Monday, March 05, 2007

More Evidence of a Small-business Unfriendly Emerald City Administration

Boss Godfrey sticks it to another non-FOM* again

By Michael Moyal

My partner and I are concerned that selective discrimination and arbitrary enforcement pertaining to the Ogden City ordinances have been used against us for the sole purpose of removing our land use rights, our right to conduct a legitimate business in the City of Ogden, and have seriously infringed on our Civil Rights as American Residents and Citizens.

The property at issue is the Ogden River Inn and vacant restaurant building. On November 6th, 2006 we purchased the property containing a business and buildings located at 1825 and 1839 Washington Blvd in Ogden along the Ogden River. Prior to purchasing I made inquiries with the Ogden City Redevelopment agency, who informed me that they not only didn’t have an option on the property, but also didn’t have the money for the rest of the project, and most likely wouldn’t have it for years, considering 24th Street and Washington was their priority. They all wished me the best of luck with my acquisition. My intention was to buy the buildings, get a new business license to operate the Motel, and another new business license to open the restaurant building (which has been vacant for years), as the first Indian restaurant in the City.

In late October the City Planners office directed me to file a petition to rezone the property. On November 1st, I went before the City Planning Commission to inform them of my intention to rezone the restaurant land in order to be able to sell alcohol. I was told that wine and beer sales would be allowed with a provisional use permit and was asked to work with the city planner’s office to get a provisional use permit. I was then told that alcohol sales would likely be rejected and my petition to rezone was “tabled” until the December Planning commission meeting to give me time to work out the details with Ogden City planning division. I went along with their recommendation and on November 27th we submitted a formal site plan to scale, North, South, East, and West elevations and artist renderings of the restaurant site, conforming to the spirit of the Ogden River Redevelopment Project. John Mayer from the City planner’s office told me considering everything was moving ahead with my site plan, Greg Montgomery had asked that I withdraw my petition to rezone the property. John Mayer drafted a letter, I signed it and Mr. Montgomery submitted it to the city recorders office. (Mr. Montgomery, City Planning Division Manager once told me that the only acceptable use for my buildings was to demolish them)

Two (2) days later on November 29th, we received a “Motel Business License Denial letter” based on alleged poor business practices by the Motel’s previous owners specifying business dates from January 1st 2004 to September 30th 2006, all prior to our ownership. We appealed the business license denial the same day and our hearing was set for December 7th 2006, one month after starting our new business. My partner and I along with a couple character witnesses attended the appeal hearing to strongly object the City’s decision.

On December 13th, my partner and I met with Mayor Godfrey of Ogden to discuss openly our business intentions and concerns. Although he appeared to be understanding and after he explained his obligations toward the City and his developer/investors, he stated “you should have expected to pay for the previous owner’s sins!” I strongly disagreed and our meeting was concluded. About a week later, we received an official letter allowing us a “6 month probationary business license”, to clean up the property. Actually, all the code violations given to the previous owner (abandoned/unlicensed vehicles, violations of 90 day ordinance, etc…) had all been addressed and resolved in the first week of our ownership, and the City had so been advised.

On December 15th we received a letter dated December 13th from John Mayer at the city planner’s office informing us of the various conditions to meet in order to proceed with our restaurant site plan. Once the city planner came to review the parking and landscape requirements that we could have easily accomplished, we were made aware of a new, temporary ordinance, a moritorium dated December 19th that denied any new site plan approvals, provisional use permits and building permits for 6 months.

On January 2nd, my partner and I attended the City council meeting and regardless of our objections to the proposed ordinance preventing the improvement of our property (from 18th to 20th, Washington to Wall); and our requests for the building permit required to improve our restaurant building, the ordinance was passed.

Also on January 2nd, my electrical contractor was issued a building permit for the purpose of getting electrical service to our restaurant, now to be an unimproved building with no riverside deck and without the new stucco facade.

On January 3rd, I was contacted by John Patterson from the mayor’s office and asked to meet on January 4th in his office. My partner and I, our attorney, John Patterson, the city attorney, and Scott Brown the River Redevelopment Manager were present for this meeting. In the course of the meeting, many issues were raised and we re-expressed our interest and willingness to consider any options that may help the city with their river planed visions. The City attorney (who once told me that upgrading my buildings would be like “putting lipstick on a pig”) at that time informed us that due to the new ordinance, our only legal use for our restaurant building was as “a vacant and abandoned building”.

