Join in on the robust comments discussion below, which has once again morphed - like clockwork -- well beyond the original suggested topic
Warning to Residents of the Mt. Ogden Community:
The current draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan is posted here. We urge you to read it and submit your comments to the Planning Commission, and/or attend the hearing this coming Wednesday, April 4.
We thank you for your attention to this matter.
This thread is also open for your comments and discussion on this very important topic.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
68 comments:
Where is the 800 lb Gorilla in this?
kong:
Most of the planning commissioners have adopted the attitude that the 800 lb gorilla has had no effect whatsoever on any of them or their staff during this process. They are thus offended whenever a member of the public implies otherwise. At most, they will acknowledge that the gorilla has motivated an unusually large number of residents to participate in the process. Some commissioners view this participation as a good thing, while others seem to think it has skewed the public comments in some way.
As a matter of tactics, I recommend that you ignore the 800 lb gorilla in any comments you might make to the Planning Commission. If you bring it up, they will probably tune out the rest of what you say, since they'll think you're making wrong assumptions.
If you look closely at the draft plan itself, you'll probably detect some suspicious-looking bits of fur here and there. The most obvious (at least to me) is the proposed widening of 36th Street and relocation of the golf course clubhouse to the top of 36th. But again, in commenting on these aspects, I recommend that you don't mention the gorilla.
This is off topic, but saw this article today about Snowbasin and Power Mountain: Link
Why not set up a public bus that leaves from downtown and other areas of Ogden and goes to Snowbasin and Power Mountain? This could be coordinated with the resorts to pay part of the cost of running the bus, or else the city could fund it entirely.
Then Ogden could market itself to tourists, who would stay in Ogden and commute by bus to the ski resorts.
The city would benefit from increased hotel taxes, and money that tourists spend in Ogden. Businesses would benefit, and more people would come to Ogden, thereby generating the "buzz" that Ogden seems to desire.
This seems like a very simple idea. Has it been done before?
I thought I saw a post on yesterday's thread that showed the contact (email) at Descente (i.e. his boss)to complain about Curt Geiger , but now I can't find it. Can somebody post it again for me?
Ogden:
The city and hotels began a subsidized service... in small bus or large van... to Snow Basin, Wolf Mt and Powder Mountain this season. I don't know how it has worked, but something started this season. The idea is, if it develops enough interest/ridership UTA would look at a "ski bus" along the lines of the one running to the Cottonwood Canyon resorts in SLC. I presume at the end of the ski season there will be a report done on how it all worked out and plans for next season.
Fan,
What a sensible idea!!! Sensible ideas usually don't float well here.
The widening of 36th and the moving of the clubhouse is something that needs scrutiny.
An ugly gondola tower may be coming to that neighborhood!
These posts, which were a clear violation of the Weber County Forum posting policy, have been removed by a blog administrator.
We don't normally comment on decisions related to administrative policy.
We're making an exception here, to reassure our readers that we will always adhere to to our own posting policy.
I can't find it:
IN re: the removed posts and email address --- My own view is I wish they had not been posted in the first place.
Many of us disagree with Mr. Geiger --- certainly I do --- about the wisdom of the Godfrey/Peterson Vision for Ogden [whatever it might be at the moment; it changes a lot and neither of them is saying what it is this week]. But we are disagreeing about a matter of public policy, and the way to do that is openly and on the facts. [I am always happy to have this matter discussed openly and on the basis of the facts, since the facts are, overwhelmingly, on the side I support]. It is not, I think, either wise or right to attempt to go after Mr. Geiger's [or anyone else's] employer to try to change his views on the issue. Doing that would be no more acceptable, in my view, than, oh, say, just by way of hypothetical example, a mayor threatening the job of a city employee who thought differently than he did, and said so, on a matter of public policy, like, oh, say, selling the city's largest park to build a 35 to 50 million dollar tourist ride.
Suggesting people go behind Mr. Geiger's back to his employers was, in my opinion, stepping over the line. Mr. Geiger does go straight at people he disagrees with, and he does it in public and on the record. I think he deserves the same from those who disagree with him.
Clearly, others think differently.
I think more people should vote in the "worst mayor poll" and leave comments.
Sorry I touched a nerve, but actually, Bob Geiger has threatened the employment of many, so your comments about the Geigers is another example of wishing rather than seeing, I fear. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the Geigers are far from the open, ethical people you describe.
I wish I'd copied the email address down while it was still there!
I can't:
Didn't touch a nerve. It's just I disagree, that's all. WCF would be a pretty dull place if we all went around saying "I think so to."
I don't have any information about B. Geiger trying to get people fired for disagreeing with him. [My comments related to Mr. C. Geiger.] But if your information is accurate, it wouldn't change my opinion. His doing it would be as wrong, and for the same reasons, as my doing it or suggesting that others do it too.
