This morning's Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke story confirms what some of us had suspected: Boss Godfrey crony Chris Peterson has wisely allowed his ill-gotten Bootjack LLC purchase option to expire.
For the benefit of readers who missed out on the substance of this story the first go-round, we link background articles here and here.
What remains apparent from this morning's article is that Mr. Peterson and his de facto business broker, Boss Godfrey, still have every intention to proceed with the transaction however. This time, they evidently plan to engineer the transaction the old-fashioned Boss Godfrey way: pegging the sales price by means of a low-ball appraisal, without ever offering the property to other potential buyers on the open market.
For those babes in the woods who are unfamiliar with the practices of the real estate market by the way, custom-designed appraisals (low-ball and high-ball) are one of the "dirty little secrets" of the real estate appraisal industry.
This morning's article notes that the Emerald City RDA board implemented new policy in the wake of the Bootjack stealth option revelation: "As a result of the Bootjack incident, the RDA has adopted a policy that requires full disclosure regarding the identity of property buyers before it approves land sales."
This improved RDA Board approach only solves half the problem however. What is needed now is an RDA policy that requires economically significant RDA-owned properties (such as these Frontrunner Station adjacent parcels) to be placed on the open market for a reasonable period of time, in order to generate competing offers.
We have already heard from one interested potential buyer who lodged a verbal $300 thousand cash backup offer with the Emerald City Economic Development Department. We are curious to know why this fact was not mentioned in this morning's Std-Ex article.
It's time, we think, for our RDA board to act on this before it is too late. At the very least, this property ought to be advertised for sale in the newspaper, if not on the Weber-Davis Multiple Listing Service.
The RDA board has a fiduciary obligation, owed to the citizens of Emerald City, to generate the highest possible sales price for any property it sees fit to remove from its inventory. Such is particularly true as to these parcels, which are key to our Emerald City downtown development.
Whether our Rip Van Winkle RDA Board will properly fulfill that important obligation is a question which remains to be answered.
A Friday morning query to our gentle readers: Will the RDA Board allow itself to be bush-wacked yet again?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
32 comments:
Well, I pounded the podium, pointed my finger, and exhorted the council to ASK and DEMAND to know who 'the developer is who has to have the ordinance in place' so he can build.
Not a blink!!! Well....Peterson has raised his ugly head again.
"Is it appropriate to ask who the developer is" the councilmember hesitantly asked. "No", replied Daddy Warbucks.
Well...that was the end of that!
Pls read the last paragraph....
full disclosure'....and we know that the option had expired, therefore Peterson , at Council meeting time, was NOT the owner of the Wall Ave property.
Also, the city has given Moyal a royal (Godfrey is king) runaround...even enacting a bogus ordinance to shut him down. Recall that the ombudsman couldn't get his hands on a copy of the so-called ordinance because one didn't exist?
The chicanery of this gang of thugs is stunning!
Rudi:
I saw the article about and began wondering this. Since the option to buy by Bootjack expired, without being exercised, should any subsequent sale, now that a competing and purchase offer has been made for the land, have to go back to the RDA board for approval and if not, why not?
I notice the story reports, again, that the City has no idea what Bootjack [aka Peterson] intends to do with the land, so the argument that the City wants to sell it to him [at a lower price than someone else is offering apparently] because selling to him will result in the greatest benefit to the City is a non-starter from the git-go.
What is the customary practice in such matters? If the city grants an option to buy city property with a specified terminal date [in this case, I think it was 30 days], and the option is not exercised, can the city without risk of liability entertain new offers? Does approval of the sale after the option period expires require another approval? What has been the customary practice in the city in such matters? Do you know?
Also, on a not unrelated matter, the Salt Lake Weekly has a very interesting "City Week" column in the current issue about how recently passed legislation [The Land Use Development and Management Act] has stripped city zoning commissions of much of their authority to zone. The examples they give are property owners who've converted homes in single-family-home zoned areas into boarding houses despite SLC Zoning Commission opposition. A cautionary tale for Ogdenites, I think. Worth a look-see. Link here.
The RDA board should now rescind its approval of the sale. Then they can start over and ask not just who the buyer is, but more importantly, what the buyer would do with the property.
The whole reason the RDA acquired this piece of property was because they didn't like what was there before (Bloom's recycling). It would be absurd for them to go to all that trouble, and then sell it to someone who refuses to disclose his plans for the property. This piece of property is only half a block from the Intermodal Hub and the way it's developed will have a significant effect on the rest of downtown Ogden.
If the mayor wants to make the case that it doesn't matter what Peterson would do with the property, then it would follow that any other buyer would be equally suitable and the city should simply sell to the highest bidder. (There can be valid reasons not to sell to the highest bidder, but only if there are other known benefits from how the property would be developed.)
