First in immediate importance, Scott Schwebke reports that our Emerald City RDA is taking immediate remedial action to prevent further occurrences of Boss Godfrey insider dealing:
OGDEN — The Ogden Redevelopment Agency is considering a new policy to require “full disclosures” from property buyers before it approves future land sales.We're thrilled that the RDA board seems disinclined to just let this matter pass. And we're encouraged by this Council Chair Garcia quote:
The RDA, made up of the city council, may vote to adopt the policy on March 6. The proposed policy changes follow complaints from the RDA that it was not notified by Community and Economic Development Director Dave Harmer that would-be developer Chris Peterson owns Bootjack LLC, which has been granted an option to purchase three RDA parcels downtown.
The proposed policy change comes on the heels of the community and economic development director’s failure to voluntarily divulge the name of the principals of Bootjack LLC in spite of the obvious public significance and interest to the board of this fact,” the RDA said Wednesday in a prepared statement.
“The board needs to ensure there is full disclosure of who is involved when the RDA is selling property,” Garcia said in a prepared statement.Boss Godfrey needed to be called on the carpet, and it appears the RDA Board is doing just that.
“The board desires to have a cooperative, trusting and open relationship with those city employees who provide services to the RDA. The lack of communication in this case (the land sale involving Bootjack) does not foster this type of relationship.”
We would further suggest the RDA Board also look into implementing policy to provide adequate public notice to all potential buyers whenever RDA properties are to be sold. In a comment in a lower thread, Curmudgeon suggested a 30-day public notice period whereby outside offers would be publicly solicited and entertained any time an RDA property had received a single purchase offer. Not a bad idea, we think, although we believe a 90 day MLS listing would be a better solution. RDA policy should require that "surplus" properties always be advertised publicly. Implementation of such a procedure would allow the free market to peg the true fair market value, and would eliminate criticism that properties were sold at below-market prices.
Secondly, Utah has again joined the ranks of states which permit condemnation and seizure of private property for economic development purposes. House Bill 365 sailed through the Senate in the final day of the legislative session with a unanimous 26-0 vote yesterday, we learn from this morning's Jeff DeMoss story.
A room-ful of grinning Utah senators yesterday applauded the legislature's latest foray into communalist practices. The new legislation of course has a gimmicky majoritarian twist. From now on, individual proprty rights will exist subject to the whims of neighborhood apparatchiks:
Unlike a previous law that was repealed in 2005, where a single property owner could hold up an entire project, HB 365 requires an 80 percent majority of residential owners or 75 percent of commercial owners in a project area to give approval in petition form before redevelopment authorities can exercise eminent domain.The bill's sponsor, Comrade Senator Scott Jenkins, uttered an odd comment upon passage of the bill yesterday:
A project could also be cleared with approvals representing the equivalent of 70 percent of total residential property value or 60 percent of commercial value in the area.
“What ends up happening a lot of times is the minority ends up trumping the majority,” Jenkins said.Some of us were heretofore unfamiliar with the notion that individual property rights ought to be subject to the whims of the majority in America. And since when is it the proper role of government to help dissatisfied property owners "get rid of their properties, we ask?
“You end up in a situation where one person can make it so the rest can’t get rid of their property. This sets a very, very high standard for the majority.”
Somewhere in a warm very warm place down near the earth's core, Old Joe Stalin has to be smiling.
"Keep the fires burning, Joe," we muse. "Comrade Senator Jenkins will be joining you down there one day soon."
The floor is open.
34 comments:
Rudi posted: A room-ful of grinning Utah senators yesterday applauded the legislature's latest foray into communalist practices.
Read up on your economic theory, please. Marx sought public control of private capital. The new ED bill is far from communistic, since it will probably benefit private capitalists (developers) -- albeit "in the name of" benefitting the public. In fact, Marx himself argued that this is how capitalist-controlled governments act. Benefit the capitalists in the name of the public.
Perhaps you need to brush up on right wing socialism.
Just a helpful link from yer old pal Rudy!
Rudi:
How did Comrade Greiner [R-Ogden] vote on the bill? Was he perchance among the grinning Senators you described?
Just finished reading Mr. Schwebke's story, in which I found the following surprising passage: "Mayor Matthew Godfrey said his administration always discloses information about potential property buyers to the RDA."
This after the papers have reported his refusal to disclose to the RDA board the person from whom a purchase offer for the three RDA parcels downtown had come, and this after the papers and this blog carried statements by his surrogates and defenders explaining why the mayor had witheld the buyer's name. Note: not claiming he didn't withold it when asked; they only tried to explain why he'd withheld it.
