Council to “consider” that included a proposal coming from him only after the city changed its laws and General Plan and got fully into bed with him." Well, as we saw in Bill Cook's Oct. 27th letter to Ellison and Patterson, he almost had or at least thought he had the Council in bed with Peterson with that very foolish resolution which the majority of the Council so wisely disapproved, except for Stephenson and Safsten who felt that they had spent too much on it to just drop it. Remember that in November, people! Do you think, David, that Peterson will not present his plan for robbing Ogden blind since the council did not approve the process allowing him to do so?
David, you see the picture so clearly! I just hope you see as clearly that you are the one to run against Safsten this fall! We need someone who is sharp, not afraid to call a spade a spade and will do what is best for Ogden. You were asked last Fall by several to run either for mayor or against Rick, but declined the mayor's job, so I know that a lot of my fellow posters will back me up in encouraging you to PLEASE RUN FOR THE CITY COUNCIL! Isn't that right, WCF posters?
I thought it most humorous that the SE views themselves as doing "investigative reporting" by asking a few sterile questions. I guess we know why now they are so ineffective as a newspaper. I thought it was because they were so busy wiping the s_ _ _ off their noses from kissing Godfrey's a _ _, but they actually think that they're doing investigative reporting! I guess that is one (the tallest tale or the deepest pile) for Ripley's "Believe It or Not!" book.
I have a thought for you all to consider: Monotreme stated, "I tend to believe that any such editorial must have a precipitating event (or events). I'm not offering a conspiracy theory, I'm just speculating on the positively queer timing of this editorial." Things have been too quiet in the Godfrey camp, I have this feeling that Godfrey is going to pull a fast, very dirty move soon, like within the next couple of weeks. My guess is that he will announce he is selling (or has sold) the golf course to Chris Peterson. I would also suggest that he find life so miserable in Ogden that he would have to resign as mayor, and with his tail between his legs move back to Harrisville -- no! he should be moved to the "point of the mountain" to serve a "life sentence with no parole!"
Mercy Livermore, you know that just going 40-50 miles to visit Dopplemeier in Utah isn't Godfrey's style -- my, my no! That wouldn't spend enough taxpayer money, and he and is family wouldn't get a vacation at taxpayer expense! Can't we get the little weasel on malfeasance?
What can we do to get the Council off dead center, and to take some action to keep the Mayor from selling the golf course? I think the first thing that they need to do is amend the ordinance that the
lame duck council approved in Dec. 2005 that left the new council virtually powerless in the sale of land. As I've watched how the Council operates the last few years, Ogden hasn't got a prayer because it seems the Council staff with Bill Cook running the show writes all the resolutions and ordinances, and with Bill Cook's allegiance to the Mayor, it's for damn sure he won't write anythhing that would give the Council any power at all. Do we need to launch an email campaign uring the Council to amend that ordinance?
Yes, Debbie, we do! (no pun intended).
Bill Cook must be fired...a new relacement search is required immediately. He's stabbed the Council in the back from the FIRST day!
Of course the king wouldn't host a luncheon at Rooster's....how beneath him. The king had to use the money of folks who can't afford amusement rides, skiing trips, lunch at Rooster's, much less European vactions and dash off with his bestest bud and be wined and dined befitting his over endowed ego and sense of self importance.
And, we abet him in his delusions!!
(From Rick Safsten)
David,
That is quite the imagination you have. I have never met Mr. Holding. I have only ever greeted Mr. Geiger a couple of times just before or after a city council meeting and the same with Mr. Peterson. The weird, elaborate proposition you lay out is silly. I understand now why you did not understand my e-mail. Shall I try again?
In your e-mail to me you made a conclusion that Mr. Peterson doesn’t have money and/or experience for this proposal. Logically, are we then to assume that if he did have the backing of experienced partners with alot of cash that you would change your opinion regarding his ability to do the development proposal? This is an important question that, if the proposal ever comes forward, we must address.
In your e-mail you said the city’s "review process" is a "sham" to get the project in the “back door.” My response to that is; did you know that state law has established development processes that prevent that kind of thing from happening? You have been in meetings where this has been carefully explained. If you know of loopholes in the state law that would still allow this proposal to come in through the back door, please let us know so we can immediately act to prevent it.
Finally, your e-mail made a statement that you know a majority of the council is against this proposal (that does not exist). You have never asked me my opinion and I have never given it—as any regular reader of this blog would/should know by now. Are you leaving me out of your council surveys? If so, please explain why. Don't you assume my opinion, please, one way or the other.