Mr. Godfrey had told us that the City of Ogden had planned to lock out the previous motel owners about 8 months ago, but he was advised by the city attorney that the ordinance needed to be revised before such an action could be legal. We are now faced with the very threatening possibility that our entire business operation will be “locked out” within six months, according to the City’s revised “lock out ordinance”. This will leave us with more abandoned/vacant buildings, and no other option but to give in to the City’s arbitrary wishes.

Ogden has either through gross negligence or concerted efforts orchestrated events which have effectively denied us the reasonable economic use of our property and placed our capital at risk. The City’s scheme has denied us the right to use and develop our property with the apparent reason being to enhance some undefined future plan for the area. We followed instructions given to us, which have resulted in denials and delays, and which have effectively denied us due process.

The foregoing article is the full version of this letter, which was edited by the author and published in today's Standard-Examiner letters section. Readers who would like to contact Mr. Moyal for further information may do so through the following link: Weber County Forum Blogmeister

*FOM: Friend of Matt (Godfrey)

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

bull b*** s***

(This post has been edited by the on-duty blog administrator in conformity with WCF family values)

RudiZink said...

Bring it on, dopey.

Please explain why it's OK for Godfrey to sneakily grant property rights to his croneys with the Bloom properties, and then seriously screw over honest people like Michael Moyal who have juice enough to pay a couple $million for their river property on Washington Blvd?!?!?!

Godfrey should be grateful that outta town investors like Moyal are flocking here to build up our community.

We don't understand the Godfrey problem with this.

(Well... we do know he's an inveterate right wing socialist -- naturally into CORPORATE WELFARE.)

Anonymous said...

In my discussion with Mr. Moyal he told me that his partner in the Indian restaurant was an East Indian.

Based on Mayor Godfrey's previous history of aversion to allowing East Indians or Vietnamese to operate a business in downtown Ogden the scenario becomes clearer.

For those of you who have come late to the party, our Lord Mayor got rid of the East Indian, Lucky, and the Vietnamese family on 25th Street by refusing to renew their beer licenses.

And then when Lucky bought a building by moving West on 12th Street to open his business, Ogden City took 6 months to approve of his license.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read this script.

Anonymous said...

One issue to note is that the Bootjack LLC property was considered "Surplus" by the RDA. That is to say, the RDA's overall plans contemplated no use for the Bootjack LLC property.

The land noted in this discussion is not considered "Surplus" by the RDA. The RDA's overall plans for the River Project contemplated certain uses for that land that made relevant a particular invenstor's intentions. In this case, the investors intentions did not work with the contemplated plans for the land.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Ogden City and Mob boss Godfrey are living up to their reputation. My hat tips to anybody willing to take on any run down property in Ogden in an effort to make it better.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you again want to dismiss facts and pertinent information.

Anonymous said...

I am not an atty, but the language and tone of Mr. Moyal's post and letter seem to me to indicate a pending lawsuit against the RDA and/or City of Ogden. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

Anon's post above noting that the Bloom property had been designated "surplus" by the RDA/City [meaning the city had no development plans for it], but the Moyal property had not been declared surplus, and so the RDA had a right to deny development it deemed inconsistent with the River Project's planned usages raises an interesting question. Perhaps he knows the answer or someone else does:

Was the fact that the Bloom [now Bootjack] properties had been declared "surplus" adverstised? Did anyone other than the Bootjack management know of the designation as surplus properties? And if so, how was notice given that the properties had been declared to be surplus? Is there a regular procedure in Ogden for giving public notice in timely fashion that property has been declared surplus? If so, was that procedure followed in this instance?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions and am wondering if someone, perhaps anon or anyone else, does.

Anonymous said...

None of these properties were known by the public to be surplus.

The River properties had been held out for development. That is why Moyal bought the properties.

The City RDA administration changed the rules on Moyal and his partner in the middle of the deal.

The Utah RDA Statutes have no provision for advertising the sale of RDA property to the public.