The Samurai of Osaka are very astute fellows. There is very little in their empire that they are not fully aware of. This includes the Geigers and what they are doing in and to Ogden. They haven't reigned them in, so presumably they approve of what they are doing.
Bottom line, so what? They are just following the great American Dream, as they see it, and are going balls to the wall to accomplish their visions of grandeur.
Just like a lot of other folks in town are doing their best to stop the madness. Great sport actually.
The Geiger's aren't really bad guys, they just are having a temporary lapse in their critical thinking processes. Maybe something in the Ogden Water they are drinking?
The real dilemma lies with the Mayor. If he fixes the city water supply, the Geiger's will quit drinking the funny water, come to their senses, and the mayor will lose his cheer leading squad!
Imagine what would happen if he fixed the sewers too.
Getting back to the Mt. Ogden Neighborhood Plan, I noticed the stress on keeping the neighborhood owner-occupied (with specific exceptions on specific streets to accommodate the need for WSU student apartments). This directly contradicts the recent posts describing acquisition of "100" East Bench homes for resale to out of state people for use as summer vacation homes.
Of course, that situation occurred prior to publication of the neighborhood plan, so I guess we're stuck with it.
I'm sure Mayor Godfrey will tell us that the City doesn't have the funds to install street lights of improve water pressure and quality. Plumbing just doesn't sell at ski industry conventions.
Ogdenlover:
Yup. Exactly. Converting owner-occupied single family homes in stable neighborhoods into rental units with absentee landords seems to be emerging as part of the Godfrey Vision during public comment time at Council Meetings these days. Who knew?
ozboy:
I respectfully disagree. Anyone who spits in the face of a woman because he disagrees with her position is a "bad" guy. And a spineless coward.
And, Curm, I have personal knowledge of the Geigers going after the jobs of those who oppose them. I recognize that you disagree with the tactic, but if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
That's how we do it "where I'm from", BG.
It was I,it was me, I done it, I posted the e-mail adress. I have apologized to Rudy for posting in violation of posting guidelines thus sparing myself from bannishment. I will however under no circumstances apologize to the Geigers.The way they have behaved thru-out this whole ordeal is nothing short of despicable.They have nearly assaulted more than one individual, including women, jumped in people's faces covering them with saliva,not to mention the immorality of what thier advocating, every aspect of thier proposition.
Ugly:
OK, if they did as you assure me they did, they behaved badly, as men of few ethics and less honor. Which would not change my views on the posting of their boss's email.
My view on this kind of thing is simple: I cannot control with anyone else does. If someone chooses to behave badly, I have no control over that. But I have 100% control over what I do. Absolute, total and complete control. Which means I can choose not to behave like a miserable SOB. Wholly my choice. "Turn about's fair play" in no way justifies my behaving as a classless honorless SOB is how I see it.
Getting involved in a retaliatory crappy behavior contest sooner or later [usually sooner] creates kind of a race to the bottom. I'll pass, thanks. Not worth it. And usually not effective as a tactic either. This bit of country wisdom turns out, I think to be true: "Don't get involved in a mud wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it."
Clearly others disagree.
Not a good ink day for Ogden....
TV stations all over the standoff in Ogden today between police and a young man who, following a high speech chase and a reported attempted robery forted up in an Ogden house on 30th Street --- helicopters, police, SWAT Teams, the whole nine yards --- until negotiatiors convinced him to lay his weapon down and surrender. It will be all over the ten o:clock news tonight, including interviews with [on the one I saw] one of the mothers called to pick up her child from locked down elementary school nearby, saying kids should be able to go to school without fear of this kind of thing in this neighborhood, etc. [According to TV reports, meth seems to have been involved.] Not a good ink day for Ogden.
Which leads me to this, which I hope will be addressed in the coming race for the Mayor's office and Council seats. Being semi-retired, I look now and then at the "best places to retire" lists that national magazines like to do, seeing how the Ogden I moved to is doing in them. The last one I looked at gave Ogden high marks as a retirement destination on a whole variety of scales [affordability of housing, cost of living, medical care, recreational and cultural opportunities]... except one. Crime rate. That one alone knocked Ogden out --- way out --- of the top tier. I can't imagine it helps with companies or people looking for places to move either.
So I hope the crime rate, and how to get on top of it and lower it in Ogden, will be one of the issues addressed in the coming election. Along with the mayor's "vision" for Ogden [whatever it may be when campaign formally begins since it seems to change as often as the phases of the moon]. My "vision" for Ogden involves a city with a lot lower crime rate than we have now. As I said, I hope this becomes a signficant topic in the campaign.