And now the mayor's statement to the paper that he always discloses that information to the RDA Board.
I'm beginning to think he just can't help himself. His default response to finding himself in a tough spot is to disemble. Questions have recently been raised about whether some national poltical leaders have become seriously detatched from reality. Perhaps, sadly, it is time we began asking the same about our mayor.
Should the usual crowd of FOMs begin to wonder aloud, as they often do, why anyone would be so crude and rude as to question the mayor's integrity, I suggest all they need do to begin to understand is look at this sentence in Mr. Schwebke's story in light of what has become public in the last two days:
"Mayor Matthew Godfrey said his administration always discloses information about potential property buyers to the RDA."
Unbelievable.
But perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps Mayor Godfrey's statement was one phrase longer, and it got cut out in the editing process. Perhaps what Mr. Godfrey really said was that "his administration always discloses information about potential property buyers to the RDA, except when it doesn't."
concerning the mayor,once you tell a lie, you have to keep telling others to explain why you told the first one. It gets deeper and deeper just as we have seen with "Mr. Integrity." I think that it is wonderful (?) that we have a mayor who can stand (if he is standing he is so short)and face his constituents with the things that he puts forth for truth. I think that I will join his church so tht I can have aa concience free of any guilt when I confess to the Lord.
Nancy
Dear Curm
Do you know an attorney?
Is there a possibility that requiring the disclosure of the owners of an LLC opens the door for a laysuit based upon discrimination charges.
What possible reason would a purchase or sale be denied if the price is acceptable.
There are zoning laws that cover the properties use.
If the name of the person is provided and the sale denied it could be considered discrimination?
ANON
Hey anon, the RDA has done that on more than one occasion. The Shupe Williams property, and in the River Prodject. In Fact Greg Montgomy had to retract (pull back) Mr. Ellison's Multiple Use Zoning because adopting it totally elimnated all control that the RDA desires over specific projects. So apparemtly based on intended use, there is no discrimination.
Hey Curm, speaking of the Standard Examinar, do you think Schwebke has kept a tally on all the times Integral Little Matty has lied to him,I wonder what's the score?
Anon:
I am not an attorney.
I note the Mayor, in the story, asked on what possible basis the RDA might deny approving a sale upon learning the potential purchaser [though I do note that the Mayor also claims he always divulges the purchaser anyway]. If you are asking what are the circumstances under which an RDA board might deny approving a sale that was otherwise acceptable once it learned who the potential purchaser was, I can think of several.
Please note, these are hypothetical instances. I am not suggesting or implying in any way that any of these apply to the recent sale we are all discussing. Clear? So, with that understood, here are just a few examples off the top:
(a) upon learning the name of a potential purchaser, the RDA board discovers that he or she has a criminal record involving development projects that, in its view, would make it unwise for the city to sell RDA land to him or her for development
(b) upon learning the name of a potential purchaser, the RDA board discovers that the same developer has done projects in the city before, and not developed the land as he'd said he would on purchase, or had had problems obeying zoning requirements or had financial problems meeting his obligations such that the RDA Board deemed it not in the city's best interest to sell him for RDA land for development.
(c) Upon learning the potential purchaser's name, the RDA board discovers that he or she has managed several under-capitalized failed projects in other states, such that the Board decides it is in the best interests of the city not to sell RDA land for development to him.
I remind you that the Mayor's standard, and the RDA's, has not been "sell to the highest bidder" but "sell to the person who will provide the best benefit to the city." Simply put, if the RDA board decided that some potential purchaser other than the one recommended by a mayor would provide the "best benefit to the city," it could, right now [presuming it was aware of the other potential buyer] deny the mayor's recommendation and sell to someone else.
I don't see how discrimination comes into this. It might of course if the buyer denied was a minority and racial discrimination were alleged, I guess. But the current standard, which would not change [sale for at least appraised value and best benefit for the city] is a pretty loose one, and, it seems to me, equally as open to allegations of discrimination.
And from what has been said here [and I am again not an attorney and have not checked it out], the owners of LLCs in Utah are already a matter of public record.
I also remind you that just about a week ago, the SE ran a story about the River Project RDA bidding against a developer for land in the RDA. The developer wanted to build townhomes there [permitted by the zoning]. But the RDA apparently felt his proposed development was not sufficiently compatible with the RDA development plan, and so entered the bidding against him to acquire private properties in the River Project Area. If that didn't open a door for charges of arbitrary discrimination, I don't see how the RDA board's proposed revsions would.