In short, David, your imagination is getting the best of you in these interesting times. Come back to earth. The council will do its due diligence. I am positive the majority will of the council will prevail (as it always should) in this issue—however it all turns out. Stop the cynicism, paranoia, and false assumptions.
Mr Safsten,
You have conveniently ignored my statement that the questions you have posted here are inherently "gondola-centric" If you do the research the main question that would supercede all of your previously posted questions is this simple one...
Is a gondola an appropriate conveyance to move an undetermined number of people 4.5 miles over an urban landscape?
World wide research will reveal there is not one single gondola deployed for such a task. Why do you continue to dodge this very basic question?
The way you talk, someone could be proposing radio flyer wagons or bumper cars as a non-transit solution to servicing a non proposed resort and you would hold it as an option until your questions are answered.
A process of elimination is crucial to getting to the heart of any proposal. If a given mode is simply ridiculous and has yet to be deployed ANYWHERE than why waste valuable time holding it in consideration. I can help you get the information that completely BUNKS the urban gondola plan so we can get on with telling Peterson to put up or shut up about his mountain resort.
Will you answer this one question?
From Rick Safsten
Tec,
Fair enough. The New York Times just had an article about the opening of the Portland Aerial Tram. I believe that answers your question about whether one exists in an urban environment. However, it doesn’t answer the question of whether we should do the same for Ogden.
What if we were given a proposal from Mr. Peterson that didn’t include an urban gondola? What if we were given a proposal that didn’t include the Mt. Ogden Golf Course? What if the proposal includes requirements or benefits that we haven’t even considered?
We can go ‘round and ‘round in circles here. I still think the best option is to see what the proposal says and act from there.
Rick, you ask and state to David: "In your e-mail you said the city’s "review process" is a "sham" to get the project in the “back door.” My response to that is; did you know that state law has established development processes that prevent that kind of thing from happening? You have been in meetings where this has been carefully explained. If you know of loopholes in the state law that would still allow this proposal to come in through the back door, please let us know so we can immediately act to prevent it."
PLEASE TELL US THE STATE LAW (Code #) that PREVENTS the Mayor and Peterson from getting the gondola/hillside development project and the sale of the golf course accomplished by going through the back door. I have found Utah Law VERY LACKING IN PROTECTING THE STATE'S CITIZEN'S.
Mr. Safsten, I am still digesting your revelations of the Foundation you're involved in. My question is what other properties and ventures are on the horizon? In the interest of openness and to avoid further suspicion of conflict of interest I would hope you would offer whatever information you can.
Well, we are off on another Standard Examiner bash-fest I see, a good portion of it unwarranted. For example, the SE is getting bashed here for this: It supports building an urban leg of the gondola exclusively with private funds [recognizing that it is not a mass transit option], and it supports using public funds to install street car transit. If I were running a newspaper [which unacountably no one has asked me to do yet], and we ran the SE statement as a news story, I'd have headlined it this way: STANDARD EXAMINER OPPOSES GODFREY GONDOLA PROPOSAL. Have we forgotten what the mayor's gondola proposal was? That a city built, city owned, city operated and city financed flatland gondola be built. And the SE has come out flatly against that. That is not a bad thing for the SE to have done. It's a good thing.
And we need, amidst all the bashing, to nod to the SE when it does its job well. For example [and this didn't make Rudy's list of SE highlights this weekend], the SE on Saturday ran a followup story on the Godfrey administration plan to move the St. Anne's Center to 12th street, and on what Council members consider Mr. Patterson's misinforming them about the Center Board's support for the move. The story is here. The SE broke the story and now follows up reporting Mr. Patterson throwing a hissy fit, denying he mis-informed the Council [and reporting Council members saying he did]about St. Anne's stand on the matter. Mr. Patterson in the article says he won't be a "whipping boy" on the matter, and seems to suggest that the Council members were simply too dim to understand what he was telling them. Good strategy there, Mr. Patterson, for forging a good working relationship with the Council. [Where does Godfrey find these guys?]
The story also includes the news that the St. Anne's Board has writting the council saying it has so far taken no position on the move since no one from the administration or the council has yet approached it with a proposal. [The Godfrey administration seems to be having no end of troubles lately with proposals that no one has yet made that it strongly supports.] It's a very interesting story, and well worth reading.