Curmudgeon:
I would think that treating (and paying) your police and fire officials like the professionals they are would be Job One for anyone wanting to call him/herself "mayor" and reduce the crime rate.
monotreme:
As a matter of fact, so would I. Or at least among the top jobs for anyone wanting the title "Mr. Mayor."
No need for a mea culpa, Bill C. -- at least not in our opinion.
Unlike gentle Curmudgeon, we don't think it's inherently wrong for our readers to alert Descente corporate headquarters about the community mischief that the Geigers commit in the company name.
Invariably, when the Geigers speak out publicly, they invoke the name of the parent company, even when they viciously slander our city council:
Questions for Ogden Council members
Notably, in the above article, little Bobby identifies himself as the "chief operating officer of Ogden-based Descente North America."
The Geigers do this consistently every time they issue a press statement, as in this recent Salt Lake Tribune article:
Ascent of Descente.
Indeed, their company affiliation is the very thing that gives them press attention.
The foregoiing article, of course, again recites the admission of these hubris-filled people, that the object of this whole gondola promotion is to please the bosses in Osaka.
We think the corporate honchos should know about that.
No, Bill. We are not about to brand you a bad guy. We know that our whole city has been split apart by this whole ridiculous Gondola/Landgrab debate. The tension in our city over this issue is palpable.
We also know that you didn't realize you'd violated Weber Count Forum policy when you made the posts.
We think it's okay to let the people in Osaka know EXACTLY what their representatives are doing in the name of the Descente label.
We're just not going to promote this effort on this blog.
What our readers do privately in this regard is, of course, their own danged business.
I've read the entire Mt. Ogden Neighborhood proposal and have found it to strongly reflect my and my neighbor's wishes to leave Mount Ogden Park alone. I'd think that Dan S is being paranoid about expansion of 36th street and relocation of the club house if it weren't for one thing: Why in the BLEEP would Chris Peterson be involved with the meeting with the "famous" golf guy? And what give Mr. Peterson any right to be there? I dunno, something is still very much wrong here.
Thank you, The Damned. We'd hoped that sooner or later someone would post something ON TOPIC ;-)
Anybody else?
The Damned:
I read the Mt. Ogden Community Plan draft quickly [not carefully, yet], and it does reflect strong community view that the Mt. Ogden Park and Golf Course and adjacent city owned land there remain open space. But my quick reading didn't pick up strong statements that it remain public-owned open space. A private golf course is still considered "open space" for example. As I said, I haven't gone over it carefully, but I don't recall an emphasis on its remaining public land. Happy to be corrected on that if it got it wrong. And I hope I did.
Rudi:
About "on topic." Well, seems to me election season has begun. Given that, anything that bears on election issues --- as the Mt. Ogden Community plan certainly does --- is more or less inevitably going to bring up election-related posts. As we go deeper into election season, I suspect you're going to find it a challenge to find any topic that is not election-related somehow.
As for Bill C: you wrote: Bill. We are not about to brand you a bad guy. Neither am I nor did I. Bill is an indefatigable researcher on city government matters and is on the side of the angels in the gondola/gondola issue and related matters. But Bill and I, who have worked together on that issue and others, and who continue to, have disagreed in the past, disagree some now, and I'm willing to bet grandma's false teeth will disagree in the future about tactics. That's all.
LOL!
Bill C. made some arguably self-deprecating statements in his 8:42 PM post.
Our object in our last was to let him off the hook.
Of course the Mount Ogden neighborhood residents want our treaured open space...trails, golf course, park, etc LEFT ALONE!
Sheesh! How could there possibly be any question about this? If any of you were at the last meeting when we all had those little 'sticky notes' to write our wishes and obsrvations, you would've seen that NO ONE wants Peterson/Godfrey/Ellison or any other swindler getting their hands on Ogden's greatest 'tourist' draw and most beloved area for us locals.
So, Spain, Wilkerson, Geigers', Mosher (friend of Wilkerson), and the other sycophants have bleated out their amateurish plans to hijack the CC meetings every week.
Could we expect less from them? We will see how long Chair Garcia allows their antics to prolong the public comments.
They will not speak to any item on the agenda of interest to the citizens, but will stream to the mike to bow to the little bitty dictator. How tiresome, how transparent, how silly. yawn.
What do you suppose this tiny man with the massive ego offers these members of the choir who sing so loudly and off-key the little one's praises? Does he bestow favors? Does he 'know'
something about each one they don't want made public?
What IS it, one wonders.
Did anyone else attempt to 'Call In' to the mayor's vanity (af(fair on Ch 17 tonight?
I held for a lonnnnng time til the program ended. Then I was told the mayor would take my call AFTER the program was off the air!
What the *&$#@^&*&^% is he araid of? I thought he knew everything. I thought he has told us he knows how to make the best decisions for us rabble....so why won't he defend his visions, plans and ideas IN public?