I should also think that the RDA board would prefer to sell to a developer with a known track record of successful urban development projects. I don't think Peterson's resort experience puts him in this category.
" Since the option to buy by Bootjack expired, without being exercised, should any subsequent sale, now that a competing and purchase offer has been made for the land, have to go back to the RDA board for approval and if not, why not?"
We're a little pressed for time this morning Curm; and the question you ask is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
We'll attempt the short version answer, however.
First, we know that Mr. Peterson's option (90 days) has expired, thus extinguishing any legal rights that might have arguably sprung from the option agreement itself.
Still, Mayor Godfrey has received what we remember to be blanket authority to transfer the property to an undisclosed purchaser, for a specified sales price, so it's safe to assume, we think, that Boss Godfrey could transfer the property today, provided he can provide an appraisal coming in at the authorized $270 thousand. The latter, of course, should be no problem.
While it might be argued that the RDA Board authorization should be interpreted narrowly, as approving a transaction based solely on the now-expired option agreement itself, such an argument is dubious, we believe. The RDA Board authorization did not refer to that document, according to our recollection.
We thus believe the RDA Board needs to move fast.
And both you and Dan S. raise a good point. Any proposed buyer, regardless of the sales price, ought to be committed to developing the property in a manner compatible with Frontrunner/Intermodal Hub neighboring property use -- at the very least.
Rudi:
Thanks. Appreciate the briefing.
Been thinking more on the Bootjack news and Rudi's report that the city has received a competing purchase offer for more than Bootjack offered. When this first all blew up in the press, there were charges made of "cronyism," that Mr. Peterson, known associate of Hizzonah and co-supporter of the gondola/gondola sell-the-park real estate specualtion, had received special consideration in the sale. not offered or available to others. The allegations of cronyism were strongly denied by FOMs [Friends of Matthew G.] and by some council members.
Well, seems to me that (a) now that the 90 day option to purchase has expired without Mr. Peterson buying the properties involved and (b) now that a competing offer for more money for the land is on the table and that (c) neither Mr. Peterson nor the new prospective buyer has indicated how the land will be developed, it seems to me that (d) if the city goes ahead and sells the land to Mr. Peterson for less money than someone else is offering, the validity of the cronyism charge will have pretty much been established. Que no?
Offer on the table? Verbal? Doesn't mean squat in the world of Real Estate.
And also, one can by land without disclosing plans. Zoning an permitting is intended to insure use is proper. Just cause the potential buyer scares all of you, doesn't mean the rules change.
Sort of wrong there daps, this is RDA property, and if you haven't notice the big rush to allow a new MU, you'll see the express purpose of which is to control precisely what can be developed. Are you unaware of Michael Moyal? Though this is not in the river project, it is downtown, and the new ordinance was granted for both the river and downtown.
Daps:
You need to confer with other FOMs so you all have your stories straight. The Administration has explained that it need not sell land to the highest bidder, necessarily. All it has to do is not sell it for less than the appraised value, and so it can sell land to someone who offers less than another because it believes the use to which the land will be put [i.e. the way it will be developed] will provide a greater benefit to the city than the other proposed use.
That excuse for selling to the lower bidder this time is not available since the Administration has insisted, repeatedly, that it has no idea how Mr. Peterson intends to develop the parcels if he acquires them. In addition to that, the land is in the downtown RDA area, and in such areas the city absolutely has the authority to review intended use to make sure it conforms to the goals for which the RDA was established in the first place.
As for being spooked by who the prospective buyer is [Mr. Peterson] in this case, that's nonsense. If Mr. Peterson offers more for the land, under the same terms as the nearest competing offer, and if the purchase conforms to all existing ordinances [i.e. is for at least the appraised value of the land], fine with me if he buys it.
The problems with this transaction have emerged for three reasons [all created by the administration]: (a) there seems to have been no notice that the land was available for sale, no attempt by the city to interest or even to inform other potential buyers. This may have been perfectly legal. It was neither prudent nor proper. (b)the sale was made without requiring any disclosure by the buyer of how he intended to develop the properties, which seems absolutely not to be the city's practice when selling RDA properties it owns and (c)the administration's refusing to tell the RDA Board, when asked, who the prospective buyer was. Note on this last point that the Mayor, when acting as head of the RDA [as he was in this case] is appointed by, and reports to, the Council acting as RDA Board. His refusal to supply information the Board asked for amounted to, in effect, insubordination. Which is why the Council unanimously changed RDA procedures to require disclosure of the prospective buyer of city-owned RDA properties in the future.