Honestly, Anon, the Mayor's postion on this is really confusing. He seems to be saying "I always inform the RDA about who wants to purchase RDA land" but "If I am forced to tell the Board the name of the purchasers, which I already always tell the Board anyway, it may open the city up for a charge of discrimination."
If you can explain how the administration can hold both of those positions simultaneously in a way that makes sense, I am more than willing to listen.
Sorry to threadjack here, but I just received the Ogden council's release on the transportation meeting slated for next week; why the f*** is the Ogden-Weber Chamber being invited to make a presentation? What does the chamber, headed by a former clothier, have to do with transportation, other than spending my and others' dues promoting the silly urban gondola to nowhere? I thought the council was against a Gondola Godfrey-Peterson Squirrel Patrol dog-and-pony show, as the circus ride is not a viable mass transit option.
Rudy said:
"Some of us were heretofore unfamiliar with the notion that individual property rights ought to be subject to the whims of the majority in America. And since when is it the proper role of government to help dissatisfied property owners "get rid of their properties, we ask?"
You're right Rudy, individual property rights shouldn't be decided by the general population...they should be decided by the Constitution. You'll recall that the Supreme Court has decided that eminent domain for economic purposes is entirely legal within the framework of the Constitution.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to roast a marshmellow.
Anonymous
Anon:
The SC ruled the practice constitutional, meaning that the Constitution does not forbid the practice. It did not mandate it upon the states. Nor did it rule that it was wise policy. States may, at their option, by law, limit or ban the practice. That's constitutional too, according to the same court.
Jason:
The meeting is, it seems, to gather ideas, information, opinion on transportation options for Ogden. Seems to me reasonable that the Council would hear the views of the Chamber on the matter. Transit is a major public issue that can [will] directly affect merchants in the city. And the Chamber represents [to use the current buzzword] "stakeholders" in the city.
You wrote: "I thought the council was against a Gondola Godfrey-Peterson Squirrel Patrol dog-and-pony show, as the circus ride is not a viable mass transit option." I don't think the council has take a position yet on the gondola/gondola Peterson Proposal mishmash [whatever it might consist of today] for the completely defensible reason that no proposal has yet been presented to it or to the planning commission, or apparently to anyone not among the "many" businessmen who FOMs say have seen it. Can't act on what's not before you.
As for the Chamber presentation a the transit meeting... I gather you are a member... well, that' something you need I think to take up with the Chamber of which you are a member, not the Council. If I were on the Council, and the Chamber of Commerce of my city said it wanted to make a presentation at an upcoming public meeting to consider transit options, I certainly wouldn't say no. Nor, I think, should this Council.
The Council should invite that trolley authority who spoke at the Alumni House last year.....his name just escaped me.
Several others heard him also. What do you think?
Perhaps I was too obtuse for Curmudgeon's mental rigidity. I was under the impression that the council was not going to allow a Gondola-Godfrey, Peterson-Squirrel-Patrol presentation because it's a mass transit meeting. And I'm guessing Mr. ZCMI Men's Fashion is going to stump about the gondola to nowhere for the Chamber; I could be wrong. Ask Jason W. why he posted such inanity.
Jason W.
Having our less than Honest Mayor is like being married to a person who cheats on his/her spouse. Once you catch them in a lie, you always wonder where they are when they are five minutes late or what story they are telling. You never have the trust ever again.
Rudi, I checked out your link to right-wing socialism, otherwise known as fascism. Not what Old Joe Stalin practiced - not that what he practiced was any better. Also, I dare say that what the state leg is promoting here is far from fascism, which grants no individual property rights (corporate) included, unless it serves the nation-state. What we have here in Utah and the US as well is corporatism, where individual property rights and the good of the country are all subservient to the greater good of corporations. ED for the purpose of economic development fits right in with the corporatism model.
Jason W:
I have no idea what the Chamber presentation will involve. If you're a member, maybe you could ask the Chamber leadership for a heads up and let us know here.
Jason, if you are a member, would it be worth trying, do you think, to organize other Chamber members who don't think it wise to recommend that the Chamber endorse the pig-in-a-poke gondola/gondola Peterson real estate speculation scheme? Produce a minority report maybe? [I don't know. I have no idea how the Chamber is organized. Just wondered if, you being a member, you thought this might be a workable idea. I do know that you are not the only Chamber member who thinks as you do.]
Sorry you seem annoyed at my Post, Jason. Not sure why you are. We're, so far as I can tell, pretty much on the same side on this issue.
The majority of the Chamber Board is supportive of the Gondola-Godfrey and Peterson's Squirrel Patrol proposal, which was evidenced after a vote; the board is filled with gondola morons. And, yes, I do consider them mouth-breathing morons. I spoke at length with the clothier who runs the Chamber show and he repeated the exact same LO mantra that, coincidentally, you can read in Brandon Stephenson's column a few days back. He showed no interest in listening to dissenting opinions, but I ain't the one writing the check, so the mutiple dues and other program fees paid on our behalf continue to be remitted. I just want to know if the council capitulated to Little Matty's demand that the gondola-to-nowhere be represented at the transit meeting, is all.
LOL, Marx brother. Your lame retort comes as no surprize.
You lefty socialists even now cringe at recognizing your right-wing-brethren...
Heres what you socialist types (left & right) all have in common:
*Belief in the "virtues of strong centralized executive government,
*Disdain for individual rights,
"Love of Centrally planned economies,
*Religionism,
*Miliatarianism,
*Nationalism.
"The eventual withering of the state":
"...somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it." - David Rockefeller - Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.
Do us all a favor and kiss your right wing socialist cousins in the Utah Legislature a big hello (smooch.)
Dear Jason
America 1st payes all of the fee's for his business.
If he favors the gondola do you think it is your best interest to undermine his interests?
Does your boss know that you are working against him?
ANON
Rudi:
You wrote: Do us all a favor and kiss your right wing socialist cousins in the Utah Legislature a big hello (smooch.)
Hmmmm... how do you think Sen. Greiner (FOM-Ogden) will react to the smooch.... [grin]
First of all, Curm...there were no dissenting votes from the Senate on the ED...so that should answer your question about Griener.
Whoever can recall that trolley authority who spoke so eloquently about trolleys 'revializing' cities at the Lindquist Alum House last year...please post his name...and we can suggest that the Council get him back!
Rudi,
you can't be farther off target. Let me try once more. The bill just passed by the Utah leg is not socialist - left or right. Who will benefit from this law? The public? The government? Or companies like Wall Mart who will be able to have government do its bidding for it and use its power of ED to get the land of poorer citizens for cheap.
You wrote in your original post this morning " Some of us were heretofore unfamiliar with the notion that individual property rights ought to be subject to the whims of the majority in America." Apparently you aren't familiar with the terms of the 5th amendment to our great Constitution. Anybody's property can be taken by the government for public use, as long as the government justly compensates them for it. So the majority in Ogden could decide that it wants to build a new city park on my property and I can't do anything about it - so long as I'm paid market value. Now the SC, mistakenly to my mind, turned "public use" into corporate use. Just like the shills of corporate American would be expected to do. Isn't that the what the republicrat and demican party are all about? Huggs and Kisses.
Mercy:
I suspected as much, but thank you for confirming it.
Open letter to the council
The gondola is not mass transit; even the mayor has admitted that. In fact he has said so on more than one occasion, during his meeting with the general public, that it is a marketing tool.
If the Chamber starts to talk about the gondola project as though its a mass transit solution someone on the Council should stop then before they really get cranking and remind them that it is not a mass transit project, that the mayor even recognizes that fact (and remind the mayor he has said that on more than one occasion) and that since time is limited for this meeting with a lot of material to cover and to keep the topic matter on course with the discussion of mass transit solutions, that their presentation should be presented at a more appropriate meeting.
Marx Brother said: "The bill just passed by the Utah leg is not socialist - left or right. Who will benefit from this law? The public? The government? Or companies like Wall Mart who will be able to have government do its bidding for it and use its power of ED to get the land of poorer citizens for cheap."
There you go again, Marx Brother.
You alsmost got it right in your comment upthread:
"The new ED bill is far from communistic, (we used the term communalist, BTW) since it will probably benefit private capitalists (developers) -- albeit "in the name of" benefitting the public. In fact, Marx himself argued that this is how capitalist-controlled governments act. Benefit the capitalists in the name of the public."
What you said above is the definition of right wing socialism.
The essense of right wing socialism is the use of the power of the state to commit plunder on behalf of well-heeled corporations, on the theory that slight intrusions into private interests will benefit the greater good in the long run. That's commie-speak, Marx brother, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
This is the version of socialism that the nazis practiced in Germany during the last century, as did the fascist Mussolini in Italy. As set forth in the link we provided you earlier, this version of socialism was originally practiced in Germany early in the century under Bismark. All were right wing socialists.
Don't be so stubborn. Open your mind to new ideas every once in a while. Nothing is new under the sun, Marx Brother, especially in politics.
Develpoers who swoop in to scoop up condmned properties afer an eminent domain condemnation aren't true "capitalists," by the way, in that the benefits they derive don't spring from free market forces.