And then today, the SE ran an op-ed peice by a St. Anne's board member stating his opinion that the Center is exactly where it needs to be to serve its clients best. And pointing out the elephant in the room that the Godfrey administration insists nobody notice: that its motive for wanting to move the center is to get homeless men in particular off the streets of downtown Ogden by moving them someplace too far away to walk back. That op-ed piece can be found here. Way to go , SE!
Of course, the SE's weekend performance did leave room for complaint. The editorial concluded some self-serving piffle. For example, the claim from the SE editors their job is to promote discussion is a little hard to take from the folks who not too long ago established a flat ban on printing any gondola letters. The SE has lots of room for improvement, absolutely.
[I suppose it's time for this disclaimer again, since when I post something defending the SE I get the occasional email asking if I work for the paper. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor has any member of my family ever been, an employee of the SE. They don't pay me. I pay them. I'm a subscriber.]
Which, come to think of it, every Ogden resident who posts here or reads the WC Forum ought to be. Have you noticed how often the subject of dicussion here is something the SE published? [Look at today's main entry for example.] Good or bad, what the SE prints matters in this town as WC forum illustrates again and again. It's the home town paper, folks. It's what we've got. Buy local, which means, when buying news, by the SE. Besides, once you're a subscriber, everytime the editors tick you off, you can send them an angry email threatening to cancel your subscription. Think how much fun that will be!
Rick, Thank you for responding.
I agree that the lack of a proposal precludes all of it...
All indications so far are that the urban gondola is still in their plans so a little research wouldn't hurt since what I ask is so easy and basic.
Your citing the Portland tram is an indication that you have done little research and you are operating on misinformation.
The Portland tram is not a gondola. Huge difference and your citing it is an embarassment. Especially since it suffered from extreme cost overruns. In fact it stands as an example to how these things get so out of control and councilfolk like yourself exhibit herd mentality and lack of enough courage to battle these things that attain such momentum and life of their own with just such lack of leadership.
The Portland Tram cost 56 million or so to span 3300 ft. Ogden would require 4.5 miles...let's see, that adds up to roughly 350 million dollars.
The Portland tram connects two remote points that otherwise require a circuitous route by road. No such condition exist on this gondola alignment.
Ropeways, like trams, chairlifts and gondolas are point-to-point conveyances. They are suitable for spanning a mile or more of inhospitable terrain. They are prohibitively expensive for short spans of less than half mile. They perform best as a lift...the steeper the better. They lose suitability and any competitive edge in relatively level terrain that is navigable by cars, busses, trolleys, trains, bicycles, pedestrians etc. The fact that their is already a vast transit system in place in ogden makes the idea even stupider. That vast transit system is our grid street layout. We already have a multi modal system in place and the addition of a transit corridor would be a magnificent enhancement.
The are limited in the amount of stops as stations and detaching hardware are extremely expensive. Ogden would be set up with at least three independent ropeways connected at stations located at the point of directional change(corners). The operation of such a system is hardly seamless and would actually require each and every passenger to unload and reload at each station. To run such a system in unison where the cabins detach and reattach to the next segment is quite impractical and not demonstrated anywhewre in a system of 3 or more contiguous systems. Any slowing of a segment would slow the whole system. A loading of cargo or group of disabled at the hub would slow or stop a student way up at WSU.
These systems are deployed only under a few very specific conditions.
I ask you to again find me an Urban Gondola system anywhere in the world that matches even a few of the CONDITIONS we have here in Ogden.
Indeed, Mr. Safsten, the citation of Portland's tram is not remotely relevant to the fantastic Ogden-urban-gondola-to-nowhere discussion.
Jason:
Now be fair. The Portland tram analogy is every bit as relevent to Ogden as the Mayor's model for Ogden, the gondola that joins the mighty urban center of Telluride [pop. 3000 when the kids are home for Christmas] with the well-established, well-known already successful up-market Telluride ski resort....
Mr. Safsten,
I appreciate your efforts to be impartial but at the same time I think you would be better served to simply state that there is no proposal and as such I have no position. That you will formulate a position when you see a proposal and it will be based on that specific proposal not any preceived preceptions or previous proposals.
Other than that I would say that I was disappointed that the city has wasted so much time, money and effort in trying to be open to understanding a project that the developer obviously was not prepared to introduce to the city.
Your continued defenses of your efforts to appear to be impartial relative to this development are only making you appear to be trying to keep this project alive. If that is what you're trying to do then I think you're talking to the wrong audience. If it is not then I suggest that you and the other Council Members extract the lessons learned from what this proposal has caused the residents to say; as to where their values lay in the community. When push came to shove, the people said that the open space was more important then the development.
The loudest thing that I have heard is that the community values their open space and as such as a council member I would take efforts to protect that open space that the residents so cherish and were willing to voice so much support for its preservation. Whether you agree with it or not, the people have spoken and as an elected official representing the people I personally feel that it is your job to listen and try to accommodate their wishes.
Now would be a very good time to put all of Ogden City’s parks and open spaces in to a protective trust very similar to what other communities along the Wasatch Front are doing. This would endear the community to you and preserve these open spaces for generations to come. Please support this effort.
Anon [replying to Safsten]:
Excellent. Thank you.
Well said, Anonymous,
It is the absence of leadership that has kept this idea alive. Strong leadership would have pushed Peterson long ago to focus on the essentials of his project(mountain resort and acquisition of a foothill base location) and put to bed his scamming along with the mayor to coopt the wishes of the community and develop the last foothill open space around.
Heads up to Rick Safsten
I'm no polotical pro but I wouldn't be making statements that show your lack of understanding of the issues.
It isn't doing your re-electability any good.
This stupid plan to link small resort to downtown hub, via gondola, paid for by selling public open space, relieve city of golf course burden, build footprint homes to increase tax base, bring in out of state empty nesters who care little for local issues, provide less than seamless transit from SLC airport to Snowbasin(NOT)
was cooked up by Peterson and Godfrey and Geiger and Harmer and Patterson. Should have seen the gleeful hand slapping at the early LO meetings at the genius of their "win-win" plan. They all are so emotionally invested in it and their promises to bankers, Mike Dowse, SIA attendees and the few LO remaining stragglers...
I pity these remorseless fools. I can cook up grandiose virtual plans all the time that sound good at a given moment of streaming conciousness. Later, in retrospect, the do not stand up to the commitment of time and effort. That is the nature of things and time. Wise men are aware of the folly of unbridled creative thought. That is why it is zen principles that have doing nothing in approaching a problem or project as a viable and valuable alternative. In fact, it is an honorable trait to step away from ones previous good idea for sake of critical evaluation and have the strength to see it is BUNK.
tec,
Excellent points on the differences between the Portland tram and the proposed Ogden urban gondola. However, I don't believe it's true that passengers would have to disembark at each corner station; the proposal is that the cabins be mechanically transferred from one ropeway to the next at each station, with the passengers (if any) inside. There are other gondola systems that do this so we know it's possible. But as you point out, there probably isn't an existing system that does it twice (two corner stations), nor is there an existing system as long as the proposed 4.5 miles, much less over city streets where other types of transportation are more efficient and cost effective.
Of course, the gondolists will claim that all this is actually an advantage--because our gondola will be unique!
11:02 anonymous
Well put. There are organizations out there such as Trust for Public Lands that assist communities with preserving parks and open space. www.tpl.org
They worked with citizens and local government to preserve Corner Canyon in Draper- a developer wanted to put 1,200 homes in the area.
From Rick Safsten:
Ogden Community Foundation: There are no properties currently being discussed in our meetings. However, we hope that there will be in the future. The efforts of the foundation may provide tax benefits to people with properties that would then translate into funds that could be used for the benefit of the community. As previously stated, several elementary schools in the community have already received equipment in their schools. The foundation has very minimal overhead. Virtually 99.9% of the proceeds are going to beneficiaries in the community. So far, that has been the elementary schools.
From Rick Safsten:
Tec,
Aerial Tram/Gondola: I accept your correction regarding the difference—the 2 are different. However, the use of aerial transportation as public transportation has been done and I doubt that Portland will be the last. This is not to say that Ogden should justify a gondola just because Portland’s doing it. I have already said I don’t believe a gondola can be viewed or treated as we would, say, a bus, for public transportation.
So, we agree that a gondola is not conducive for urban mass transit. There are still many, many unanswered questions that we need the proposal for if we are to better understand the issues, opportunities, problems, costs, and benefits that don’t even begin to include the word, “gondola.”
From Rick Safsten,
Reply to "John:"
State Law: The general laws that govern the duties, authorities, and separation of powers between the mayor and city council come down from the state. Thus, state law determines much of what can and cannot be done by the mayor or the council.
