Accordingly, we refer our readers this morning to three news articles which appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret Morning News and Standard-Examiner over the past weekend:
- Historic Farmington rock house destined for preservation
- Bidding war boosts price for historic home
- Historic Farmington parcel sold at auction
"One of my motives was to protect the side yard from some idiot wanting to buildA Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat goes out this morning to the very community-minded Mr. Owens, another gentle Weber County Forum reader (and recent contributor) who has demontrated the point that individual citizens can have a strong influence on development in their communities, provided they're willing to do it the old-fashioned way, i.e., putting their money where their mouth is.
a McMansion on it," Owens said.
"I wanted to make sure that whatever gets built on the rest of the land is in keeping with Farmington's ambience."
We also believe that the foregoing fact set illuminates an important point of basic economics: Sellers benefit when transactions are carried out openly in the free market. As illustrated in the Farmington example, the court-ordered auction process generated a sale price far in excess of the expectations of the sellers. The process of selling to the highest bidder yielded a result most favorable to the Judd Family.
Before we wind up this article, we'd like to highlight another wrinkle to this story. Over the past few months we've been carefully following developments in the bootjack stealth transaction, the unfortunate instance wherein Emerald City Mayor Boss Godfrey hoodwinked the city RDA Board into authorizing the sale of a prime piece of downtown, FrontRunner station-adjacent real property to his crony, Chris Peterson.
Last month we learned that Mr. Peterson apparently did not exercise the purchase option which had been craftily engineered behind the scenes for the benefit of Chris Peterson. Nevertheless, the sale to Mr. Peterson was destined to inexorably move forward, according to this Ace Reporter Schwebke story.
Although we have been unable to officially confirm it, our sources reveal that the subject Wall Avenues parcels have been subsequently sold to Chris Peterson for the RDA Board-authorized $270 thousand sales price. The availability of this property was of course NEVER advertised, NEVER listed on the MLS and NEVER subjected to the natural processes of the free market. In essence, this prime chunk of downtown real estate was apparently placed into the hands of a Boss Godfrey crony in private.
A few weeks ago we mentioned in one of our comments sections that during the open option period (which ended on March 24) one of our gentle readers had conveyed a verbal backup offer to the RDA Board for this property, at an offered price of $300 thousand. Subsequently, we learned, the same reader again tendered that offer, this time in written form.
Although we were not authorized to disclose the identity of the offeror at the time, we are now privileged to do so: That gentle reader, who made a cash offer $30 thousand in excess of the RDA Board authorized price, was none other than Tom Owens, the same Tom Owens who hung in there steadfastly, to perfect an ownership interest in his Farmington target property last Thursday.
As to his written offer for the Emerald City property, his high offer was all but ignored. Late in April Mr. Owens reports that he received a short email from one of the "suits" in the Emerald City Economic Development Department (the always-reliable Dave Harmer, if memory serves,) informing him that the property was already "under contract," and that the transaction was expected to "close within the next several weeks."
So much for the operation of the free market in Emerald City. So much for Boss Godfrey's fiduciary obligation to secure the highest possible price in the disposition of surplus RDA properties from a ready, willing and able buyer. So much for the concept of opening the downtown development process for anyone except "Friends of Matt." Ogden home-boy Tom Owens got completely shut out of Boss Godfrey's sweetheart dealings. So much for influencing Emerald City community development the old-fashioned way.
This situation is something all lumpencitizens should remember, as the November elections approach.
We hope you enjoyed the segue.
Feel free to discuss this topic... or consider this an open thread.
Take it away, gentle readers.
28 comments:
Although I do not know Mr. Owens, he does seem to be a class act. It is a shame that our City’s finest didn’t have the sense to recognize (or at the least look at) a good deal even when it was laid out right before them. The only way to do business in the City is to be in w/ the Geigers, Wilkerson, Peterson and a select few others. It’s atrocious how municipalities (also referencing Dan’s piece) are being run these days. Decisions are not being made for the public good. It’s purely self-serving arrogance and/or greed. It’s disheartening.
Does such documented, blatant skulduggery perhaps violate a State law?
This conduct violates moral and ethical principles!
It doesn't violate INTEGRITY however, as the moral compass compass of Ogden has more integrity than 'anyone in this room.'
Kudos to Tom Owens....move back to Ogden, Tom...we need you HERE.
Tom,
I hope that you realize that you are the perfect person to bring a suit against Ogden City for failure to post proper public notices re intent to sell City property.
Thanks for acquiring the land in Farmington to try to keep out the instant ghetto developments.
And more than anything, thanks for being a true believer in constitutional property rights. I love your principles.