He lost all credibility with this latest stunt.
We taxpayers have a stake in Ch 17, yet not only do any of us NOT appear on the channel...we can't even TALK on the taxpayers' airwaves.
This twerp needs to be knocked off his throne. It's too big for him anyway.
Jest Wonderin:
You wrote: "We will see how long Chair Garcia allows their antics to prolong the public comments."
Public comment time [limited to two minutes per comment] is open to all to bring any matter before the Council and Administration the speaker wants to raise [with the exception of personnel matters]. It would be wrong from Chairman Garcia to cut off the Lift Ogden Realtors Lip Synching Amen Choir. No Council chair should cut off a citizen comment because of the content of the comment. If a Chair can decide a Lift Ogden Amen Chorus Comment is unacceptable and ban it, then another chair might determine that my comment --- or yours --- is unacceptable and cut it off.
Public comment time operates as a kind of safety valve. It permits citizens with no other access to the governors of Ogden two minutes to raise [civilly] whatever matter they want to rasie. It's an important right, that completely open access to the mike [for two minutes only] at Council meetings. I think Chairman Garcia would be wrong to try to interfere with it, and I can't imagine that he would. I would be very disappointed in him if he did try to. Mr. Spain wants to get up every week and take his two minutes to sing praises to the Godfrey Vision [or mirage, take your choice], he's entitled. And I don't see any way to limit his right to do that without limiting my right to speak on an issue I think important. Or yours.
Curm:
I'm referring to section B “Community Comment,” #’s 4, 9, & 11; #4 under “Community Identity;” as well as statements made under “Parks and Open Space”.
I am concerned however about page 29, #3 “Parks and Open Space Vision.” It talks only “inventorying” our open space while saying nothing about protecting it. I can also see where room was left to deem the golf course too expensive to maintain in relation to other open spaces and that worries me. So, even though I found the document somewhat favorable, it does have some concerns.
Admittedly no direct statement exists in this draft to specifically protect Mount Ogden Park from development, but if the city were to continue on any plans to develop the park, it would show a tangible disregard for the wishes of the majority of Mount Ogden Neighborhood residents as expressed within the document.
I can see three statements that should be added to the draft:
1. That the majority of MOP residents prioritize protection of the park above everything else.
2. Some words that state that under no circumstances should the park be sold and developed.
3. A definition of the park that includes all property up to the shoreline.
So, even though I found the document somewhat favorable, it does have some concerns. The part of me that wants to wear a tin foil hat can find plenty to worry about in the document.
To touch on one of the subjects at the first of this thread: The buses that have been taking skiers to Snow Basin and Powder Mountain this last winter are the combined efforts of the Travel Bureau and the hotels. There have been two buses and they leave from about three different areas, including a hotel at different times during the morning, and return for riders at the resorts at three different times. They have been VERY SUCCESSFUL, and I was told that the service will be offered again next year.
As has been reported, several famous magazines have written articles about Ogden, the snow and great ski resorts with very reasonable prices are just a half hour away. There has been an increase of skiers at Snow Basin to the point that even during the week you have to wait in line for the lift.
Kudos to the Travel Bureau! (I think.)
Avid:
Thanks. Not being a skier myself, I was wondering how the shuttle was doing. Very good news.
Rudi:
Sorry. I mis-read the intro and thought it was an open thread. Now I see it wasn't, and I was off-topic.
The proposal to relocate the clubhouse to the top of 36th isn't necessarily tied to Peterson's project. In fact, the idea has been around for about as long as the golf course itself.
The advantages, I guess, would be better views (at least to the west) from the clubhouse and perhaps some opportunities for tie-ins with WSU (cross-country ski rentals to students?).
But the problems far outweigh these advantages, as far as I can tell. The biggest problem is topography: the terrain above 36th Street is pretty steep. It would be difficult, expensive, and disruptive to flatten a big enough area up there for a clubhouse, putting green, and 100-car parking lot, and to put in whatever roads and other infrastructure would be required. There would be major impacts to the Strong's Canyon trail and the Mt. Ogden Exercise Trail. Storm water runoff into Strong's Creek could be a problem. Then you'd need a system for keeping WSU students from using the parking lot, and weekday golfers would have to deal with all the university traffic as they come and go. I think most golfers would prefer the peaceful setting of the current clubhouse to the frantic congestion of 36th Street.
Also, since Mt. Ogden Golf Course is paying debt service on the existing paved lot, adjacent tennis courts and various and sundry Lorin Farr swimming pools, as well as equipment to maintain all city parks, it should at least benefit from the adequate parking it now has.
There is an interesting article in this morning's Tribune (30March), by Kristen Moulton, about how our new traffic court building is now hocked for $2 million to help fund the Soloman center!