We'd also suggest you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," the seminal tract on the subject of capitalism and free markets.
.
I just wanted to take a second and talk about this ethics brouhaha and also to thank Curt Geiger for sticking up for me with his many posts here on the WCF yesterday.
I especially liked his comment,
“Even the head of SLC Economic Developement is aware of this blog and the people who are on it. As he told me. "This blog and the negative people in Ogden are his greatist asset".
Curt, I know you’re much better at spelling and grammar than that (and your other posts) would indicate, but I know how busy you are!
Anyway, as you know, I’m one of Utah’s 50 most important businessmen as reported by the over two dozen readers of Connect magazine. So naturally I know all those folks down in the SLC Econ Dev office, and I’d just like to take the opportunity to say “Hi” to all of my friends in SL town. It’s kind of funny, but just today one of my constituents came by my office asking for you people’s phone number down there in the SLC Econ Dev office. He said after he read that quote he wanted to call you up and tell you to all go and #### yourselves. He said that if he’d wanted to live in a #### hole like SLC he’d be there already, and he didn’t need a bunch of SLC ###holes turning Ogden into Cronytown North. I told him to get out of my office and then I laughed my ### off! By the way, I love these # symbols.
Anyway, what really happened with the Wall property was this. Chris Peterson called me up to complain that he and some of his high class friends were getting tired of small timers like the Geigers trying to schmooze everybody and rub shoulders with them all the time. Not that Chris is a heavy hitter himself either. But you know how some people have their mattress stuffed with money? Let’s just say when Chris looks at his money it’s on TOP of the mattress, if you get my drift. Anyway Chris told me he was going to pull out of the whole gondola business because he wants to get the Geigers off his back. Besides, this bench land deal he’s trying to do here was starting to “drain all his juice”. And since he’s got so little “juice” to begin with, you can see the problem. Anyway I immediately got this idea that I told him about, and I thought once I share it with you it will clear everything up.
I told Chris, “How about I just sell you some land on Wall for a song? That way you can keep working on your sales job for your bench land deals and not have to worry about money because once front runner comes in you can flip those lots for an easy million profit now matter how things turn out. Plus, I could use the quarter mil from the land to buy my sandstone benches I want to put in front of my recreation center.” Dave Harmer said it was a total win-win as long as we can keep the “grannies” in the dark, wink wink. And as far grannies, old lady Bloom may have gotten shafted out of the land in the first place but I figure it’s no big deal. What does she need money for, wheelchair grease and a headstone?
We’re trying to do something important here, people! Try to catch the vision!
Has anyone else noticed the physical resemblence between Matt Godfrey and Tom Lennox, the President's slimey Aide on 24?
I'm in love again! I'm really into macho men who know how to wheel and deal and keep all those deals afloat.
I never noticed what a BIG man you are, Matt G, if you catch my drift.
Watch for me at the next Council meeting. I'll be the one right in your view in the shorrrt skirt and wide smile.
Keep it up, Matt.
Love,
Just FYI, Calvin Grondahl's editorical cartoon this morning in the SE deals with the "return of eminent domain." Worth a look. It's on the SE's free website, I think, not behind the subscription wall.
Does any one get the feeling that this Geiger fellow must be Ogden's modern day Forrest Gump?
Seems like he is at every important meeting, every important lunch, on TV every hour on Channel 17, running around meeting senators and congressmen in Washington with the mayor, visited by every businessman passing through Utah, In on all the city's secret insider dealings, etc.
You would wonder how he makes a living with as many demands on his time. Oh ya, forgot his wife is on the city's insider big timers payroll with a fat paycheck for a job that is way beyond her resume and earning history.
FOM indeed. The tax payers indirectly get to pay for all these expensive lies he spreads around to us. Like charging us for the bullets he shoots us with.
And just when we were wondering what happened to the junior geiger fish oil salesman - He has been awfully quite lately, till this morning that is. Maybe he forgot his instructions from Ellis?
Frank: You wrote "Does any one get the feeling that this Geiger fellow must be Ogden's modern day Forrest Gump? Seems like he is at every important meeting, every important lunch..."
Not possible. I was at two important meetings this week, and an important lunch today, and no Geigers were there. [grin]
Were these meetings important because you were present, Cur? Is that the criteria of how a meeting should be judged, by someone who may or may not be in attendance? It would be interesting to read what the meeting was about and who WAS there. Did it make the Standard Examiner? The Tribune?
Tell us. We gotta know. It's IMPORTANT!
New comments are not allowed.