Most readers of the WCForum are the choir to which such good citizens such as the Selmans and Tom Owens are (by example) preaching. Most WCForum readers have known for some time that Elder Godfrey has no clothes. (That particular construct dawned on me after City Hall tried to pollute downtown Ogden with a tacky Wal-Mart while simultaneously allowing the Junction site to languish as an eyesore for three years longer than necessary.)
But what about the rest of the local electorate? Is it really a slam-dunk that Ogden will repudiate its child mayor in this fall's elections, or is it a delusion? Will Elder Godfrey's considerable ability to marshal stake presidents' endorsements and parade as a brood-siring, chosen patriarch -- particularly if he draws a Gentile opponent -- sweep him back into another four years?
I am very concerned that this upcoming election could be a slam-dunk for continuing present government policies.
Some of the persons I have talked to don't have a clue as to the real state of Ogden's affairs.
They actually are quoting Godfrey's figure of $20 million for Ogden's debt.
They are so naive as to think that buildings on the old mall site mean Ogden is coming back to life.
What a generation of numskulls we have sired.
The offer that Owens made to the RDA board for the Wall Ave property also included the provision that it would only be developed at the wishes of the RDA board and in a way that would benefit Ogden. He set no other conditions in his offer.
Well, geez! Benefit Ogden? Not Petey and Matt??
Of course, Owens lost out!
The Weber County web site still lists the Ogden RDA as the owner of the former Bloom's property. But this could simply be due to a delay in posting the new information.
Before he files a lawsuit, I would suggest that Mr. Owens inform the newspapers of his $300,000 offer. He could also make a very effective 3-minute presentation to the RDA Board during their public comment period.
Thanks Rudi for writing a good editorial on the abuses going on with the Ranch in Avon, and the one today tying my Farmington situation into the subject.
It is obvious we have rascals running amok in a lot of local political juristictions these days.
We also have some very good local governments around, Farmington being one example. So there is hope for the future, and I think Blogs like this are important in the pursuit of better, more honest and responsive local governments
I also wanted to thank you for posting the Bataan piece of a couple of weeks ago.
And Dan S., I never said anything about suing the city over the Wall Ave deal. Suing is not my style and it only makes a bunch of lawyers a pile of money anyway!
I was only trying to do something good for Ogden with my offer to the RDA. I read that the deal with Peterson had fallen through. The reason they were going to sell the land to begin with was because they needed some fast money to make up for a problem on the Mall site construction. I offered to buy the land with pretty much no conditions attached because I thought they were in a real pinch for the money and I was willing to help them out. At $300 thousand it seemed like a pretty safe bet considering it was an acre and because of where it is at in relation to the new train station.
I understand why Mayor Godfrey would not want me in the his empire a building mix. I find this rejection of my offer pretty much par for the course in his business dealings on behalf of the city. Not being a friend of Matt's, in retrospect, makes it a long shot I guess.
I am hopeful that in November the voters of Ogden will take a long hard and honest look at Mr. Godfrey, his methods and the staggering costs of his "accomplishments"
The only real cure for what ails Ogden is at the ballot box.
tom,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you intended to sue. Someone else suggested it. I have no idea whether you'd even have grounds for a suit, but I do think there should be a mechanism to prevent this kind of cronyism at taxpayer expense. The ballot box is all well and good, but it doesn't usually offer voters the full range of choices they would like.
Let me see if I have the chronology right:
1. Ogden RDA agrees to grant Bootjack LLC an option to buy the RDA parcels for 270K [presumably a 90 day option]. Bootjack offers no commitment about how it intends to develop the parcels in the RDA.
2. The option period expires without Bootjack exercising its option to buy the land.
3. Another party offers 300K for the parcels, and is willing to commit to RDA approved uses for the land, but is informed that the city has the sale already "under contract" to another party and expects to close on the properties within "weeks."
4. Ogden RDA sells the parcels directly to Mr. Peterson [not via Bootjack LLC] subsequently for the optioned price of 270K.
Seems to me a reasonable person might draw the following conclusions from the above, presuming the chronology is correct:
a. The charge of "cronyism" leveled at the City with regard to this land sale to Mr. Peterson [which charge the Administration and some Council members have strongly rejected] has some merit. Otherwise, it is difficulty to explain why, after the option period to Bootjack expired, and the Godfrey administration was informed another buyer was offering 30K more, the administration nevertheless sold the parcels directly to Mr. Peterson for 30K less than the new hopeful purchaser was offering.
b. The Administration's refusal to inform the Council [RDA Board] who was behind the Bootjack purchase offer when asked, and the apparent fact that in the end, the city sold the land directly to Mr. Peterson and for a lower price than another party was offering, certainly at the very least raises reasonable suspicions that a "cronyism" deal was in the works.
The city's ignoring a higher offer, by 30K, on the land after the original Bootjack option expired without being exercised, seems to clinch the suspicions.
If I have the chronology wrong or the above conclusions are not ones a reasonable person could... I might even say would... draw, I'd be happy to be corrected.
was told that the Council will be looking at the mixed-use zoning for the river project again during their work session Thursday night at 5:00 PM. How many times has this come up for discussion? I guess the Council just isn’t doing what the mayor and Montgomery want them to do, which in my book, means that they are doing the right thing.
I also understand that that weasley mayor has gone behind the Council’s back again and somehow talked UTA into funding a feasibility study of the gondola as THE mode of mass transit for Ogden! Even after he admitted that it wasn’t a mode for mass transit! Does that SOB EVER tell the truth?! The Council needs to keep a tight hold on the City’s purse strings and cut HIS BUDGET in half for that dirty little trick! Rudi, I am commissioning you and your “gentle readers” with the responsibility of informing the rest of the Ogden voters about his devious, unscrupulous business practices and his fiscal irresponsibility as mayor of Ogden city.
Tonight at Council meeting, Rulon Yorgason gave the Council a copy of a quote that went “Managers are people who do the things right, and Leaders are people who do the right thing!” It looks like Godfrey is neither a manager nor a leader, but then we already knew that! He’s said that Ogden doesn’t have a democratic government (we know! It’s a dictatorship!) December 31st can’t come too soon for this Ogden resident!
Curmudgeon:
Assuming that the facts as we've heard them from Rudi are accurate, I agree that the charge of cronyism has been clinched.
But I think a couple of details in your summary need to be clarified. The RDA Board (City Council) approved the sale to Bootjack, but I don't think their motion included anything about an option or time limit. I'm not sure whether the motion specified a price. The property was indeed owned by the RDA, but does not lie within a formally approved redevelopment area, as far as I know.
Brett,
I'm not aware that the mayor ever said the urban gondola wouldn't be a mode of mass transit. In fact, UTA has already conceded, in writing, that it would qualify as "public transportation" as they define it, provided that it operates at the appropriate times. But I agree that the Council needs to intervene here and direct that no further funds be spent on this speculative project until we receive a detailed proposal from Peterson.
FYI, for those interested in history & preservation and rail transportation in Ogden, from what I understand tonight at the Union Station (5:30) is the annual Weber County Heritage Foundation/Ogden City Landmarks (celebrating preservation month) annual historic preservation event/lecture, w/ refreshments. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend. I believe that the key portion of the event will feature a presentation on the history of interurban transit in Ogden and then another presenter (I believe a UTA person) will speak on the future of rail transit in Ogden, focusing on the FrontRunner.
When a city or county decides to sell a significant piece of real estate, there's a 14-day public notice requirement and a public hearing. As far as I can tell, however, these requirements don't apply to redevelopment agencies. Can anyone confirm this or explain in more detail?
Here's the agenda of the RDA meeting where the sale of the Bloom's property was approved. There's no mention of a public hearing. Also, I see that I was wrong in my earlier post about the motion not mentioning the option--but the motion also apparently went on to authorize "all other action necessary to the consummation of the transactions", so I guess the sale was still authorized even after the option expired.
Tom,
You left me a message at work a few months ago, and asked me to call you, but you left no phone number.
I wanted you to know that is the only reason I didn't return your call.
Brett's Back -
I had heard that the Mayors' meeting with UTA was all about a $250,000.00 grant from UTA to fund a study for street cars in Ogden if the request for a bus from Ogden to Roy didn't pan out.
Evidently I didn't get the story straight.
The most disturbing thing I was told is that the Legislature has no control over UTA or UDOT. These two agencies that control billions operate as a kingdom unto themselves.
This is certainly a very important issue for me.
Can anyone elaborate?
Dan:
Two points. First, thanks for noting that the RDA can, and evidently does, own land that is not in an RDA zone. I'd assumed that RDA owned property was, necessarily, in an RDA zone. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Second: on the option. From earlier posts by others [many threads ago], I think there is some distinction between what the Board authorized [the optioning of the land to Bootjack, no terminal date mentioned] and the actual option agreement between the Administration and Bootjack [which did contain a terminal date, or so it was reported].
That the Administration had a blanket grant of authority by the RDA Board to keep on with the negotiations and sale to Bootjack is apparent. However, if the actual option had a terminal date [I think it was 90 days], from the point at which it expired, the city had no obligation to sell to Bootjack under the previously arranged terms. And if at that point [expiration of the option] there was another offer on the table for a larger amount, the City was ethically obligated to consider it, and unless some compelling reason existed to accept the lower offer [the purchaser being an FOM is not, in my view, a compelling reason, though Hizzonah might disagree on that point], the Administration had a responsibility to the public to accept the higher offer.