So our new saviour, Amer Sports, gets the big $20 million dollar white elephant named after one of their skis (for free I heard), and the citizens of Ogden get another one of their public buildings hocked to the hilt to help pay for it. That means Ogden's poor abused tax payers are subsidizing Amer Sport's ad and PR budgets!
A complete exposure and explanation of the complex web of financial hat tricks of the Godfrey Administration would be an interesting read. Is there a forensic accountant in the house?
Way to go Mt. Ogden for completing a draft of your community plan. I think the end result (the plan itself) will be important, but I also feel that the process of creating the plan has been just as important. It is the an ultimate exercise in democracy when you can bring neighbors together to solve or at least work on community issues. Hopefully the more power neighborhoods have the less power individuals in charge will wield (although you never know). I realize other neighborhood plans have been done, does anybody know if there have been community processes in the past akin to Mt. Ogden's to formulate those as well? Just curious. I think neighborhood planning and neighborhood community councils have a great potential in Ogden that is not currently being employed.
IF it is true we have mortgaged one of our buildings to attain more money for the wRECk Center:
1. Why has our esteemed Standard Examiner made no mention of it? (Or, did I just miss it?)
2. I have come to be aware that our mayor has teh power to do pretty much what he pleases. But, to mortgage a city building for $2,000,000.00? The council has nothing to say about it???
Jill:
I think the process the planning staff and Planning Commission followed in gathering community input for the Mt. Ogden Community Plan draft is essentially the same one used to draft the other existing Ogden neighborhood plans. I think someone on the planning staff told me too that there is supposed to be a periodic process for revising and updating existing community plans, but I'm not absolutely certain about that nor do I know the time frame for updating.
About "the process of creating the plan" being "as important" as the specifics of the plan itself: I think you're right. Beginning with the initial Smart Growth Ogden called community meeting to give people a chance to insist that the city proceed with a Mt. Ogden Community plan [it being one of only two communities in the city that did not yet have a community plan in place] through the two public community meetings organized by the Planning Commission to get community input for the plan, the process has done a lot, I think, to create more of a sense of community in the neighborhood. I certainly met a lot of people who live there, as I do, who I had never met before, and who [like I]had never really been much involved in community affairs until all this began. Nice observation, which I hadn't thought much about. I think you got it exactly right.
The article in the SL Trib Frank above refers to can be found here.
Here's an excerpt from the story:
Mayor Matthew Godfrey approved the placement of the lien on the Justice Court on March 22 after a notice was posted in the municipal building about a 10 a.m. public hearing in the mayor's conference room.
No member of the public attended the hearing. The City Council was notified, as is required by law, said executive director Bill Cook.
So, it was done without Council approval, which apparently was not needed. [The Council need only be "notified" of the action, not asked for its approval.] And apparently notice of the "public" meeting at which the Mayor approved the action went up in the City building only --- on the morning the meeting was held? --- with no additional notice. Nothing on the website, apparently, no attempt to get the word out that an unscheduled public meeting regarding this would be held. Apparently no attempt to notify the SE so notice of the meeting might be disseminated more widely. [Be nice to know from the SE if it did receive notice.] Ms. Moulton notes that none of the public attended. I wonder why....
Those of you out there who get all huffy when someone suggests, as I have suggested, often, that the Mayor does not have a sufficient grasp on the kind of ethical conduct we ought to demand of a public official need only look at how he handled this matter to under stand where the criticisms come from. I have no doubt he followed the letter of the ordinance requiring notice. And I have no doubt he violated its spirit.
A principled man, a Mayor who understood the most basic concept of "honor" would have, knowing the matter would be of wider public interest, knowing it involved a project that had generated some controversy in the city, gone out of his way to publicize the meeting, rather than doing as he did... the bare minimum to assure that his action would generate as little notice as possible and no public input.
How can a city prosper when its mayor is a stranger to the concept of honor in a public man?
Yet another reminder that the City Council is of NO VALUE whatsoever. They CAN NOT or WILL NOT do ANYthing to rein in this mayor. Thus, they are of NO VALUE!!!
Army:
Hardly no value. The particular matter of mortgaging the court building to get a loan to build a wind tunnel was within the Mayor's power, apparently. Nothing the Council could do about that. I'm hard put to criticize the members for not doing what they don't have the power to do.
The Council does have some important powers. All zoning changes have to be Council approved for example. That is not a trivial power. And the Council must approve the city's annual budget. I agree, it has not in the past used the power of the purse to rein in our Imperial Mayor as it should have. For example, the allegedly "community" channel 17 [really the All Godfrey/Gondola/Geigers All The Time Channel] should have been wrested from Hizzonah's control long ago. I can't and won't argue that the Council in the past has not used what powers it has as fully as it ought to have done to rein in the executive. That's why it has the power of the purse, as a means of exercising effectively its oversight function.