The cities can enact policies and procedures to further define the roles, but these are difficult to enforce and certainly don’t have the strength that actual state law provides. All policies and procedures within a city must stay within the bounds of state law. They must align with the state constitution.
Here are a few clear-cut examples of state-mandated powers possessed by the city council has which would directly interface with aspects of the Peterson Concept.
#1) ZONING: Only the city council can designate zoning in a city. There are several zoning or land use issues involved in this project.
#2) BUDGET: Only the city council can establish or alter a city budget. The mayor has some flexibility to do things within a given city budget, but the Peterson issue has so many huge budgetary issues, the council’s consent would have to exist to proceed.
#3) GENERAL PLAN: This is related to the Zoning power. The Council establishes the General Plan. The General Plan could/should have wording that would dramatically affect the Peterson concept.
#4) PUBLIC HEARINGS: There are several parts of the concept that would require public hearings by the city council under state law. Additionally, the council has adopted its own policy to require public input at certain points along the way.
#5) ANNEXATION: There are strict state laws pertaining to annexation that would necessarily be included in this project.
All of this ignores the state procedures or laws pertaining to Weber State University and other parties that would be involved in this issue.
Rick,
The fact use use a phrase like
"This is not to say that Ogden should justify a gondola just because Portland’s doing it."
completely misinterprets that particular deployment as though Portland is on some kind of track to develop aerial transit.
The Portland tram was not some kind of pilot project in anticipation of wider deployment. The NY Times article and other press release regurgitant take that kind of tack but it is completely and utterly false. The fact that you cite that article reveals how deep you are willing to go to understand this issue. You have only justified your own lack of leadership.
I respect your desire to get out in public and post here. You show your self thoughtful at times but other times justify a desire to remain in the dark in the guise of neutrality. Gondola systems and trams are not new and they are not being trialed anywhere for urban deployment. Guys with too much money and too much time are the only ones who dream up these schemes. Their followers simply want to hitch along for the ride to the nearest group of accessible less-than-big-wigs.
You also treat my posts as though they have no relevance coming from a mere commoner. Whose expertise are you waiting for? Go to ropeways.net for the latest on ropeway transport. See if you can find any urban gondolas. I may not be the preeminent authority on gondola systems but I can present you with piles of links to enough transit models and proposals and virtually none of them involve aerial transit except in the most particular of circumstances.
When you state,
"Aerial Tram/Gondola: I accept your correction regarding the difference—the 2 are different. However, the use of aerial transportation as public transportation has been done and I doubt that Portland will be the last."
You still fail to notice that that deployment was to address a specific set of conditions that made a tram concievable. Take a look at Portlands transit map. 3300 FEET out of perhaps hundreds of miles of transit, if you include bus transit, are served by the Tram. This is not Public Transit. You are completely misguided and hand picking your facts.
Look, Rick,
I am not trying to contend with you, In fact I am trying to help you get the facts. I hate to see a public figure with a chance at leadership wallow in such vacuum of knowledge. You instead take every opportunity to turn away from facts and reliquish leadership for fence sitting and keeping your political options open by hoping to be on the winning team instead of playing for and leading the winning team.
Very well put.
Couldn't have done better meself.
Rick, you still didn't give chapeter and verse of the ordinacnes of state law as requested.
Remember, Curm and Rick:
fence sitters get splinters in their bums.
Mr. Safsten uses words like issues, opportunities, and benefits when describing the non-existent Peterson proposal. Maybe he should also familiarize himself with words like viability, feasibility, infrastructure, sustainability, true costs, ridership, the price of concrete, litigation, bonding, fraud, hypocrisy, lawsuits, more lawsuits, municipal officers as defendants ... and super extra, super duper silly. These all begin with the word "gondola."
Curmudgeon politely inquires of Mercy which particular fence she thinks he is sitting on?
From Rick Safsten,
Jason,
Most of the topics you reference (ridership, feasibility, true cost...etc) were included in the resolution regarding the process to be used for the project.
Abner,
http://www.utah.gov
http://le.utah.gov/~code/code.htm
and, http://dictionary.com
House Committee Passes Bill To Criple Municipalities' Ability To Limit Development on Environmentally Sensitive Lands
SL Trib reports that "a bill that would make it easier for developers and home buyers to build on environmentally sensitive lands --- including those at risk for landslide --- cleared the House Government Operations Committee on Monday." The bill would, the Trib says, "place strict limits on how those districts [i.e. "zoning districts that limit development because of environmental concerns, including air quality, wildlife habitat and danger of floods, landslides or earthquakes"] can be created and would restrict the ability of government officials to deny land-use applications within environmentally sensitive areas."
The Trib reports the bill was opposed in committe by the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and officials from Draper, Layton and Mapleton. [It did not mention testimony in opposition from any representative of Ogden City. Imagine that.] It is also opposed, the Trib reports, by the "Utah Property Rights Coalition, comprised of major home builders such as Ivory Homes." Draper City Councilman Jeff Stenquist opposed the bill because he fears it "would overturn safeguards the city already has in place to prevent building on slopes prone to sliding, leaving the city liable and homeowners open to disaster."
The bill was introduced at the request of one Mapleton developer who is in a land use dispute with his town's government.
[The Trib's legislative coverage apparently is not searchable on line. I tired under HB233, "land Development" and the reporter's name. Nothing came up so I can't post a link. Sorry 'bout that.]
The bill, if it becomes law, would render nearly meaningless much of the Sensitive Area Overlay ordinance the Planning Commission will consider tomorrow evening in Ogden. Naturally, the Republican majority on the committee, for whom public safety frequently takes a back seat to the possibility of private profit, passed the bill out of committee and sent it to the floor of the House.
I wonder if Ogden's lobbyest has been instructed to weigh in against the bill by the Council....
Curm,
Have you read the sensitive overlay draft to be discussed by the Planning Commission tomorrow night? It's another no-zone zone document. Carefully placed wording here and there renders it meaningless.
It's another fraudulent document. It appears to be another attempt by Greg Montgomery to grease the skids for Peterson (and thereby keep his job.) Sad, very sad.
Ticket quota bill has passed the house and is now on its way to the senate for Jon Jon to now vote on it.
The vote was 38 yes and 35 no.
What is the current zoning of the Mt. Ogden golf Course?
danny:
Scanned it. Will read it in detail before the meeting tomorrow night. At the last work session on it, the Planning Commission gave Mr. Montgomery very specific directions about how they wanted some elements in the first draft he was defending that night changed. [For example, the Montgomery/Godfrey draft eliminated language stating the the ordinance had as its goal not only considerations of safety, but also preserving open space, views, habitat, etc. At the end of the discussion, the PC chair summarized the sense of the meeting for Montgomery, saying the members wanted that language returned, that they did not want the only safety and no other values to be considered in the ordinances. No member objected to her summary on this. There was more as well. Want to see, among other things, if the planning staff complied or simply blew the commissioners off.]
I just returned from Portland, and citizens there are pissed off about the tram. There were a number of newspaper articles surrounding the costs associated with the project, which exceeded original budget by a whopping 400%. The tram opened the weekend that I was up there.
Talked with family members on both sides of the political fence. Everyone I talked with hates the tram, loves the streetcar, and are slightly negative on Portland's version of Front Runner, which was built at a tremendous cost...(one line in particular that extends to the airport and is never filled).
Apparently the main reason the tram was built is lack of parking at the hospital, which is located on a steep hill with no room to expand. The hospital is also under-served currently by other types of mass transit... regular traffic jams occur, and emergency vehicles have difficulty getting through. It is a totally separate issue from Ogden... the college does have some room for expansion, especially when expanding to fill the needs of many students who live in Davis County... the University would be better served by a streetcar (lower maintenance costs and backed by federal and state transportation funding).
The price tag for the Portland tram was $57 million... not what I would call a bargain. It is also much shorter than the one proposed in Ogden with fewer stops (just two stops total). Massive re-engineering was required in order to facilitate building the tram and to satisfy all interested parties. I think the same political maneuvering would happen with the Ogden gondola with subsequent costs.
Why doesn't the administration stop this nonsense... let Peterson build his own gondola to his own resort... keep the golf course... and get us a streetcar?
From Mr. Safsten's position, it would appear as though the people, who do support open space - overwhelmingly, should simply speak at the next election. It appears as though Mr. Safsten is going in a contrary direction to his constituency in the Mt. Ogden neighborhood. I would say that is a pretty dangerous position to placing oneself. Do you really want to keep your Council position, Mr. Safsten?
Danny:
Just finished first run through it. 15-27-6 sections JK deal with exceptions to the rules, which under the Montgomery/Godfrey draft, it seems, can be made by the Mayor, on his own authority, without review by the City Council If I have read that correctly, that seems unwise to me. Someone seeking an execption to the development rules in the SA would only have to satisfy the Mayor that the exception was wise and did not vilolate the geologic safety study requirements. No review of the Mayor's judgement, no Council agreement necessary. All relies only on the Mayor's opinion. Have I read it right?
Curm,
Just had a chance to scan it but it looks as weak in that section as the first draft back in November. I will get it all read by tomorrow.
And yes the mayor can over rule just about anyone. The whole development is done to the developers standards not the city's.
Still a bad deal for Ogden.
Danny and Curm,
Where is the sensitive overlay draft that you're referring to?
Is there a link?
Observer:
There are links to the proposed SA Overlay ordinance and the planning staff report recommending its adoption in the "Update" posted at the bottom of the main posting, by Rudi, to which all our comments are appended. Both links work. Just checked them. They bring up pdf files with the draft ordinance and report.
Thank you, Curm. Appreciate that.
Ogdensnowmonkey, thanks for the info on "Trust for Public Lands." I just checked it and get this!
"Historic Summit County Ranch Preserved (UT) Contact:
Nicole Lampe, The Trust for Public Land, 415-495-5660 ext. 618
"SUMMIT COUNTY, UT, 2/5/2007 — The Trust for Public Land, Summit County, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the State of Utah announced today the permanent protection of 140 acres at OW Ranch. The ranch, located just east of Park City in Summit County, straddles a mile of the Weber River. The O'Brien family settled the land in the 1880's, and have just placed a conservation easement over 140 acres to ensure it will never be subdivided or developed.
"The family has restored their stretch of the Weber River, here recognized as a Blue Ribbon Fishery. Over thirty acres of cottonwood, birch, and willow on the ranch provide winter roosting for bald eagles. In addition to wildlife habitat, the ranch's scenic and open space resources are enjoyed by thousands of people that pass by daily on Interstate 80 or the nearby Union Pacific Trail State Park.
"'We are just about 15 miles from Park City, and have seen a lot of changes to the landscape around us in recent years,' said Ken O'Brien. 'We want our ranch preserved the way it is - it's a pretty place, and we have done a lot of work on it. We'd like to see it taken care of forever.'
"'The landowners with whom we work are the key,' said Shauna Kerr, Director of The Trust for Public Land-Utah. 'Ultimately, the choice to conserve is theirs. Without landowners like the O'Briens-people with a willingness to think creatively about how to use their assets to provide for their families and preserve their beautiful land-this work doesn't go forward.' . . . .
"'OW Ranch is a spectacular piece of property," said Summit County Commissioner Sally Elliott. "This project is about preserving that landscape. It's about enjoying the river corridor, and protecting habitat for eagles and other wildlife.'
"'Growth is inevitable here in Utah, but as we grow we must do it in a responsible way, that allows for future generations to experience functional and productive landscapes,' said Utah State Conservationist State Conservationist Sylvia Gillen. 'Connected landscapes support the history and the legacy of Utah agriculture as well as an amazing diversity of plants and animals.'
"The O'Briens responded to growing development pressure by placing a conservation easement over their property, extinguishing in perpetuity some development rights and uses. Their family will continue to own and manage the land, and the surrounding community will enjoy the natural and cultural resources that agricultural open space provides.
"The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit land conservation organization with a mission to conserve land for people. Since 1985, TPL has conserved nearly 45,000 acres of agricultural land, sites of cultural significance, trails, and community parks throughout Utah. Nationally, TPL has protected more than two million acres since 1972."
Ogden has many of the same selling points that the OW Ranch has. This is definitely something that Ogden should look into. There is a hefty price tag on the easement, but several resources were used, including Senator Bennett.
At the Council meeting tonight Councilwoman Jeske mentioned that the Council is aware of how valuable Ogden's open space is and has taken some action to preserve it by directing their staff to look at ways to protect and preserve it. Bill Cook didn't look very happy that she mentioned it and made it public record. That's a start, Dorrene, don't drop the ball now. Let your staff know about this organization.
Tec
What about the gondola in Medellin?
Seems like it might have something in common with Godfrey's dream machine. It is pretty long and it sails over a large slum full of spanish speaking latinos? Sounds a lot like the Peterson/godfrey proposal.
As to Mr. Safsten - I think he has come out on this blog in an effort to rehabilitate his image. He has been a sycophant of Godfrey's for the whole time he has been on the council. Now that it is getting close to the election and he realizes that the Godfrey horse is running out of steam and is widely hated, he is trying to come out as his own man.