Of course, Hizzonah might have concluded that Mr. Peterson's proposed use for the property would better serve the public good than the other buyer's plans. But as I recall the Godfrey administration made a point, when the Bootjack matter blew up, that Mr. Peterson had not indicated to the administration how he intended to develop the land. And we know now that the other person to offer more on the land agreed to limit development to an RDA approved purpose, so the "better use" argument won't hold water as a reason for the city having sold the property for the lowest of the two offers.
Not to mention what might have resulted had other potentially interested parties had an opportunity to bid on the land involved.
And like you, I wonder why the Council and Mayor acting as the RDA management are exempted from the notification laws that apply to their selling land when acting as the Mayor and Council. I'm beginning to wonder just who designed the ordinances under which the Ogden RDA operates. Rube Goldberg perhaps?
Curmudgeon:
I believe an option termination date is the deadline by which the buyer must exercise its option, by giving notice to the seller of the buyer's intent to buy. It's not the dealine for the actual real estate closing. So, the real question on boot jack appears not to be whether the 90 day option period had expired, but whether boot jack had given notice of its intent to exercise its option in a timely manner. If it did, the RDA is or was probably contractually bound to sell.
Fact finder:
According to Ace Reporter Schwebke's above-linked April 27 story, Mr. Peterson's 90 day option expired unexercised. Assuming the accuracy of Mr. Schwebke's reporting (a highly dubious assumption, we admit,) any legal rights springing from the option agreement were extinguished upon the option's expiration. Thus the option agreement would be entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
As Curmudgeon has correctly pointed out, however, the RDA board actually granted the administration broad authority to sell the subject property to an unds\isclosed buyer for a set ($270 thousand.) Our recollection is that the Board authorization did not even refer to an option agreement.
Under this circumstance, the administration probably had continuing authority to dispose of the property; and it would have been quite proper to enter into a new sales agreement with Mr. Peterson, notwithstanding the earlier option expiration.
The truly interesting issues here however, in our opnion, are the issues that arise in connection with Mr. Owens's oral and written offers.
It's our opinion that the administration had an affirmative obligation as an RDA fiduciary to investigate, entertain and consider Mr. Owens's oral and written offers, which obligation the administration may have breached, by entering into a new agreement with Mr. Peterson.
Fact Finder:
Competing explanations, I see, between yours and Rudi's. My comments were based on what I'd seen reported, and if that information was not accurate, then I agree, the conclusions I based on it may not be sound either.
Let me add one question. You and Rudi laid out two possibilities/probabilities. First, yours, that exercizing the option meant not actually closing on the land but rather indicating an intentention to purchase. Second, Rudi's, that even if the option had expired, unexercised [by whatever means is customary], the city had been authorized by the RDA Board to enter another agreement with Bootjack/Peterson to sell the property. My question, then, is this: why couldn't the city have simply made public either Bootjack's notice that it intended to exercize the option to buy, and/or any subsequent sales contract between the city and Mr. Peterson? As I recall, the Administration did not make either public at the time. I'm hard put to understand why. You seem familiar with property sales customary practices --- certainly far more than I am --- as does Rudi. Perhaps there is a reason the notice to exercise the option and/or a subsequent sales agreement was not made public at the time they happened, but I'm damned if I can figure out what such a reason might be. Other than the current administration's now well documented preference for keeping to itself even information that it would serve its interests to have made public in timely fashion. Beats me.
If I'm missing something and there are reasons an administration might not have wanted to make public Bootjack's notice of its intention to exercise its option, or to make public any subsequent purchase agreement with Mr. Peterson, I'd like to know what those reasons might be.
Fact Finder:
Just seems to me a lot of questioning etc. could have been short circuited [to the Administration's and the city's advantage] with prompt timely disclosure of what was happening between Bootjack/Peterson and the city once the RDA Board gave the Administration the green light to arrange the sale.
There once (and is) a crooked lane
That leads to a crooked guy
Who is the collossal bane
And stigma of Ogden's eye
This crooked little man
Gets away with all he can
Surrounded by crooks galore
He can screw a whole city
Showing neither integrity or pity
And all on the ninth floor!
Longfellow apologizes for not using NOR in front of pity...but it all means the same.
If you are a true American, you:
-Enter America through due process.
-Speak English (or make it a point to do so).
-Sing our National Anthem in English.
-Gain employment legally.
-Pledge allegiance to one flag: the US Flag.
-Press 1 for English.
-Obtain a valid social security number.
-Invest your earnings back into the American
economy, not another.
-Don't take advantage of programs designed to
assist people in need.
-Don't encourage bilingual printing.
-Denounce all who disobey and disrespect all of
the above!!!
My apologies for placing the previous comment in the wrong area. It has been placed in the correct
place.
-LYNX
you forgot to add:
"Place your head so far up your own ass that you will not be able to see any daylight or truth coming from the rest of the world"
Post a Comment