However, since the last election it has shown an intermittent willingness to use its power. Recall the Council's refusing to approve adding two floors [at city risk] against the recommendation of the consultant to the mall project office tower. The mayor pushed hard for that and he didn't get it. He didn't get Mr. Chapman on the planning commission either; the Council decided it would have been an ill-advised appointment. So there is some hope. It is not powerless. Whether it can summon the backbone to use its powers more often and more effectively remains to be seen.
armysarge:
Even if the Council had attended the March 22 meeting, I don't think they could have done anything. The (previous) Council signed off on the rec center in December 2005, as I recall. If you think that was a bad decision, direct your anger at the remaining Council members who voted for it: Safsten and Stephenson.
Ask yourself why HUD is seeking additional security?
Can they see, as we can, that the wheels are coming off the Godfrey bus?
I am well aware their hands are tied. They should take some power BACK! Something like this should NEVER be able to be done without their participation. ONE person should NOT be able to mortgage ANY city property!
It's OK monotreme.
Our earlier crack was our feeble attempt at a joke.
Most threads here areopen topic, AFAWAC.
This forum belongs to its readers, after all.
Armysarge:
OK, now where going someplace about which I know very little. Maybe someone else on the blog does. I get the impression that the forms of government available to Utah cities are pretty much defined by the state legislature, by state law. There are several forms cities may choose... mayor/council form or city manager form, perhaps others... but I get the impression that the distribution of powers within whatever form of government a city chooses is defined by law. So I'm not sure in Utah a city council in the mayor/council form of municipal government has it within its power to much alter that distribution of power.
Anyone know for sure? Can a council, by ordinance, significantly rearrange the distribution of power in the mayor/council form of municipal government under Utah law? Wasn't there a Council in... what was it, Centerville? Clearfield?... that tried to strip its mayor of all but nearly ceremonial functions recently? As I recall, it raised all kinds of legal problems, etc.
So, if anyone knows for sure, I hope they'll post something here on it.
Of course, anything the Council tried to do by passing a new ordinance or a revision of one would need either the Mayor's signature [not bloody likely] or it would need a super veto-proof majority [5 members of 7 I think]. Anyone know that for sure as well?
Curm: Your general point is correct. In a council-mayor form of government, the division of power is mostly determined by state law. There is some wiggle room, but not a lot.
However, the division of power is not exactly the same as what we're used to at the state and federal levels. In particular, the mayor does not have veto power over city ordinances. So a 4-3 vote of the council is sufficient to pass an ordinance, whether the mayor likes it or not.
The council's main weakness, I think, is that its members are only part-time and it doesn't have the staff support to take much proactive action. So it ends up mostly just responding to proposals that come from the administration.
Dan:
Thank you. Interesting and useful information, particularly about no super-majority being needed to pass an ordinance over a Mayor's objection.
Actually, Dan, the mayor DOES have the veto power, including a limited line item veto (appropriations), as set forth in the following Emerald City Ordinance:
2-8-2: ORDINANCE ADOPTION; POWERS OF THE MAYOR:
Every ordinance or tax levy passed by the City Council shall be presented to the Mayor for the Mayor's approval or disapproval. If the Mayor approves the ordinance or tax levy, the Mayor shall sign it and it shall be recorded and thereafter shall be in force. If the ordinance is an appropriation ordinance, the Mayor may approve or disapprove all or any part of the appropriation. If the Mayor disapproves an ordinance, tax levy, or appropriation, the Mayor shall return it with a statement of the Mayor's objection, to the City Council within fifteen (15) days and the City Council shall, at its next meeting, reconsider the ordinance, tax levy or appropriation item. If after reconsideration it again passes by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all City Council members, it shall be recorded and thereafter be in force. If any ordinance, tax levy or appropriation item is not returned within fifteen (15) days after presentation to the Mayor, it shall be recorded and thereafter shall be in force.
(Ord. 2000-14, 3-7-2000)
As for the question of whether the council has the inherent power to disapprove the sale or hypothecation of city-owned real property, both attorney Gary Williams and the council's own attorney (Name?) have adopted a legal interpretation of Utah law which supports broad powers on the part of the mayor, and exceedingly limited power on the part of the council.
It is an analysis to complicated to set forth in this comments section. Perhaps we'll post a more fleshed-out explanation in an article to come.
Rudi:
Thanks for the added info. So, the 2/3 majority works out to 5 of the 7 votes. Got it.
Rudi
How does that wash with the following from the Utah Code:
10-3-404. No veto.
The mayor of any municipality shall have no power to veto any act of the governing body unless otherwise specifically authorized by statute.
Gee, this is more confusing than I thought. Rudi, what you quoted is, I take it, an Ogden City ordinance. What I was remembering, when I said there's no veto power, was the state statute quoted by lionel. So I'll chime in on lionel's question: How can the city, by ordinance, effectively give the mayor veto power? Or more specifically, what happens if the mayor objects to an ordinance, returns it to the council, and the council again passes it by a simple majority but not a 2/3 majority?
Good question fellas.
Let me take a stab at it:
The term "governing body" is a term of art inapplicable to the Mayor-Council Optional form of government, the type of government that operates in Emerald City:
In most Utah cities and towns, the mayor is chair of the governing body and presides at all meetings of the governing body. Utah Code 10-3-403 The only exceptions are those cities organized under the council-mayor optional form of government. In this form, there is not one governing body but separate legislative and executive branches of government. The legislative branch (city council) chooses one of it members to chair its meetings. Utah Code 10-3-1213
A Word from Our Attorney
David Church, Esq.
(Mr. Church is a prominent Utah attorney, and a recognized expert on municipal law)
The term "governing body" only applies to municipalities which still retain the "traditional form" of government, wherein mayoral and council powers overlap.
Wow. This is getting really interesting. Can a city council, by ordinance, grant a mayor more power than he is permitted to exercise by state law? Can a city council voluntarily, by ordinance, surrender power it has under state law to a mayor who is not granted that power under state law?
I wonder, if the Mayor were to "veto" an ordinance under the power granted him via the City ordinance, that ordinance itself might be challenged in state court as violating state law?
I wonder if the Atty Gen'l could be induced to issue an advisory opinion on this?
And people say civics isn't fun.... [grin].
>>>>And people say civics isn't fun.... [grin].
Nobody on this forum of political junkies ever said that.
Thank Gog for this Blod!
No need for the Attorney General to issue an opinion when the Utah Supreme Court has issued many opinions over the years supporting the concept of complete separation of powers in the council-mayor form of government. The council controls legislative powers and the mayor controls executive powers. It's very much like the Federal and State systems.
Anon:
OK. That seems to settle it.... but we are dealing with statutes drafted, for the most part, by attornies, that are interpreted for mayors and councils by attornies, and that are, when challenged, parsed and construed by judges who are attornies... and after all, this is Utah, so I wouldn't be quite so certain that it's a moot point entirely.
I speak from experience, coming from The Bayou State, the Constitution of which flatly bans gambling. Yet Louisiana now has casinos. Lots and lots of casinos. How can that be? Why the good Christian gentlemen sitting as the Louisiana State Supreme Court ruled that while the constitution did indeed ban gambling, specifically and in no uncertain terms, it did not ban gaming. And so those good attornies in robes moved on to consider whether Harrah's Casino and all the others were engaged in "gambling" or in "gaming." And lo and behold, they found that the casinos were not engaged in gambling at all, but in gaming, which was no where forbidden in the state constitution. Whoda thunk it?
Did I mention that the state's solvency [and the judges' salaries] were reportedly dependant on the infusion of gambling... oh, I'm sorry, how careless of me... I meant of course on the infusion of gaming revenues into the state coffers? I didn't? How could I have forgotten that.....
"...when the Utah Supreme Court has issued many opinions over the years supporting the concept of complete separation of powers in the council-mayor form of government."
Wrong. There's one wrongly decided case... Martindale v. Anderson...a case decided by an interventionist, sixties-style Utah Supreme Court in 1978.
There are NO OTHER UTAH CASES preventing city councils from exercising legislatively-granted authority over the disposition of city-owned property, although some Utah decisions have tangentially cited Martindale on other issues.
You're either unfamiliar with the law, or a liar.
As a matter of fact, there's a 1979 Statute, enacted by the legislature post Martindale in 1979, which plainly and expressly overrules the Martindale decision, on the question of which branch of city government has the final say re property dispostions:
"10-3-1219.5. Council-mayor form -- Ordinances on transfer of municipal property and regulation of subdivisions or annexations.
In the council-mayor form of government, the council shall, by ordinance, provide for the manner in which:
(1) municipal property is bought, sold, traded, encumbered, or otherwise transferred; and
(2) subdivisions, or annexations are approved, disapproved or otherwise regulated.
Martindale is bad law.
Yet neoCON city governments across Utah cling to it.
Martindale needs to be re-visited by a modern, non-interventionist court.
We're not going to hold our breath for the timid Emerald City Council to challenge this bone-headed decision in court...
But mark our words... the lame-brain conclusion of some ULCT attornies that Utah Code Section 10-3-1219.5 is meaningless, will one day be overturned.
Rudi
Pardon me for interrupting the war of the lawyers over the proper make up of the supreme court, but...
Wasn't the answer to the root question of this thread--whether the mayor has power to veto an ordinance--found in the posting by anonymous about an hour or so ago. That anon post appeared to quote a state statute that clearly stated that the mayor has the power to disapprove an ordinance.
The question was answered. It would seem to be a benefit to all to leave it be, even though it was apparently posted by someone unacquainted with your disdain of anonymous postings. If nothing else you might at least post the code citation yourself, if you still have it.
If there is anything that can be done. I know that the mayor can do no wrong and so where is the beef. do you guys really think that you can take him out in nov. ha ha ha
Speaking of the mayor, this administrative review meeting should never be used as a means of public notice, nor should it qualify as a vehicle for his compliance as a public hearing. We are now 8 days past and the local paper has yet to report anything, we're still researching and will not be surprised to discover the public notice happened after the fact.
"Wasn't the answer to the root question of this thread--whether the mayor has power to veto an ordinance--found in the posting by anonymous about an hour or so ago?"
No.
It was your blogmeister who posted the citation to Ogden City Code section 2-8-2.
Try to keep up.
Bill:
Well, then, what is the purpose of the ARH? And what is the purpose of requiring [however briefly] some public notice of the meeting's being held? It must have originally had some purpose related to public notice of administrative action? Otherwise, why hold the meeting at all?
Not challening your summary, Bill, just trying to understand the purpose of these meetings in the larger framework of Ogden city government. Which, I have to admit, is taking on elements of "Trough the Looking Glass" the more I find out about it. Curiouser and curiouser....
So, my question would be: Has the mayor ever vetoed anything? And another partially facetious question: If he hasn't, did this forum unwittingly let the cat out of the bag? And finally: Is it such a bad thing that a mayor might have veto power? (careful rudi, I wouldn't want you to injure yourself ;)
Curm, other than what I posted a couple of of days ago, I have no answer, yet. Monday I will get all the details from the recorder's office. I did mention before that the deputy recorder knew very little about it, which makes me wonder what entity is responsible for keeping the minutes. The planning commission staff is responsible fot thier minutes, the recorders serve that capacity for the council, may be that the mayor's staff takes those minutes, his staff assumed new duties as call screeners for his call in show this month that included a new paranoia driven format, no on air questions fot the mayor, rough sleddin' on the 9th floor.
Rudi,
It was a state statute that 'Bring it Back" was referring to, not the city ordinance you mentioned.
I've found the statute at 10-3-1214 of the Utah Code. It states that a mayor may dissapprove passage of an ordinance in the council-mayor form of government. In fact, if you look closely, the city ordinance seems to follow the statute word for word.
So, all this discussion about the city council being prohibited from granting the mayor veto authority appears to be misguided.
Here's is the statute:
§ 10-3-1214. Ordinance adoption under council-mayor form -- Powers of mayor
In municipalities organized under the council-mayor form of government, every ordinance or tax levy passed by the council shall be presented to the mayor for his approval or disapproval. If the mayor approves the ordinance or tax levy, he shall sign it and it shall be recorded and thereafter shall be in force. If the ordinance is an appropriation ordinance, the mayor may approve or disapprove all or any part of the appropriation. If the mayor disapproves an ordinance, tax levy, or appropriation, he shall return it with a statement of his objections, to the council within fifteen days and the council shall, at its next meeting, reconsider the ordinance, tax levy or appropriation item. If after reconsideration it again passes by a vote of at least two-thirds of all council members, it shall be recorded and thereafter be in force. If any ordinance, tax levy or appropriation item is not returned within fifteen days after presentation to the mayor, it shall be recorded and thereafter shall be in force.
Damned:
You wrote:
Is it such a bad thing that a mayor might have veto power?
Interesting question. In circumstances in which there is a true separation of powers [executive/legislative], it's not a bad thing at all. It's a check on the "runaway" majority which, theory holds and experience confirms, is occasionally swayed by emotion and momentary enthusiasms, and so a "check" by more sober executive is a good idea [all together now, every one say "Rep. Buttars"]. Provided the check can be over-ridden by a super [usually 2/3] majority of the legislative branch [on the theory that while momentary ill-considered passions and prejudices may occasionally sway a majority in a legislative body, they are unlikely to sway more than two thirds of such bodies without sound reason --- a theory not entirely supported by experience].
Now, the question is, is such a veto power a bad idea in the hands of the Mayor of Ogden [whoever at any given moment, he or she might be.] Since under Utah law the mayor in the mayor/council form of government has so much power, and the legislative branch [council] has so little, I'm not sure the veto power requiring a super majority to override is as useful and as justifiable a power is it is in, say, a governor's hands. The field already seems to be strongly tilted in the executive's [i.e. mayor's] favor. Given that, adding in the power to thwart the will of a majority of the elected council with respect to ordinances may not be a good idea at all.
Arguments on both sides, I guess.
New comments are not allowed.