If the Bootjack matter has wounded the Administration, and I think it has, the wounds are entirely self-inflicted. And if there is a higher bid on the table now, as Rudi says there is, and the administration goes ahead with the sale, at a lower price, to Mr. Peterson of this RDA property after his option period expired, there will be I think no reasonable defense left for Hizzonah to counter charges of cronyism.
DAPS: "Doesn't mean squat in the world of Real Estate."
Wrong. The administration has been made aware of the interest of a backup buyer, thus triggering an obligation on the administration's part to solicit and/or entertain a firm written offer.
Good points, Curm. One small clarification, however: To the best of my knowledge, the mayor himself has never claimed that he doesn't know what Peterson wants to do with the property. It appears that he's keeping Harmer in the dark, but making Harmer the spokesman on this so the public won't find out what the plan is. Someone (Schwebke? Garcia?) needs to ask the mayor point-blank what Peterson intends to do with the property. Then the mayor will have to either tell us, or claim that even he doesn't know. Such a claim wouldn't pass the laugh test, and he knows it.
One other omission in the Schwebke piece, both he and Harmer fail to point out that the purchase option is null and void. Petereon failed to act in accordance with the agreement. This should make things more than alittle uncomfortable for Godfrey going forward.
Does anyone know if the Planning Commission has a plan for the area surrounding the Frontrunner station? It seems that this would be a logical thing to have in place by now.
Plan first, THEN sell the property to the highest bidder willing and capable of working within those limitations.
Curm, as I have alluded to in the past, Chris Peterson's lack of doing , or producing anything, reflects somewhat on what people could expect from Godfrey's proclaimed savior of Ogden. The way he's actually performed on things he has actually done, Screams at us. This guy has done virtually nothing, what little he has done has been shady at best,incomplete and downright shamefull. All the while Godfrey continues to prophesize this squirrel phobic moron will save Ogden.
Good thought Ogden Lover. Obviously Montgomery has been to occupied with Ellison, the mall, the river project and Moyal to pay any attention to what could be the most significant development since the railroad left Ogden.
Dan S:
OK, but it's also true that Harmer, when he addresses the RDA Board or the Council, speaks for the administration. When his testimony before either body as the Administration's spokesman goes uncorrected by the Mayor, it is not only reasonable, but customary, to conclude that his statements represent Administration opinion and policy. And so far as I know, the Mayor has not corrected Mr. Harmer's statements on this.
But nailing the Mayor down on the point specifically is a good idea. He may corroborate Harmer and say he doesn't know what Peterson intends for the property, and so establish that Peterson's end use of the RDA property is of no interest to the Mayor. Or he may, as you suggest, say he does know what Mr. Peterson intends to do with the land. That, though, would open up another can of ethical worms for his Administration: why did the Mayor, knowing that his representative, Mr. Harmer's, statements on the matter did not accurately convey the situation, permit his testimony to stand uncorrected?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, if this purchace option is expired, it's null and void, therefore there is no need to have any futher action by the council. If ,as Harmer says, Peterson still wishes to purchase the property, they will have to do everything all over again, including seeking council approval. Correct? If Godfrey and Peterson press this they're just begging to be sued by anyone who's offer is put aside.
You know what? I just found my copy of the option agreement. I am right. This time period has expired, and Peterson failed to act. Whats more, he just donated $1000.00 to the general fund.(provided he actually paid ) It will be fun to see how this plays out.One question for the council, or anyone else, have they entered into a new option agreement?
I remember Rep. Hansen called out to Godfrey at the union station about how the city sells it property? and Godfrey said it is not always the highest bid, It will go to the company that has the smartest plan!
So MR. MAYOR where is the plan for this property? Why not put this property up for bid and see what kind of money the city can raise for us taxpayers. Are they not to look out for our best intrest? not the buyers.
Every aspect of this Brokeback or Bootblack scheme, whatever its nom-de-guerre is, fulfills each criterion eloquently enumerated in Dorothy Littrell's smell test. Elder Godfrey has become so deceptive that it's as if Orrin Hatch were personally grooming him for higher office.
The Council was asked, for the second time, about the lease/option...it HAD expired and they were asked what they knew about it? And what was Peterson going to do? Did they know? If not, will they find out?
Typically, this Council does not ask pertinent or follow-up questions.
Keep in mind that Montgomery has not been forthcoming...and poor Moyal has been told by the moral mayor that a motel with a 'past' will never be successful in our town! Look at the grief Moyal is getting. They demanded to know everything about Moyal's plans...yet the crony can waltz in and take prime property for a measly $270,000.
Why? No questions...no answers.
Is (or will) Peterson really going to purchase that land? If so, is it to go back to Godfrey so he can build his tower to Heaven? Will it be quitclaimed to Godfrey at some time? Or one of the other clan?