I think that is going to be a difficult sell for him, especially in his district on the east side.
I think those people up there are wise to Mr. Safsten and all of the very stupid money wasting schemes that he and the mayor have foisted on us. I do not recall even one dumb money losing scam that Godfrey has come up with that Safsten didn't embrace totally. He also seemed to take great joy in the anti human respect laws that Godfrey has pushed through the council. They both seem to enjoy victimizing the weakest in our society.
I also believe that people are just plain tired of the condecending and arrogance that both of them have shown to the citizens of Ogden these last long years. I for one would very much like to see that disgusting smirk wiped off Safstens face by the voters.
If "David" is the same one who applied for the vacant council seat and spoke to the council at that time, then I am all for him running against Safsten.
That council seat, along with Stevensons, desperately needs some one in them with integrity, intelligence and a respect for the people - something that I am afraid Mr. Safsten and Stevenson are both very short on.
Frank:
You wrote: I do not recall even one dumb money losing scam that Godfrey has come up with that Safsten didn't embrace totally.
Just to keep the record straight, Councilman Safsten, when the Mayor wanted the Council to approve adding two floors to the mall development office building [against the advice of the city's developer], with the city assuming all of the financial risk if the floors could not be successfully leased out, Mr. Safsten voted "no." The Mayor's request was refused by a one vote margin, so his vote was the difference.
Go after him as a candidate if you think he needs to be replaced on the Council. The rough and tumble of a contested election is good for the city. But do it without exaggeration.
Let's see now....the newspaper doesn't know what it's doing; the City doesn't know what it's doing; and those who support the City and or the gondola don't know what they're doing. I don't know what I'm doing reading this blog.
To ?
You're a junky just like the rest of us, that's why your reading this blog! Like the rest of us, you are so starved for the truth about Ogden politics that you resort to sneaking around reading clandenstine and immoral blogs like this for your daily fix of reality.
If you read closely and with an open mind you just might come to the same truth that others on this blog have. After all, it represents the collective wisdom of numerous smart, not so smart, and very concerned citizens - as opposed to the canned and managed propoganda put out by Godfrey, Patterson and other assorted flying monkeys at city hall - and the publicly subsidized offices of the Sub_Standard Exagerator.
(OK Curmudgeon, that is your cue to mount your soap box and tell us all how magnificant the Standard really is!)
Ozboy:
Sigh...
Let me try one more time. The SE has problems. It is not the paper it ought to be. It is not the paper Ogden deserves. It particularly has problems in its reporting staff, which is the most uncurious bunch of news guys I've ever known.
But it has not shown itself to be a shameless lackey of the administration. Its reporters [some of them] seem to be improving. [Evidene: Mr. Schwebke did not accept Mr. Patterson's assurances that the St. Anne's Board was in favor of the Administration's plan to move it to 12th Street. He checked it out. He broke the story that the Board was not on board. He followed it up with the recent story covering Patterson's hissy fit blaming the Council for misunderstanding him and the St. Anne's Board writing to the Council saying it had taken no position on the move. All good reporting.]
The point I wanted to make about the SE is that some of the criticism of it posted here [and I have posted a lot critical of it here] is over the top and unjustified. Hell, they came out against the Mayor's downtown gondola plan [taxpayer built, taxpayer owned, taxpayer maintained]... and got thumped for it. And they do provide a venue for articles like Mary Hall's recent one on the MU ordinance. So the point is not that the SE is "magnificent." It isn't [though it should be]. The point is, it isn't all bad. Low spots,yes, but high spots too.
I wish it did more by way of investigative journalism, but that [press people tell me] is a costly endeavor for papers. Takes lots of resources. One of the reasons I keep recommending that people subscribe [besides growing discomfort at the idea of reading what the SE publishes without paying for it --- fair's fair] is that a paper that is financially sound, not operating at the edge of profitability can be, and is much more likely to be, independent in its judgments, able to take an editorial [and reportorial] stand now and then in opposition to something controversial involving the business community or government without worrying about how it will impact advertising revenues, about whether it can afford to take that stand.
In short, the healthier the SE is, the bettor off Ogden is. That simple. [I am an old progressive mossback on this: you can not have a healthy city without a healthy --- and independent --- newspaper in that city. Or, better yet, two of them, competing.]
New comments are not allowed.