The RDA Statutes are authoritarian.
They take away property rights protection because they do not allow a vote in a general election regarding RDA projects.

The Ogden City RDA administration does not give heed to the rights of individual property owners in their pursuit of big new Projects to attract new and bigger businesses which are then subsidized with the giveaway of tax increment.

This is the reason Governor Huntsman should veto HB365.

Anonymous said...

You know what I think? I think the Ogden City administration was perfectly fine with the idea of keeping Moyal "on the hook" while HB365 was being discussed and crafted.

Then, when HB365's passage was imminent (or perceived to be), they dropped their collective pants and mooned Mr. Moyal.

I, for one, would love to see an Indian restaurant in Ogden. Mrs. Monotreme and I often travel to SLC for Indian food. We go to Layton for Thai food. We go to Roy for Vietnamese food.

Gee, I wonder why these food options aren't available in Ogden? Hmm. Could be something to what Rocket Scientist has said, after all.

Anonymous said...

The screwed over RDA needs to rescind Peterson's option on the Wall Ave properties.

It will be interesting to see if Moyal and partner sue this city!

I heard again today about persons who hoped to do business in Ogden and were discouraged by a rude, arrogant, unwelcoming mayor and 'team'. They've gone elsewhere.

Seems Godfrey wants an elite society. Who was that guy in Germany who envisioned such an elite society? Do we have enough blue-eyed blonds in Ogden to ensure a pure undefiled city?

How will we keep out the rabble? Armed guards at the gates of the city?

Anonymous said...

An Asian business owner here in Ogden told me how she and her husband have been treated poorly by the city. They own other property they would like to develop but have run into raodblocks dealing with a person who is a 'very tall, skinny' man.

She asked 'what is the mayor going to get from this'...meaning the Wall Ave properties give-away. "I think he will wait til he is out of office and then money will come to him".

Pretty astute assessment of our local gov't by this young hard-working businesswoman who, along with her husband, are assets to our community. They pay hefty taxes also.

Anonymous said...

Monotrome....
Have you ever eaten at Bangkok Gardens on Grant between 24 &24? Excellent Thai and Vietnamese dining and affordable. It is as good as any that I have enjoyed in the Bay area. All original and fresh ingredients and sauces.

However, I do think an Indian Restaurant in Ogden would be wonderful. This is not right. The RDA drove Ceders, Greek Restaurant by playing hardball with her when they obtained the property. Didn't even try to work with her and get her moved or incentives to continue. They don't care. I was so disappointed as Ceders had some of the best Greek food in town.

ogden iii

Anonymous said...

Ooops. Bangkok Gardens 2461 Grant. It is the best!

ogdeniii

Anonymous said...

Do away with Hill Air Force Base; give it to Mayor Goodfrey and Chief Senator Greeiner, so they can give it to their business buddies. So we can have less government.

Anonymous said...

Ogden iii:

Yes, Mrs. Monotreme reminded me of Bangkok Gardens after she saw my post. We have been there quite a bit. The neu nam tok is to die for. I have issues with the service sometimes.

Still, I stand corrected. One Thai restaurant (Bangkok Chef) has closed in the last 12 months or so (up on 12th St.) but one remains.

In a city the size of Ogden, there should be more choices for "ethnic" food than a couple of noodle parlors.

Anonymous said...

We cannot be a pure society if all these Asians, Indians, and other impure types are allowed to set up homes and businesses here. Except for the Hispanics, of course. Allowing the illegas to be here shows the softer sexy side of Godfrey.

Don't you people get it?

Heil!!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of noodles, a friend of mine bent mine the other day. Try to figure this one out. When all this Peterson s### came out, the main thrust of Godfrey's and the Geigers' seemed to be something like this." Mr. Peterson is willing to invest $500,000,000.00 in our city". The noodle bend starts here. If this guy is so willing to spend a half a billion dollars here in Ogden, why would he allow himself to get caught up in some controversial penny ante($270,000.00 not much to a guy with half a billion burning a hole in his pocket) land deal downtown,using a clandestine LLC for cover? Why an unclosed option? Why not buy it outright? Seems that buying it out right using your real name would have at least helped substantiate the original premise.

Anonymous said...

most astute analysis, bill.

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved