A Planning Commission heads-up; and a report on last night's City Council meeting
By Dan Schroeder
Pop quiz: What document from the Ogden City Administration proposes that the Mt. Ogden golf course be redesigned to be more "playable", that the golf clubhouse be relocated to a mixed-use center at the top of 36th Street, and that the trails around the golf course be "enhanced"?
(a) The gondola FAQ, posted in April 2006 and still prominently posted on the city's web site;
(b) The draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, just released and posted right below the gondola FAQ on the city's web site;
(c) Both of the above.
Please, if you have time, take a look at both of these documents and see for yourself. But because the Mt. Ogden Community Plan is scheduled for a public hearing at 7:00 pm tonight (Municipal Building, 2549 Washington, 3rd floor), I'll go ahead and tell you right now that the answer is (c). That's right, the draft Mt. Ogden Community Plan includes three of the same components as the Peterson landgrab "proposal".
To be fair, the Mt. Ogden Community Plan also contains sections that directly contradict the Peterson proposal--like keeping the golf course and adjacent park lands as open space. So maybe the Plan isn't using the words "playable" and "enhance" in the same Orwellian senses as the landgrab proposal. But the Plan certainly doesn't define these words, and I'm at a loss to guess what they're actually intended to mean.
I urge all Mt. Ogden Community residents (east of Harrison, from 26th to WSU) to attend tonight's hearing and tell the Planning Commission what changes you would like to see in the Plan. One word of advice, though: Don't mention the Peterson landgrab. If you do, they won't listen to you. Argue for or against the components of the Plan on their own merits (or lack thereof), and based on what residents said they wanted during the public input meetings.
Meanwhile, at last night's City Council work session, planning director Greg Montgomery pulled out all the stops and put on a terrific show to explain why the Council should disregard the recommendation of the Planning Commission and eliminate Ogden's prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% (as well as the density limits on somewhat shallower slopes in the foothills). In his heroic effort he received considerable support from Councilman Safsten (who repeatedly described the current limits as "arbitrary and capricious") and Councilman Stephenson, as well as from development director Dave Harmer who was sitting in front of me in the bleachers.
Here is Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke's report on the work session.
During the two-hour discussion there was only one mention, by Councilwoman Van Hooser, of the elephant (named Peterson) in the room. I'd encourage Rudi to give her a WCF tip o' the hat for her courage.
As Schwebke says, the Council took no action. More specifically, they agreed to give the Planning Commission a chance to clarify its recommendation regarding hillside development before they proceed. This may have been appropriate, because the Planning Commission has expressed a desire to make further changes to the city's foothill zoning ordinances, perhaps moving the slope/density restrictions out of the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance and into a new base zone for foothill residential areas.
Coming back to the elephant in the room, unfortunately it seems to be alive and well--despite Rudi's obituary last month. On Monday I had a private conversation with the mayor and although I was trying to keep the subject focused on points that we could agree on (regarding transit), he kept bringing up the "gondola project". He gave no specifics on how the proposal might change in light of WSU's position. He gave no hint regarding when we'll even hear any more specifics. But he made it absolutely clear that this project is still his number-one priority.
Editor's Addendum: By all means, Dan. A Weber County Tip O' the Hat to councilwoman Van Hooser! She's proven to be a very quick study. She has mastered her council role in record time, we think, and has demonstrated that she's one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courageous members of our Emerald City council. Her strong leadership skills are also undeniable; and we do hope she'll be throwing her hat into the ring for election to her at-large "A" council seat this year.
And speaking of the wonderful Emerald City council, don't miss our latest city council report, wherein Curmudgeon skillfully details the events of last night's council meeting.
We thank Dan Schroeder and Curmudgeon for this morning's most excellent Weber County Forum contributions.
Don't let the cat get your tongues, oh ye ever-gentle readers.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
79 comments:
Gosh! I'm so impressed with the excellent and insighful reporting from Dan and Curmudgeon.
Thank you both so much for your willingness to inform this readership so well.
Just once, I'd like Schwebke to do what Curm did: Repaeat some of the remarks by attendees. It's helpful to know who was up there and what they had to say.
Also helpful (for the upcoming election) to read the remarks from Council members and admin.
Woo Hoo Susan! Thanks for being bold enough to say the elephant is in the room....just like we need to say the little emporer left his clothes in the dressing room.
Reading Schwebke's report this morning gave me the opportunity to see how well I can memorize. When he brought up the Peterson deal..he segued into the trail, gondola and its route. I knew it all by heart! This exercise is good for the brain. Staves off Alzheimer's and we can thank Schwebke for keeping us healthy. Too bad his award for excellence in reporting didn't mention this vital component of his efforts.
But Dan and Curm...my thanks to you both...well done!
Dan,
Please be more fair and complete with the comments made last night.
#1) My comments included concerns about the reason why we have 30% slope restrictions. Aren't there times when the geologists say that properties less than 30% are unsuitable for building and properties more than 30% are perfectly suited for buildings? The answer is yes. So, why do we need a 30% requirement with no other substantiation required? Anyone close to the issue has to admit that the ordinance must be more specific and according to science, not an arbitrary and capricious number like 30%.
#2) If we can forget about the gondola for even a couple of minutes, there are 100's of acres of undeveloped sensitive overlay land zoned for residences in several different parts of Ogden (including 42 undeveloped acres 1 block from my residence). Why, for the sake of avoiding discussion of the non-existant gondola proposal, do we live with an ordinance written 26 years ago based solely on earthquake faultlines, disregarding things like liquifaction, debris plumes, water runoff, and our antiquated fire-friendly landscapping requirements?
#3) I agreed with Jesse Garcia's proposal that we not act hastily on this issue and that we get more recommendations from the Planning Commission. By the way, that was the consensus of the council.
#4) I brought up the issue of habitat corridors to be considered with the overall sensitive overlay question. I didn't hear anyone else talk about that.
Your introduction makes unfair implications on my part. In fact, we are just asking questions. Isn't that what is supposed to be happening?
I stated last night that our sensitive overlay ordinance should be consistent with the geological science that determines whether, or not, it is safe to build in certain areas.
If we want increased open space, it is easy enough to do. All the council needs to do is zone land as O-1. Greg M. repeated that last night.
In the meantime, if we are going to have sensitive overlay lands zoned for residential development, let's do it consistent with science and facts, not an an arbitrary number that our current ordinance doesn't even justify.
Sincerely,
Rick Safsten
I served on the Mt Ogden parks and recreation subcom last fall and as far as I can recall, none of us talked about moving the Golf Course club house to 36th St. (I did miss one meeting). I know that some Mt Ogden golfers have talked about this in a letter or two to the SE, but again, this was not a recommendation from our subcommittee. I will be interested to hear tonight where the PC got the idea to include this in our neighborhood plan.
Isn't the ardent Montgomery Godfrey's uncle?
I think another of the mayor's relatives is employed in Ogden City.
Is this nepotism? Should we be skeptical of Mr. Montgomery's push for building on a 30% PLUS slope?
At this point, my paranoia over anything presented by this Godfrey/Montgomery/Harmer trio is running rampant.
I'll have to take my psych drugs again.
Dear Mr. Saften, if one takes out lands specific to the Peterson(non proposal) there are relatively few areas of concern. In fact Montgomery has said that since the adoption of the slope prohibitions, only one, I repeat "ONE" property owner has even inquired. I ask you,Peterson and Godfrey aside, what's wrong with leaving the remaining parcels on 30% or steeper slopes alone, AS OPEN SPACE, this serves to protect the beautiful unique setting Ogdenites enjoy, and the rest of the wasatch front envies. I wish you could see that your zeal for the position you're defendinding is a waste of energy if it weren't for the elephant in the living room. People can read your loyalties quite easily, step back and divest your mind of this non-proposal and you see what I'm telling you.
Mr. Safsten:
Do you know what the word capricious means? Do you know that its use is entirely inappropriate in your above context? Do you still think a $50 million urban gondola to nowhere is a good idea? Are you still huffing the toxic fumes of lies and fantasies emanating from Wayne Chase Peterson and Little Matty Godfrey, who live in an alternate world of their own delusion>
Good point, Bill,
Quite obviously, the only place in town with slopes approaching and exceeding 30% is the top of the foothill. Any parcel with that slope profile is part of the current mountain panorama. Development of these parcels would seriously impact Ogden. The visual impact alone of a handful of obscenely large custom mansions on the private parcels or strands of uniformly unique Peterson Villas on the golf course land is quite unacceptable. Ogden's economy is not based on new homebuilding so why start now. The foothill land resources are limited. Why not protect them. It has been shown that redevelopment adds far more value and pride in a community.
Jason, You have mentioned several times "Wayne Chase Peterson" I'm quite sure you have the names crossed up. If so you are defaming the Wayne. Our man here is Christian Peterson. If you can document that Christian is indeed Wayne please refer.
On the Council Work Session Last Night:
I was there for the first hour and my remarks are therefor necessarily limited to what I saw during that time.
(a) I was surprised that the main focus of Mr. Montgomery's remarks were aimed at undoing the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He seemed to imply, while I was there, that the Planning Commission was opposed to changing the limit on building on slopes over 30%. I attended PC work sessions and regular meetings involving this, and the clear impression I got was that the PC was amendable to changing the 30% slope limit but only at the same time as it adopted a "foothills zone" not unlike Salt Lake City's, or some other means, to encourage clustering on sloped properties to preserve open space. The PC twice [at the work session and at its formal session] made it plain that it did not want to take off the 30% slope limit until it had completed work on the other provisions. Taking out the 30% limit before doing the rest, the members thought, would provide a window of opportunity for developers to rush through development permits before the Foothills zoning could be established.
(b) Some of the arguments he used seemed to involve special pleading to me. For example, the fairness argument... showing pics of a house in the SAO zone that had to obey the restrictions of the zone in re: slope and a property right next door, same slope, that did not. Well, the same could be said of every place in the city where two zones abut. One property is zoned residential; the property right next door is zoned commercial. One owner can do things because of the zoning the other can not, and the two properties are separated only by an imaginary line. Drawing such distinctions, which require fixed lines, is more or less what zoning ordinances do. So that particular argument seemed beside the point to me unless Mr. Montgomery wants to suggest eliminating all zoning lines as arbitrary and unfairly conferring development rights to some denied to others.
(C) the "we're going to get sued if we keep the 30% rule" argument. Well, Mr. Montgomery himself has noted on other occasions that the city is going to get sued "no matter what." Which is true enough. I noted for all the warnings about being sued he and Mr. Harmer issued last night, neither of them came up with examples of Utah cities with slope restrictions [and most have them] that have been successfully sued. Not one. And I noticed that the bill to limit cities' abilities to restrict construction on highly sloped land failed in the last legislature. Mr. Montgomery said it will come up again. I have no doubt that it will. Banning legislators from taking free meals and Jazz tickets comes up every session and hasn't passed yet either. Nor while I was there lat night did Mr. Montgomery refer to the opinion by the state agent who monitors such things that slope restrictions are not illegal under Utah law. He may have mentioned that later.
I think the Council, if that's what it did last night, decided wisely to delay adopting the current proposed ordinance until it sees what the Planning Commission sends up by way of provisions regarding a foothills zone and/or transfer of development rights designed to encourage clustering and preserving open space on sloped properties.
What Mr. Montgomery seemed to be arguing while I was there, was that the Council should proceed with the staff recommended ordinance [not the PC one], which simply eliminates the 30 % limit quickly, without creating a foothills zone. And if that's what he was arguing, that brings us right back to the elephant in the room. Who could it be who might be interested in having the slope restriction taken off without a foothills zone being created? Hmmmmm......
Safsten said:
"If we can forget about the gondola for even a couple of minutes"
This of course is the new direction the Gondolistas have been trying to take us for the last several months. Just get us to forget the stupid thing long enough for them to sneak it in the back door.
It is sort of like the carnival barker who diverts the sucker's attention to which shell has the pea under it, then viola! take their money.
These Godfreyites are getting to be masters of the old slight of hand tricks which all involve diverting the public's attention just long enough to pick their pockets. They did it with the Mall finance deal, and in all the rest of their financial disasters that has Ogden on the road to bankruptcy. It has worked for them in the past so they continue to play us for the sucker.
It will be a great day this November when we shed ourselves of this incompetent and disingenuous gang of losers, and bring integrity back into Ogden city government.
Sharon:
You wrote: Just once, I'd like Schwebke to do what Curm did: Repaeat some of the remarks by attendees.
Not Schwebke's call. The paper's policy is to isolate out one topic from each Council meeting night, and feature that in a story the morning after. [Possibly dealing with a second topic later in the week.] And he has limited space reserved [since the paper is largely made up well before the meetings end] in any case.
I agree I would like to see better [i.e. more extensive] coverage of Council meetings in the SE, but the present scope of the coverage is the result of editorial policy. It's not Mr. Schwebke's call, though he does get to decide what issue to highlight in the morning-after story.
By the way, this policy naturally highlights he public's sense of division and disagreement on the Council, since any matter about which there is substantial disagreement invariably becomes the topic of the Council story the morning after. Much of what the Council does involves a great deal of cooperation among the members, and between the members and the administration. That rarely gets reported and so, I think, the public can get the impression that there is more division and even acrimony on the Council as it does its work than there may in fact be.
I know some Council members are concerned about the paper creating this impression. [See Councilman Stephen's remarks last night, e.g.]
Thanks, by the way, for the compliments.
Apology/correction
In my notes on the Council meeting last night, there are several references to "Deviance Academy." Sigh. I meant "DaVinci Academy" of course. My spell-checker didn't like "DaVinci" and in a moment of carelessness I hit "replace" instead of "ignore" and it changed them all. I changed one back, but forgot about the others. My apologies to students, teachers and fans of DaVinci Academy. I was not trying to be snarky or to editorialize.
Wayne Peterson is the legal name of our man who is going to save us all with a fairy-tale castle built without roads and gold-glided urban gondola; you'd have to ask him (call Fantasy Land and ask for Mr. Winky) why he goes by Christian. If you do get in touch with him, ask him how he's coming along with the assembly of his second Squirrel Patrol. Nuts! Get 'em!
Dear Councilman Safsten,
Thanks for joining the discussion. I'm sorry I didn't have time to report on last night's meeting in more detail, or to record every nuance of the Council's discussion and your various contributions to it. You're right to point out that much more was said than what I reported.
I stand by my characterization of what Mr. Montgomery was trying to accomplish, and of the way you repeatedly (at least three times) chimed in with the words "arbitrary and capricious".
When I have more time I'd like to respond to some of the further details you mention above, and also explain why I think it's important to include hard slope-angle-based restrictions on foothill development. But I'm afraid that will have to wait.
Stephenson and Saftsen’s comments on Smith’s letter, and most of the rest of what they said, were mostly fatuous recitations of Godfrey’s talking points masquerading as their own carefully-considered thoughts. Just as an example – Stephenson says the $35 million of city money spent or pledged so far on the mall project could not have been used for infrastructure, but not to worry, they’ve been talking about infrastructure with the mayor. Well then Brandon, I guess Godfrey’s cronies can thank you for the CASH, and the rest of us can thank you for the HOT AIR. The rest of his comments are an even greater collection of falsehoods, slogans, and platitudes.
As far as Saftsen’s comments above – if he believes in the oft-stated community value of open space, then will he be making a motion to zone the foothills as O-1 as he discussed? Of course he won’t. So thanks for giving us another dose of your gas, Rick.
On another track, “right on” to Stephens for his comments listing the following values:
Preserving open space, public education, public safety and law enforcement, drug problems - you know, stuff the government is SUPPOSED to be involved with.
But now, when will Stephens get to work on these issues? The answer is: Never. My sense is that in their work sessions, Staff controls the agenda, meaning the council basically spends their time trying to figure out where Godfrey’s booby traps are, as well as taking hard sell from city employees like the 2 hours of it they had this last session.
Council needs to start setting their own agendas instead of letting Staff do it. They need to talk about, and take action on, the things THEY think are important, and DUMP the rest of it. When THEY call Staff in, they should give them a strict TIME LIMIT on speaking and they should give time limits to each other, so they don’t have to spend all night listening to Saftsen. Only when the council begins to fulfill its proper role can things truly change.
I was on the committee for the community plan that recommended changing the location of the golf course clubhouse to make the course more marketable and so the clubhouse could be used as a hiking center. It wasn’t my idea, but the golfers on the committee were quite interested in it. From what I’ve read of the plan it appears to reflect our feelings quite well. It is strong for preservation of open space and moreover, it suggests increasing open space by buying more land and obtaining easements from property owners. So off hand I didn’t see anything sinister lurking in it.
Danny:
You wrote: As far as Saftsen’s comments above – if he believes in the oft-stated community value of open space, then will he be making a motion to zone the foothills as O-1 as he discussed? Of course he won’t.
Well, it's a little more complex than that. Much of the land it privately owned, and if the city rezones it 0-1 [meaning not development, no building], that courts have ruled constitutes a "taking" for which the owners must be compensated by the public. People have a right [consistent with zoning requirements] to develop their property. And if you bought property zoned R and the city now rezones it O-1, eliminating entirely your ability to develop it and profit from it, the courts have ruled that something of value has been taken from you, by the public, for which you must be compensated. It's not an unreasonable position, and it is one the courts have upheld.
You can change zoning in Utah, so long as some development potential remains, but if you "take" it all, the city has to pay for the lost value of the developable land.
So it's not as simple a matter as your post suggests to simply Zone it all 0-1.
David S.
Thanks. Good to hear from someone who was on the inside of the committee meetings.
Dear Mr. Smith, I must have mis-read you. What pray tell would be a hiking center? Is one needed? If so, would it not make more sense to build a stand alone facility,at the top of 29th st. ? This clubhouse deal would have made sense when the course was built, but now the are many potential problems that come into play,(no pun) $$$$$$. Not only $ but conjestion on 36th st. and limited space. Imagine a larger parking lot at the top of 36th st. Several of your fellow committee members asked me about this, and told me Montgomery was pushing hard for this.You may remember his suggestion to replace the current parking lot with a culdasac with large homes. The staffing requirements for a hking/biking/wintersport facility would have to be a completely separate entity. If such a facility has enough merit,fine, pursue it on its own merits. This example, as well as a few others have been purposely inserted by Montgomery to leave an open door for Godfrey/Peterson. It may express some desirous intention with regard to the public property, but in no way does it simply state, no, hands off, which you must confess, is the intention of 90% + of the residents of that community.
Oh, I forgot, I enjoyed your letter Mr. Smith. Both times, lastnights reading was interesting.
David S.,
I wasn't on the land use committee (though it was my first choice request). But everyone on the committee seems to agree that the idea of relocating the clubhouse came from staff (Greg Montgomery). Greg is very good at distorting the facts to sway people toward his point of view.
But step back and ask, what would be the actual advantage of the relocation? Why would this make the course any more marketable? Why would a relocated clubhouse be any better suited for other recreational uses? All I can think of is that the views to the west would be better from the higher ground at the top of 36th, and the clubhouse would be closer to some of the trails and to WSU. Ok, I'll grant that those could be advantages.
Now, what are the disadvantages? While the view to the west is better from the top of 36th, the view of the cliffs to the east is definitely better from the current location. While a "hiking center" (whatever that is) might be more feasible at the top of 36th, the proximity to tennis, soccer, and other park activities is better at the current location. So these issues are probably a wash, at best.
Meanwhile, I can think of lots of other disadvantages to putting it at the top of 36th. The land up there is pretty steep, and flattening a big enough space for a clubhouse, putting green, and 100-car parking lot would be an aesthetic and ecological disaster. Picture large retaining walls, a steep access road, and plenty of storm water runoff. There would be serious impacts to the trails in that location. And who gets to park on the lot? Golfers and hikers and anyone else visiting the clubhouse may have to compete with WSU students for parking spaces. If the lot fills there will be no decent space for overflow parking, at least when school is in session at WSU. For a restaurant (or any other commercial business) at the clubhouse to be viable, there needs to be ample parking at least within a two-block walking distance. The clubhouse would add traffic to 36th Street which is already congested on school days, and this traffic will not help attract visitors to the clubhouse area. Finally, a commercial zone at the clubhouse location would be a source of light pollution right next to the WSU observatory area where we depend on having moderately dark skies.
Somehow I doubt that Greg brought up any of these disadvantages.
I was on the Parks committee.
I agree with the downside aspects of the clubhouse move. That, and the restaurant in the clubhouse were the only times on the committee that there was disagreement, that I recall. It was disappointing to me that the golfers were so strong in pushing for it. Monty may have initiated it – I don’t remember – but there were a couple of golfers who really pushed it. Monty is sly but we shut him down pretty fast if we didn’t like what he was bringing up, and most of the ideas raised were ours – at least it seemed so to me.
As far as my view, I'd just a soon leave the clubhouse where it is and skip the restaurant.
If you’re worried about this community plan being a sneak attack, please see the wording for Section 9 on page 14.J.21. I thought it summed up the feeling quite well.
I was on the Parks subcom and am a golfer. I did not push for a relocation of the club house. I may have mentioned that a letter to the SE from a Mt Ogden golfer did bring this up, but I didn't push this idea. Several of us did talk about trying do improve the restaurant in the club house. Again, I did miss one meeting. That said, I don't recall this item - moving the club house to 36th St - being in the final draft of our subcom that was presented at Ogden Middle School. But, alas, my memory isn't what it used to be ... or maybe it is, I don't remember.
HAY!
I was just rereading this letter, and I finally figured out what the dizzy blonde airhead meant when she talked about getting aboard the G-Train!
THE FRICKIN' GRAVY TRAIN!!!!
TK,
My experience on that committee left me with a greater appreciation of my neighbors and what intelligent, caring, and informed people they are. I commented to my wife after one meeting that these people are another good reason to live here. I just feel bad that I don't remember most of your names!
I do agree that the idea of moving the club house was not one that had rousing or universal support. But as I looked at the draft and saw all the stuff about preserving and increasing open space I felt pretty good about it. Maybe we need to look into getting the part about moving the clubhouse taken out. It seems to be bothering people and I never liked it anyway.
Danny,
I think you are confused. Actually none of my comments in last night's meeting had anything to do with the mayor. Please try to be more accurate.
The only comments I made replied to comments a citizen had about black SUV's parked in front of the DaVinci Academy which was inexplicably vacant and somehow wondering if the "shadow government" in Ogden had anything to do with that situation. Councilmember Wicks reminded the citizen that it was spring break which is why there were no students at the Academy that day.
Curm is exactly right with regards to the "takings" issue. There are some serious questions the city must deal with regarding sensitive areas which are zoned as "Residential" and are currently vacant. The council really can re-zone those properties as O-1 (non-buildable lands), if it wants to, but there will be a price.
The "takings" issue makes the land which is currently zoned as O-1 very valuable as open space.
I do look forward to hearing reasons why the restriction should be 30% and not 38% or 24%. That will help to answer the "arbitrary and capricious" issue.
Sincerely,
Rick Safsten
This is very funny. This clownish Safsten Schmuck, who works as a middle level manager at a company that makes AIRBAGS, is suddenly and consistently trotting out the term "arbitrary and capricious".
This term is of course a legal "word of art," one that airbag manufacturing employees seldom use, either in their personal lives, or the workplace.
The significance of Safsten's use of terminology such as this, is that "arbitary and capricious" decisions of legislative bodies (such as the Ogden City Council) can sometimes be overtuned in court, under the constitutional rational basis test"".
This language of course obviously comes from Chris Peterson's hired mouthpiece Tom Elliison, who is evidently threatening a lawsuit, even before the MT. Ogden Park property is conveyed by Godfrey to his idiot crony, Peterson, for pennies on the dollar.
This moron Safsten is obviously parroting what Mayor Godfrey has told him about this.
If anybody had any lingering doubts about whether to run Safsten out of town on a rail in November, those doubts should now be resolved.
Mr. Safsten:
Again, did you drive down to the Weber County Library, check out a dictionary (you obviously don't own one), and look up the word capricious to see if it is relevant in the context of a slope building prohibition? You might have to climb off the G-Train before doing so. You have a choice: be a hero or a zero. Become learned or stay an ignorant Godfrey sycophant and believer in the vague notion that Wayne Peterson (who has told you through so many hush-hush, VIP, sit-down, "we'll never tell" conversations) will one day own Snowbasin (he won't), and that Ogden will connect via an absurd $50 million urban gondola, and that you idiots will be vindicated. Problem is, you, Gondola Godfrey, and countless others (ask Curt Geiger if he thinks Wolfgang Puck is going to open a bistro in Malan's Basin -- THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE) who are too stupid to open their own doors believe Wayne. Tisk, tisk.
Mr. Curmudgeon and Safsten
Can you please elaborate on the "taking" issue?
If a city down zones a property from say R4 to R1 for instance, is it a "taking" because it devalues the property on the market? Would the city have to pay the property owner the difference in value between R4 and R1?
Can you cite the law and any cases on this?
Thanks, appreciate you both.
How appropriate that Rick Safsten works at an airbag factory. That certainly fits with his performance on the council where he so often praddles on in rhapsody to the sound of his own voice. He seems to talk a lot and say little. What he does say almost always puts him in compete harmony with Mayor Godfrey and out of step with his constituents in the Mt. Ogden area. It will be interesting to see what those folks think about him come election time.
To various posters:
If the silly flatland downtown two-right-angle 35 to 50 million gondola were abandoned by the Mayor tomorrow as a bad idea [from my keyboard to God's ear!] and he similarly abandoned the foolish idea of selling the Mt. Ogden parklands for development as an upscale vacation villa walled community [again, from my keyboard to God's ear!], Ogden would still have to deal with revising its now two decades old Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance.
And it needs to be revised and updated. And when that is done, the question of whether the flat 30% slope restriction should be retained or altered is a question open to debate and discussion, grounded on sound evidence. My own view is that it ought to be retained. As Dan S. is going to make that case [and he can make it far better than I can, being as he is far more familiar with the research and evidence involved], I'll pass on it for the moment. But I'm hard put to criticize someone, particularly a Councilman, for asking that the case be made and the evidence be laid out.
Where I differ as well with Mr. Safsten is on what I think is his assumption [and it certainly is the assumption of the majority on the Planning Commission] that the matter can and should be discussed in isolation from the 800 Pound Gorilla in the room, the Peterson [Non]-Proposal. It can't be.
And it's not the gondola/gondola/Peterson scheme opponents who are keeping the issue front and center. It is the Administration. The administration that courted the Ellison Ordinance [on MU development], which Mr. Montgomery [who reports to the Mayor] recommeneded to the PC. When the PC looked at it, it made changes to 70% of the text. And it's not the gondola/gondola scheme opponents who have kept posted, on the city website, gondola/gondola FAQS for over a year now, including one still suggesting that the gondola/gondola will bring people from downtown Ogden to Snow Basin. By the thousands. Long long after Snow Basin made it plain that would not happen. It's the Mayor who has kept those FAQs and the false implication of a Snow Basin connection up on the city website. And it hasn't been Smart Growth Ogden that called for the already-endorsed by the Privy Council and the Wasatch Front Regional Council downtown to WSU transit corridor to be switched for a new corridor down Washington Avenue [which the WFRC says cannot be supported by sufficient use at the present time] in order to preserve the downtown to WSU route for the gondola proposal. It was the Mayor, who also has been dragging his feet for nearly two years on setting in motion the next step necessary to get the trolley funded, in order to preserve the route for his gondola scheme. The mayor. Not us. He's keeping the matter front and center. He's made it impossible to look at the MU ordinance and the SAO Ordinance revision in isolation from the gondola/gondola scheme. It's the Lift Ogden Amen Chorus that is parading citizen spokesmen and women before the Council weekly to give Gondola-is-Great-And-So-Is-Matt campaign speeches. I recall Mr. Spain of Provident Partners announcing he intended to have someone from his company there every week to do that.
However much Mr. Safsten would like to consider the SAO in isolation, however much in fact I would like the Council to be able to do so, it cannot be. The Mayor and his Lift Ogden Amen Chorus are making that impossible.
I wish that were not so. Truly I do. But it is. But I have no objection to Mr. Safsten [or any other Council member] asking that the facts justifying keeping the 30% ban be laid out and that the case be made on the evidence. No objection at all, particularly since I'm convinced the facts are on the same side I am in this matter.
So, tell Mr. Safsten you think he's wrong about the 30% slope matter, and about whether it can be considered in isolation, as I think he is. But attacking a Councilman or woman, any one of them, for asking that the facts supporting a particular policy option be laid out is both unwise and, in my opinion, unfair.
Knowles:
There is an opinion on what the takings law is in Utah by a state official whose job it is to monitor such matters. I've seen it and read it. There may be a link to it up on the SGO website [www.smartgrowthogden.org] but I'm not sure.
Let me email people I know who have a copy and get the specific reference for you, and the author, and his title, and if I can a working link to the text.
In a nutshell, in Utah, the law on takings at the moment seems to be this: a city can limit development on a property property by say altering slope requirements [and thus diminish its fair market value for development purposes], but that does not constitute a "taking" that must be compensated under Utah law so long as part of the propety can still be developed. Under Utah law, "takings" only apply when the city entirely eliminates the development value of a tract. Then the owner must be compensated. [Not an attorney; that's how the opinion I mentioned above read and was explained to me by an attorney. But I will get you the reference and, I hope, a link.]
Mayor Godfrey Wins an Award
We're pretty hard on Hizzonah here sometimes, and so in the spirit of fair play, I want to acknowledge an award the Mayor has recently won. The Salt Lake City Weekly's annual "Utah's Best" issue came out today, and on page 69 there appears the following award:
Best Barney Fife Immitation: Matthew Godfrey
Ogden's mayor became an amateur flatfoot after upset city cops took to the street in protest of their wages being tied to a ticket-writing quota. After spotting a van being used as a mobile protest billboard, Godfrey followed it until its driver was picked up by another car, then phoned in the license plates to the city's police chief. The plates came back registered to an Ogden police officer, who was placed on leave within hours in an action city officials insisted had nothing to do with the mayor's junior G-man stint.
I figure fair's fair. The man wins an award, we ought to note it here on WCF.
Curmudgeon
Was the "award" issued to the mayor soley on the undercover actions he took, or did the fact that he is a dead ringer for old Barney play a part in it?
Do they let Barney/Godfrey carry a gun, and if they do, do they give him only one bullet that he must carry in his pocket like Andy did with Barny?
And just where is old Andy these days when we need him to keep old Barney in line?
It does seems a bit sacreligious to Barney's memory to sully it by comparisons to Godfrey. Barney had a kind heart, Godfrey doesn't, Barney always meant well, Godfrey doesn't, Barney had integrity, Godfrey doesn't, Barney told the truth, Godfrey never does. Other than the looks and the constant bumbling, there really isn't much in common between the two.
Sure missed all you kids at the P/C meeting tonight.
I hope Dan will post here with another erudite analysis of what happened there.
I'm going to hit the feathers.
Another long session...but Boyer & CO talked for over 2 hours...so the Mt Ogden part started very late.
g'nite
Knowles-
I’m not a lawyer, but from what I do know this is probably the biggest issue in municipal zoning and land use today. There are essentially two types of takings, REGULATORY taking (to what extent can regulations reduce the value of property w/out compensation to the owner?) and a PHYSICAL taking (taking private property for a public purpose such as a school, park, etc.). It is derived out of the 5th Amendment-nor shall private property be taken for public use w/out just compensation.
Regulatory takings are kosher as long as the property owner is left with some type of economically viable use for their land. If they are not left with an economically viable use of their land then they would have to be compensated. So when downzoning occurs, as you referenced R-4 to R-1, then no compensation is required and its perfectly within the City’s powers to do so. If they would have downzoned from R-4 to Open Space, then you might have a gripe (although that would likely never happen). Of course there must be a substantive due process involved and it must follow a legitimate governmental purpose (ie changes in a general plan). It must not be arbitrary-it must target more than just a couple parcels or property owners; the larger the downzone the more it will be regarded as serving a legitimate public purpose.
There have been scores of Supreme Court cases over the years regarding this, some of the larger ones include Nollan v. California, Lucas v. South Carolina, and Penn Central v. New York City. I’m not aware of any specific Utah cases, but it is a pretty well established principal in planning. Real estate is a gamble, if your property gets downzoned, from say multi-family to single-family, then you may lose out in the end. But its what is good for the community that really should matter in the end. Zoning is a means to that end. No wonder why planners are often considered Commies.
I'm again in a rush but I'll say that my understanding of the legal situation on takings is pretty much consistent with what others have said above. As long as some economically viable use of the land remains, there is no "taking". This is a matter of federal constitutional law, not Utah law.
Let me add that the economically viable use criterion can be applied separately to each legally created parcel. So once a large parcel is subdivided into small lots, the city must allow some economically viable use of each lot. (The only exception would be if the city could prove that there is a public safety hazard that is so severe, it would justify the condemnation of existing buildings similarly situated.)
Ogden's current Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance plays a crucial role in the subdivision process, by requiring fewer lots on steeper parcels. Each lot is required to have sufficient area shallower than 30% to allow building a decent-size house. The larger lot sizes also give extra room for cuts and fills, meandering roads and driveways, stormwater management, and other engineering that's needed to build safely and aesthetically on steep terrain. If these slope and density restrictions are removed from the ordinance, the city will lose this additional control over the subdivision process. Then, if the city tries to deny a building permit on a too-small lot because there just isn't space to do it right, the owner could demand compensation under the "takings" doctrine.
By the way, I wish others on this blog would tone down the name-calling. I for one am glad that Councilman Safsten is participating, even though I don't think his apparent position on the slope issue has much merit. Councilman, I hope you'll ignore the name-calling and continue to participate.
I second the motion on councilman Safsten. Even tho he is a low down, no good #&%$##&%&#, we do luvs him.
Without him we would have a baffoonless council. Yes, I know you are thinking - well what about Stevenson? Fact is he is way to boring, stiff, humourless and stoopid to be in the baffoon category. Baffoonery involves a bit of humour, something Stevenson is completely devoid of.
We will have a significant adjustment to make come November when we won't have these two dipsoids to kick around.
The remarks about and to Rick Safsten are uncalled for. Rick is misinformed and it shows in his postings here and his comments at Council meetings.
I think he is a good hearted person and we shouldn't be denigrating his employment and calling him ugly names.
Disagree with his positions...but leave off the vituperative hits on his character.
Want to slam someone? Do it against the one who really deserves it: the little disengenuous, corrupt and ego driven Godfrey!
Wouldn't be nice if saften would stick up for the taxpayer once in a while and be his own man. but because he is tied into the secret board at the can building, I guess his hands are tied and that is too bad that he has gotten himself in this corner.
OK, this time real kudoes for Hizzonah.... From Charlie Trentelman's column in the SE this morning:
"Under instruction from Mayor Matthew Godfrey (thanks Matt!), a Sustainable Ogden committee is working up ways to cut greenhouse gases, promote alternative transportation and keep you and me alive."
Turns out, Ogden is among the leading communities in the state in this regard: "The city has already bought 750 Blue Sky units from Rocky Mountain Power," Trentelman reports, and that's enough according to Karen Thurber of Ogden's Community Development Office, to "offset 19 percent of Ogden's municipal electricity use and cut 900 tons of greenhouse gasses." This makes Ogden only the 4th "Blue Sky Visionary Community" in the state [along with those bastions of Zion liberalism, Park City, Moab and Salt Lake County! What is this world coming to?]
Trentelman's column, sparked by the report of Utah physicians that air pollution kills 1000 Utahans a year sickens a great many more, is well worth reading. Spring for half a buck if you don't already subscribe and pick up a copy. Today, Trentelman's column alone is worth the price of admission.
History of Ogden:
You wrote: Wouldn't be nice if saften would stick up for the taxpayer once in a while.
Permit me to remind you that Councilman Safsten was among the narrow Council majority voting "no" to the Mayor's plan to add two floors to the office building going up at the mall redevelopment site against the recommendations of the city's developer and consultant on the project. The two floors would have been added entirely at the city's financial risk if they could not be successfully leased out. By a one vote majority, the Council deemed the addition an unacceptable financial risk for the City. And Safsten voted with the majority. Had he not, Ogden taxpayers would be on the hook for construction costs of the extra two floors.
I've disagreed with many votes Mr. Safsten has cast, and I suspect [though I do not know for sure] that he and I are going to disagree about the gondola/gondola plan if anything ever actually emerges from the misty and unexplored land called "Peterson Proposal," but that doesn't require me to attack everything he's done, every vote he's cast on every issue. Most elected officials have mixed records in office. Even Mayor Matthew Godfrey [see Trentelman's column today].
I'm with Dan on the matter of bashing Councilpersons who post here. I wish they'd all post here, and so occasionally take the time to engage on the issues. WCF is a good forum for doing that. Hard to encourage that when they do join the discussion and draw name-calling as a result.
We're going to join in with Dan S, Peace Brother and curmudgeon, and remind our readers that having our city council members post their views here is a tremendous plus for this board, which is designed to promote thorough discussion of all important issues in Emerald City.
And we'll again reiterate that Rick Safsten, as well as all others who post here, are entitled to express their views, without being subjected to juvenile flame attacks.
Moreover, we've previously assured Mr. Safsten that we'll actively delete posts which resort to personal attacks, in order that he'll feel comfortable posting here.
We'll also add that we've come to know Mr. Safsten in private settings, and we believe he's an honest and decent fellow who does his level best to serve ths interests of his constituents.
What's more, we've read Mr. Safsten's above posts, and we do believe he makes valid points re the problem of "arbitrary and capricious" zoning decisions. Indeed, 30% slope building prohibitions are legally problematic, unless founded upon independent scientific/engineering bases.
Having said that, we confess we spent the whole day yesterday, and most of the evening, preoccupied with another web-based project; and we did not properly monitor yesterday's WCF comments.
At this point the posts which are most offensive have been standing now for almost 24 hours. To delete them now would be an indulgence, we think, in the old folk-phiosophy error of "shutting the barn door after the horses have escaped."
We're thus inclined now to let these posts stand, and offer our sincere apologies to Mr. Safsten. We'd like to have him feel comfortable posting on this board; and we promise him we'll do a better job of monitoring this site in the future.
What say our gentle readers?
Is our apology and promise to enable comments moderation sufficient for the future?
Or should we put the hatchet to some of the above comments?
We'd be especially gratified to hear from Mr. Safsten on this subject.
Well, as you say, Rudi...the barn door has been standing ajar for 24 hours now.
Mr. Safsten is a big boy, and he's already read these vile attacks.
I say they should probably be removed, but on the other hand, they do clarify our discussion on this point of personal attacks.
I hope Rick will continue to post here. I wish the others would also. I kinda think that some council members are castigated if they give their personal opinions here. I don't know how Rick is immune to that from his fellow council members.
Perhaps he can explain that?
I say we continue to call him on those points we think ridiculous, disengenuous and in error.
But, he's a good, likeable fellow and we all should display our manners and good breeding and stop the playground bullying.
(Godfrey and his sycophants are open game IMHO).
Ditto to Curm's post of 11:59 re: Ogden's clean air initiatives and the Mayor's efforts therein. If Ogden is going to be an outdoor rec/high adventure locale, we need to do what we can to get rid of the brown filth that too often covers our fair city.
"Mr. Safsten is a big boy, and he's already read these vile attacks."
Indeed!
Rick Safsten is a blue-collar lad from a blue-collar town on the seacoast of the State of Washington.
DEFINITELY NOT A PANTYWAIST.
Just for the sake of formality, I've emailed him our last post.
We're tendering our apologies to him for yesterday's inattention; and express that we do hope he'll be posting here again soon.
Enid Green is a "good and likeable" fellow also, but we all found out she wasn't a very competent legislator. I personally find it difficult to believe that Safsten could be likeable after observing him on the Dias the last few years. He routinely toys with persons speaking at the so called public hearings. He has a long history of rubber stamping every cockamamie money losing scheme Godfrey has cooked up. How can somebody be "good and likeable" when they have taken such a leading role in the rape of the tax payers of Ogden for the last four or so years?
On the 30% slope restriction. Does any one know if this comes from the UBC? If so, it is part of a national evolving standard for building that most cities adopt for their building codes.
If the 30% deal comes from there, then it most likely is the result of many years experience, a lot of engineering study and input, and exists because of real world cats-ass-trophies that resulted from people building on slopes of this magnitude. I do not think it comes from some arbitrary and capricious actions as Mr. Safsten seems to indicate. Very little in the modern building codes are arbitrary or capricious. The underlying purpose of the UCB is safety and protection of lifes.
There is plenty of evidence that building on steep slopes is a recipe for disaster. Houses sliding down hills is a fairly common event around here as well as every where else in the world.
I have a question for Mr Safsten, Did you know that the mayor spent another $45,000.00 on a lobbist for the state legislature. Can you or the mayor account for what we as taxpayers got for our $1,000.00 dollars a day from that lobbist. Just why was he hired and where is the accountiblity that goes with this type of expenditure?
Is there any reason why the mayor could not of picked up the phone and talked to me personally about any issue that he may have a concern with. He said that there is not enough communication between him and the council but not once did he call or write to me about any issue that were facing the citizens of Ogden.
Where as I had talked to many of the taxpayers about what and how I should represent them at the capitol.
After all Mark Johson and Bill Cook was there on many occasions and they could have done all the lobbing the city needed on their salary, So why, once again, was $45,000.00 spent on a lobbist from our tax dollars.
On likability in elected officials:
Doesn't matter. We elect public officials [presidents, congressmen, governors, state legislators, councilmen and mayors] to do a job. The election campaign is the job interview. What matters is how well they do the job we hire them to do. I personally don't much give a damn if my president, governor, senator, councilman or mayor is "a nice guy" or not. I want them to be effective elected officials and to make good decisions in office. If they do that, doesn't much matter to me if they're nice to old ladies, puppies, kittens and children and sing in the church choir. They can be mean as snakes off the job so far as I'm concerned, just so long as they're doing a good job when they're on the clock. So to speak. We've all paid a heavy price over time at every level for voting for candidates who seemed to be "really nice guys" and who turned out to be crooks or jaw-droppingly incompetent in office. A very heavy price.
[NB: nothing above is intended as or should be taken as in any way a comment on Councilman Safsten.]
Well, Ozboy...I concur with you that we've seen plenty of sliding homes in our neighboring towns.
Those restrictions ARE put there so we mortal fools who have to the largest, most obscene homes perched high above the po' folks don't come sliding down into our bedrooms in the midst of a mudslide or earthquake.
We ARE on a fault...it's only a matter of time.
If we aren't smart enough to protect ourselves and our neighbors, then restrictions based on SCIENCE must be in place!
On Ogden's Legislative Lobbyist:
Well, having a city lobbyist is not necessarily a bad idea. There are often many millions at stake for cities in legislative actions. What I'd like to know is this: (a) on what issues and pending legislation was Ogden's lobbyist instructed to engage by either the Mayor or the Council or both and (b) given that list, how did the lobbyist do? How many of Ogden's legislative objectives were achieved at the session and how many not? When we know the answers to those questions, we can then tackle the third question: (c) was the money to hire an Ogden city legislative lobbyist well spent? Did he [or she --- I don't know who the lobbyist for the city is] have a material impact on the outcome of matters of importance to the city?
(c)Is pretty much the question I think Neal H. is asking, but I don't think we can answer it soundly until (a) and (b) are answered.
It's probably OK for people to buld ther McMansions on plus 30% stable slopes. Assuming their foundations are locked into Granite... which condition doesn't exist adjacent to Odgen.
THe whole Ogden City East Bench consists of sediment and other geological accretions.
In layman's parlance, the whole East Bench is falling down."
...."My fair lay dee!" Falling down is right.
Leave the area alone. There is no need to be reworking the zoning and if Peterson hadn't wanted to find a beautiful treaure to rape, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Go build that damnable gated community somewhere where it will be welcomed!
Can anyone tell us what happened at last night's Planning Commission Meeting, in which the commission considered adopting the Mt. Ogden neighobrhood plan?
We've been teased for a week with WCF leadups to this meeting.
Can someone tell us briefly what happned last night?
Ya I was wondering the same thing. Have checked here and the standard examiner all day and nothing about it. It is an important meeting so wondered whats up.
Regarding the City Planning Commission meeting and the Mt. Ogden Community Plan. Did it get passed. Was it met with approval from the neighborhood? Please give an update.
curm,
your right on the money and I think that the citizens, are do the answers though, don't you. so if the S.E. should get a hold of this one, run to the 9th floor and ask the king to tell all will you. after all we could have bought a new humvee with that money. or at least brown a good lawyer, or paid of some intrest off the mall law suit. or give someone a better severance pay out. and the list could go on and on.
I didn't know that the city had play money like that!!!!!
and I have been writing all those tickets.
Make:
I suspect this may emerge as a campaign matter, & be asked about along the campaign trail. A refusal to answer will be, in itself, an answer. Early days yet.
And remember, asking the question at least leaves open the possibility [once the evidence appears] that the answer will be "yes, it was a wise expenditure of public funds, all things considered." Some posters are assuming the answer will be "no." I'm not. If it can be shown, for example, that the lobbiest played a material role in getting included in a bill or two provisions very beneficial to Ogden, that may more than justify the investment. Asking the quesiton as Neal H. did, is certainly fair play. It's just that we [meaning the general public I suppose] don't have the information we need yet to answer it convincingly one way or the other. Yet I said.
Doesn't the administration or Council do a periodic review of the lobbiest's work, as part of the process of deciding whether or not to renew the contract?
Work for 45 days and get $1000. bucks a DAY? Where do I send my resume?
I want on sue Wilkerson's G-Train (grave train, as some wag posted here) or was that G String?
Anyway, that's a lot of dough for a guy who lobbied heavily on Godfrey's orders to abolish the Civil Service Commission last year.
Of course, according to Mr. Jolley (and who wouldn't be jolley with and extra 45,000.?), he does 'work' for our city and some others too. I suppose he 'works' more than just 45 days while the legislature is in session....but still it's a lot of dough.
In fact, that's what Godfrey took from the snow removal fund to dump into the mall. oy vey.
Another factor involved in zoning is what will building on steeper slopes do to the overall panoramic view of the Wasatch Range?
Just look at the mountains from the Dee Events Center parking lot. Going up half the mountain, you'll see huge homes with highly visible, ugly retaining walls, one house higher than the other.
This area is South of WSU and the Mt. Ogden Neighborhood. I don't know if that area, along with the lower slopes where the lumpenproletariat live, even has a plan. If not, it sure would be nice for the residents to have one.
Do we want the rest of the mountains to look like this? I'm sure they are very, very expensive homes with wonderful views, but I consider them eyesores compared to how the original mountain looked.
Curm
The only thing that $45,000 bought the City at the 2006 legislation session was the ability for Cities to dissolve their Civil Service Commissions. This bill was introduced by Scott Jenkins and lobbied for by the Ogden City Lobbyist. Guess what? the Ogden City Council decided not to disolve the Commission, just a little slap in the face to the Godfrey Administration last year.
Money well spent? you decide.
Of course we have eminant domain this year, the minions are jumping with joy now, they cant wait to kick Grandma out of her house so we can build something for a private developer. It's the Un-American way aint it?
Just Another:
Three points:
(a) what happened in 2006 was last year, and the selection of matters on which the lobbiest was told to work on was not the lobbiest's responsibility. In 2006 it was the Administration's. Hence the Mayor ordering him to lobby to eliminate the Civil Service Commission and the Council refusing to do it when the law giving it that option passed. But I'm glad you reminded me of that. Yet another example of the Mayor being anti-labor. He seems to be very solicitious to the wants of his real estate developer friends, but as for Ogden city employees on the clock... not so much.
(b) I think the council balked at having the Administration being the sole instructor of the city's lobbiest this year. I believe that for this year's legislative session, both the Administration and the Council jointly selected the issues they wanted the lobbiest to work on. I don't know what that list included or how, overall, it came out. It would be interesting to know the answer to both of those questions.
(c) You focused on two high-profile bills, one each year, the passage of which you [and I] opposed. That can't be the full slate of the lobbiest's activities. [If it was, our questions about whether the city is getting its moneys worth is answered.] Lobbyists... good ones... don't just work on the passage of whole bills, they also work to insert or alter language in bills to the city's advantage. So, again, I wonder what he was told to work on, and what, overall, the results were. He may be worth every penny. He may not. Need more information to draw a firm conclusion.
We mustn't forget that Mr. Jolley is also on the payroll of numerous other cities and other lobbies too.
The parade of right wing socialists who now own our legislature makes for a fat and full economy for the lobbyist leeeches who ply their trade in Utah.
Jolly has other clients as well as Ogden. The $45,000 is just a small part of what he made this past legislative session to represent special interest groups in their rape of the puplic.
He spent what ever "Ogden" time he had on the emminent domain issue. That was Godfrey's number one priority in the legislature.
Seems to me that the legislature ought to do away with lobbiest altogether. None of them are working for the benifit of the public. All of their clients are looking for a special deal from the legislature, including Ogden city's corrupt administration.
Of course this will never happen with our current crop of crooked Republican white male momo's that have a stangle hold on the state. If they did away with the lobbiests they would lose all the perks, gifts and grease they get for doing all the favors. The Republican leadership of the house and senate will never allow ethics reform let alone a lobbiest ban.
All the reasons they give for keeping the status quo is just so much disingenuous tripe. Crap like "we need the lobbiest to keep us informed about important issues" or my favorite :We are offended that you think we are crooks, we do not need to ban gifts and special interest pressures because we are not crooks" Shades of Richard Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" speach.
Bottom line is that a lot of the people that have life time passes at the state legislature are in fact corrupt and incompetent. Especially the Republican leadership. I mean, what other state in the Union has a known gas thief as their Speaker of the House? Or a Senate President/real estate developer who pushes for a complete abandonment of all zoning laws?
I don't know how an honest guy like Neil Hansen can stand the stench of the place for forty five days.
Rudi
I have to agree with you 100%, leeches is a very good example.
It's about time for a shot of caffeine isn’t it? We have a few political things to talk about.
You know how to get in touch.
Wait, you mean some dumb shit got paid that kind of money for not living in ogden and was doing the job the mayor wanted done but wasn't willing to have the bb size testicles to do it!!! How do I put my name on the list because mine own understanding is my name has to be on the list for bids, where can I find that list?
The real kicker is that the king on the 9th floor didn't put the lobbing bid out to bid. I have always learned that competition brings out the better product. so why can the king just hand out a contract with no bid. what does the law say about bidding?
How many tickets did the city have to write to pay $45,000.00 for the lobbist. In my calulation that is 548 tickets at the cost of $82.00 per ticket. Lets screw the public somemore, this is fun.
Well, seems to me there is a disconnect about lobbiests someplace. We read in the papers about how legislators do the bidding of the lobbiests in Salt Lake [and in DC]. And then we hear that Ogden is throwing away money on a lobbiest. Hard to see how they can be so effective they run Congress and the Utah Legislature in one breath, and so ineffective its a waste of money to hire them in the other.
There are all kinds of lobbiests. Highly paid municipal and industry lobbiests [all together now, can we say "Energy Solutions?"]. There are public interest lobbies, generally supported by non-profits. There are citizen lobbiests concerned about a parituclar issue [e.g. a nursing home for vets in N. Utah].
And they cannot be simply banned. There is the first amendment, and the Constitution guarantees all the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, and lobbying is part of that process. And honest ones [yes, there are honest ones] provide valuable information to legislators who may know little or nothing about a particular issue on which they will have to vote.
So, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. [Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor is any member of my family employed as, a lobbiest.] Anyway, the question before us seems to me not to be "are lobbiests greedy corrupt SOBs?" but rather a much more limited, and for Ogden, important question: "Is the legislative lobbiest Ogden hires to represent the city's interests to legislators worth the money Ogden pays him? Are we getting sufficient bang for the buck, so to speak?"
The answer to that question is still, for me, "I don't know yet."
One more thing: it would be a mistake to bid out the lobbiest job. If you are going to hire one, you want the best you can find, not necessarily the cheapest. It's a talent. Spending 50K on a very good one may be a much wiser use of city money than spending 15K on a very poor one. It makes no more sense to bid out the lobbiest job than it would to bid out the lead entertainment acts for the County Fair. It may not be worth it for Ogden to hire any lobbiest [I don't know yet], but if the city decides hiring one would be a good idea, you absolutely don't want to bid this particular job out.
Can any one give an example of Godfrey ever putting out a bid for an Ogden contract? Seems like every bit of tax payer money he has doled out since he has been in office has been a no bid deal to one friend or another.
The biggest of them all was the no bid contract Godfrey gave to his boosters from R&O construction to build the high tech center. It was originally planned for $18 million. They now are talking $20 million. They will be lucky if it comes in under $25 million.
R&O has absolutely no incentive to save the tax payers any money. They are on a cost plus contract with no limits. The more public money they spend, the more profit they make. In essence they have a strong motive to go as far over the original costs as they possibly can.
But fear not citizens, the mayor has appointed the completely unqualified and incompetent wife of Curt Geiger, at $64,000 per year, to watch over R&O's shoulder and make sure they don't spend any more of our precious money than necessary.
I mean really, Rupert and his crooked rug merchant buddy couldn't come up with a better script than this, and as they have told us numerous times, they are serious big time Hollywood moguls. Heck, Rupert even made a film once that starred Dezi Arnaz Jr.
Gad is not a "rug merchant" he is a rug installer turned California State Insurance fund swindler.
Get your facts straight Cece before spouting off on fine men like Gad and Rup.
Jolley tol me last year that he works for Ogden, Murray and some other cities as a lobbyist. He also said, as we sat in the dining room at the Capitol, that Godfrey wanted SB229 to pass...Jenkins introduced it. It passed.
Jolley said, 'Godfrey wants the ED bill to pass..but I told him it's a no go this year...just forget it. We'll get it passed next year"....well THIS is next year...and it passed.
Does that answer your A and B questions for you, Curm?
I thought Gadi is (was?) a tile layer.
Is he wearing an orange jump suit yet or stripes?
We haven't heard from Rupert for awhile....he's not the 'producer' of those "Girls Gone Wild' videos who is now on the lam, is he?
To Cecil and Rup's Bud:
You people sure keep getting the facts mixed up here on this site.
The so called "California Insurance fraud" was not anything like you and the anarchist leaning SL Tribune are portraying it to be. Actually it is proof of how creative Rupert and Gadi are in their scripting of high quality major motion pictures.
The whole "Insurance Fraud" thing is a plot device brilliantly thought up by mostly Rupert, with a lot of help from Gadi and your very own Mayor Matt Godfrey. We have found your mayor to be extremely creative with make believe scenarios and were very pleased that he could help us script this major motion picture that we are producing.
We are making a high drama major motion picture about corruption in California government and we want a very believable "documentary feel" to the trial scenes that will be an intrigal and important part of this major motion picture that we are making in Hollywood.
We were going to build sets, for these Insurance Fraud trial scenes from our major motion picture, at a major motion picture studio but we decided it would be much more effective and realistic cinamatically if the Insurance Fraud trial scenes are filmed in a real California court room during a real trial instead of on a set in a major motion picture studio with actors.
So we very cleverly set this whole Insurance fraud story up in order to gain access to the real courts. We had to do it this way for realism. In order to achieve that we had to create a situation where the judge, bailiffs, court personel, lawyers, etc did not know it was not real because if they knew it was a movie they would try to act and as a result would not be believable because they were not real actors and as you know non actors trying to act always come across as amatuers trying to act.
This is a major motion picture and will be starring David Hasselhoff so we couldn't take any chances with the normal movie methods, which under the circumstances would make these all important Insurance Fraud scenes look un-hollywood and made up.
I know it sounds awfully complicated to you non-hollywood types, but you will just have to trust me on this.
Anyway, in the end of the movie Gadi, who will be doubling for Hasselhoff in these trial scenes, will be found innocent, which he of course is because, remember now, this whole Insurance fraud didn't actually happen because it was only written as a plot device by Gadi, Rupert and your very own Mayor Matt Godfrey to bring realism to this major motion picture starring David Hasselhoff who is a really big star and friend of Ruperts. Rupert by the way once met Pan Anderson and is thinking of starring her in his next epic movie about Mother Teresa going undercover with the mexican drug mafia.
If you naive people on this blog were part of the in crowd with our dear Friend Mayor Godfrey you would have been let in on these insider secrets. This is just too big and important stuff to be letting just any one in on our inner major motion picture production secrets.
But please rest assured good people of Ogden, this recent arrest and up coming trial of Gadi is all just part of the script. He is not a crook. (But he is still not going to give Checkers back and his wonderful wife is not going to give up her modest cotton coat).
Oh, wait a minute, that is a scene out of our next epic major motion picture that will be starring Carmen Electra as Golda Mier and Kevin Federline as Chriss Peterson in Jaws 4 which is a story about how a voracious thief ate an entire city's open spaces.
You may be happy to know that we are planning on shooting that major motion picture at the new Hollywood East Studios that we will be building where the Catholic Church is now located on Adams Avenue and 24th Street in your very own town of Ogden. We are working on the emminent domain issues now and will be tearing down that ugly old blighted eye sore as soon as we can get the neighbors to request an ED action on that area. We decided to take this route after we found out that 81% of the people in that immediate area were backers of Mayor Godfrey's visions and would gladly give up their own properties in order to gain the majority necessary to tear down that ugly old Catholic eye sore that is blighted so that we can build this magificent new major motion picture studio in Ogden to produce our all our major new hollywood motion pictures in.
I hope that this sets the record straight in regards to these so called "Insurance Fraud" rumours that have been spread around Ogden by the likes of that woman from North Ogden and other assorted naysayers who do not understand the intracies of the major motion picture business. (we call it the Biz)
And you will be happy to know that our new major motion picture studion on Adams in Ogden will be employing over two thousand of Ogden's young people in the future. We are also going to institute a major motion picture program at Weber State University to train all of our young people in Ogden in all aspects of major motion picture production.
We will be having the world premier of our new major motion picture which well be titled "Call In Fraud" (get it? short for California Insurance Fraud!) Just one more example of our creative genius.
So rest assured all of our thousands and thousands of friends in Ogden, Gadi is not a crook, and like Steve MaGarret in that famous Hawaii five O episode where he was shot on the beach and left for dead but returned triumphantly very much alive and in charge in the end, Gadi will be back very much innocent and in charge at the end of this major motion picture that we are making in a real California Court room instead of in a major motion picture studio in Hollywood.
I hope that this brief narrative will clear up any un answered question any of you might have about the true nature of these indictments that Gadi had served on him for California Insurance Fraud but which are really not because they are just plot devices we have brilliantly created for our major motion picture about California Insurance Fraud starring David Hasselhoff.
Sharon:
Well, no. If those were the only two things the lobbiest was working on, then I'm hard put to see how the city much benefited from his hiring. But I find it hard to believe those were the only items... one per year... on his list.
And what you've cited is evidence that he is pretty effective. He was given two goals. Within two years, both became law. That's a pretty good success rate.
The problem then would seem to be not with the lobbiest's effectivness, but with the choice of projects he was given to work on. And those were determined by Godfrey in 06 and [I think] Godfrey and the Council in 07.
Sickening, isn't it, Curm?
Just like Saddam.....Godfrey now has someone else to be the State Rapist (his sons are too young for this job)....
So, on the list of 'bend over victims' were police and firefighters (saved by the Council) and those 'blighted' neighborhoods that must be razed for the good of our city and to further the visions of our own American dictator and his cronies.
Carl:
Well, you take the rhetoric further than I think justified or prudent ["State rapists" etc] but under all that is I think a good point. Presuming the major work the city lobbiest did over two years was (a) helping get passed a law permitting cities to eliminate their civil service commissions and (b) helping pass a revised eminient domain law restoring some power to take private property under eminent domain for the benefit of other private development projects, then we really do have to ask what the hell Ogden got for its $45K a year because [a] the city Council --- rightly --- refused to abolish the civil service commission in Ogden [so getting that law passed accomplished exactly nothing for the city] and (b) the Godfrey administration has announced it does not intend to use eminent domain proceedings in the remainder of the River Project Development, so to date and for the immediate future, the city seems not to have benefited from getting that second law passed either.
So... what did we get for our money? [Which is why I hope the Mayor and Council tasked the lobbiest with more this past session than working on the ED reinstatement act. But I don't know that they did.]
Righto, Mr. Curmudgeon,
Just WHAT, exactly, does Mr. Jolley do for our city that actually benefits us?
(No rhetoric......just a question)
Post a Comment