I think the most egregious part of this whole mess last Tu nite was that Godfrey could get almost frantic in demanding the council vote his way! His face was mottled dark..from the exertion of pushing the Council to do his bidding. That was the scariest part, that and that Montgomery wouldn't tell who the developer is and what he wants to do. And, Godfrey won.
btw, the property doesn't go to the 'highest bidder'.
Mother, Baseball....is correct. When Rep Hansen asked Godfrey if he'd sell the golf course at market value...Godfrey told Hansen he's answer that privately. So, Neil went up to the little guy and here's his answer: "It goes to the buyer with the 'smartest plan'" !!
So, wouldn't that mean that we then HAVE to know the plan...and that there is more than one, in order to have the smartEST?
Isn't it obvious that the "smart plan" for the Wall Ave parcels, right next to the Frontrunner station will be to build the launching point for the gondola through the city (and ultimately, in 30 or 40 years to Snow Basin, according to the Mayor)?
I heard that the $300,000 offer also included a provision that the buyer would develope the land according to the RDA's wishes?
Did the RDA/Council discuss this at all?
Bill C:
According to Rudi [see 4th post, this thread], your assumptions are incorrect. The expiration of the option means the city is no longer obligated to sell to Bootjack, but the RDA Board's [Council] approval of the sale was not tied specifically to the option, and so, absent a recinding of that authorization, the city may still sell to Bootjack at the price agreed on without futher RDA board action.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Chris Peterson dba Bootlick LLC may not have or even be able to obtain $270K?
If he has that kind of money laying around, or can leverage it, then why didn't he save himself a gondola car's worth of grief and just exercise his friggin' option?
(Or for that matter, build himself a gondola on his own private property, as we've been telling him to do all along.)
I'm just saying.
mono
Good point. Very good chance that Peterson with the $500 million hype can't even come up with $270 thousand!
Money talks,and bull shit walks, as the old saying goes.
or
"Show me the money!"
or
Talk is cheap, that's why there is so much of it!
Does any one know who's name is actually on the deed for the Malan basin property? Is it Peterson's or his wife's or is it former wife?
It's Earl Holding. He wants to make a link FROM Snowbasin, but has Petey as his front man...kinda like a wet finger in the wind.
Monotreme,
I have no idea how much cash Peterson has at his disposal. But I do know that his house in Sandy has been up for sale for a while. I believe they're asking $8 million.
Marv,
The Malan's Basin property is in the name of Salt Lake Exchange Accommodations. I have no reason to doubt that Peterson is the sole owner of this entity, but I've never seen any actual evidence one way or the other.
I think maybe the angle with the Mayor wanting Peterson to have this property is because it is on the block that they tried to steal from the residents through eminent domain a couple of years ago. They were then going to make a sweet heart deal With WallMart. In that deal incidently the city was going to make a million or two - all at the expense of the current property owners.
Now with the new ED laws it requires a 75% majority of the owners with 50% of the property to get an ED action. In addition the owners have to request it.
Perhaps with this property in "friendly" hands it will put the little Nazi bastard and his minions over that hurdle, and they can then proceed this their scheme to rip off the other residents who do not want to sell.
Who made the offer for $300 grand, anybody know? Does any one have a good educated guess as to just how much these three lots on the corner of 21st and Wall are really worth on the open market?
Dan S
It is very interesting that this property is held by "Salt Lake Exchange accomodations"
If you check that out with the State Corp department you will find that there are 54 Seperate entities with the same name and the same batch of attorneys as their registered agents. They are seperate and only differentiated by the addition of numbers behind the name.
While this does not prove anything by itself, I would point out that it is extremely unusual. I have checked this site many times for info on companies doing business in Utah, and I have never seen anything approaching this.
Although suspicious on the face of it, it could simply mean that they hold that many properties - each in a different company.
But given the many lies and manipulations that these people have laid on the citizens of Ogden, it still makes one wonder.
Marv,
Yeah, I noticed that too when I looked them up two years ago. The Malan's Basin property is held by Salt Lake Exchange Accommodations 154 LLC, to be precise. (This information comes from the Weber County GIS web site.)
I just looked them up again (on the Utah Dept. of Commerce web site), and it appears that the registration of this particular LLC has expired! I have no idea what the significance of this fact might be, if any.
Also just checked Waterfall Canyon Climbing Park LLC, and its registration has also expired.
With a bit more online snooping you can, actually, tie the property to Peterson. He was a few months late paying his 2005 property taxes, and the county assessor's web site lets you look up who paid the dilinquent taxes. (Curiously, the small penalty was never paid, so technically he's still dilinquent.) The payment came from an entity called K-38 LLC (still active!), whose registered agent is Christian N. Peterson.
Post a Comment