The Standard-Examiner's Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke has done a yeoman's job these past few weeks, doggedly digging up the truth regarding what we've been referring to on these pages as Boss Godfrey's Secret Gondola Study. As our readers will recall, Utah Transit Authority (UTA) officials have steadfastly denied making any legal commitment for the funding of further gondola studies. Similarly, Emerald City administrative officials have also denied knowing much of anything about such a study (or studies,) notwithstanding the administration's voluntary production of this Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc. study (they call it a "fiscal analysis,") commissioned by an un-named "somebody" in May of 2006, and delivered (and billed) to Boss Godfrey's administration in November of that year. For those readers who'd like to review the body of Mr. Schwebke's reporting to date, we have assembled (in reverse chronological order) our previous Secret Gondola Study articles in this special WCF collection, within which each of Mr. Schwebke's articles is thoroughly discussed and dissected.
This morning however, Ace Reporter Schwebke breaks entirely new investigative ground, revealing in this morning's front-page headline article that a $247 thousand federal grant was actually funded to the UTA last year, not merely to pay for a gondola study, but rather to fund a gondola plan. We duly incorporate Mr. Schwebke's lead paragraphs here:
OGDEN — An unanticipated $247,500 federal grant to the Utah Transit Authority obtained by a lobbyist for Ogden will allow the agency to fund a gondola plan for the city.In view of these most recently revealed facts, it becomes painfully clear that both UTA officials and Boss Godfrey henchmen have played it very cagily in their press responses re this story until now. UTA had consistently taken the position that it had never agreed to expend, nor had it actually expended any of its own funds on further gondola study projects. Nevertheless, we now learn that UTA officials plainly knew very well about the substantial chunk of federal cash which was rattling around in a UTA account -- earmarked for a gondola plan -- but they inexplicably elected to keep mum about it.
UTA has money set aside for the plan but has not disbursed any because it hasn’t reached an agreement with the city, UTA spokesman Chad Saley said. UTA sent a draft management agreement in December to Ogden’s Chief Administrative Officer John Patterson, but hasn’t received a written response, Saley said.
The city is working on a response to the draft agreement, Patterson said.
The money for the finance-and implementation plan for a gondola system would be provided to the city in exchange for a $247,500 Federal Transit Administration allocation awarded to UTA last year, according to a July 20, 2006, letter from Mick Crandall, UTA’s deputy chief for planning and programming, to John Arrington, the city’s finance manager.
"Ogden city has determined that its preferred use of the funds would be to refine the proposal for the aerial cableway which the city is pursuing as part of a public-private cooperative endeavor," the letter says.
Crandall could not be reached for comment regarding the letter, obtained by the Standard-Examiner from the city through a public records request.
In 2006, unbeknownst to UTA, the city secured the Federal Transit Administration funds which were approved as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s annual appropriations budget, Saley said.
Ken Lee, the city’s Washington, D.C., lobbyist, sought the federal funds on his own without direction from Ogden’s administration, Patterson said.
"He seeks funds when he sees that they are available," Patterson said.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he is unsure what led to the Federal Transit Administration allocation. “I don’t know how it came around,” he said.
The funds were allocated to UTA, which applied the money toward the purchase of a new bus already on order for the Ogden area, Saley said.
As a result of the federal allocation, UTA has been able to free up $247,500 from its general fund budget for the gondola plan, he said.
Likewise the administration had fairly consistently taken the position, preposterous as it is, that it had been basically "in the dark" about the entire matter. (The ever-truthful Boss Godfrey should be reminded, by the way, that his administration is legally-chargeable with any knowledge that his Washington lobbyist/agent possessed regarding this federal grant.)
Now that this new information is out in full public view, it will be interesting to hear the explanations of UTA and Godfrey administration officials about the earmarked federal grant that both governmental entities "forgot" to mention.
Another Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat to Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke this morning. He deserves his community's hearty thanks for his recent great work on this story. This new information ought to have been readily and voluntarily provided to him upon initial inquiry. It's truly shameful that he had to pry it loose via a GRAMA request.
Update 6/25/07 11:45 a.m. MT: For the benefit of our North Ogden City readers, who are being called upon to vote on the North Ogden $2.5 million "swimming tax" bonding proposal TOMORROW, we link this excellent Reach Upward Blog article, providing what we think to be an intelligent analysis of the issues at stake for the citizens of our neighboring city, along with a gentle reminder to be sure to get out to the polls tomorrow.
53 comments:
I challenge the veracity of the following two statements:
Ken Lee, the city’s Washington, D.C., lobbyist, sought the federal funds on his own without direction from Ogden’s administration, Patterson said.
“He seeks funds when he sees that they are available,” Patterson said.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he is unsure what led to the Federal Transit Administration allocation. “I don’t know how it came around,” he said.
I have some experience in these matters, and that's not at all how the earmark process works.
Lobbyists do not prowl the halls of Congress saying, "give me a quarter-million and I'm not sure for what or why I need it, but I'm sure Ogden City will put it to good use."
Further, it is passing strange that none of our Congressional delegation has come forward to claim that he helped Ogden City get these funds. The whole point of earmarks is to demonstrate to your constituents that you are using Federal funds to good effect in the community.
Rudi:
There are two troublesome issues raised by this morning's news. You nailed one of them --- clearly, the Mayor knew of the federal grant and its relationship to the pending UTA grant and to the "financial analysis" [politely so called] recently ordered by the city but evidently not yet paid for by anybody. When the Mayor had his little hissy fit at the Council, he somehow managed not to mention the federal grant and the role it played in all of this. Yet another example of his all but pathological aversion to keeping the Council and the public fully informed of matters they have every right to be fully informed about. How long can Ogden continue to prosper with a Mayor who seems so concerned with concealing his actions from the Council and public. How many times are we going to wake up to headlines that the Administration has yet again misinformed the Council?
The second problem is this. The article quotes a letter from Mr. Mick Crandall, identified as UTA's deputy chief for planning and programming to John Arrington, Ogden city's finance manager, dated 20 July 2006. It says this:
"Ogden city has determined that its preferred use of the funds would be to refine the proposal for the aerial cableway which the city is pursuing as part of a public-private cooperative endeavor."
Here's the problem: that seems to me to be a substantial mis-representation of the facts. Ogden city has determined, so far as I can see, no such thing. The Mayor has, clealy, so decided, but last time I looked, Ogden's form of government was "Mayor/Council" and so far as I know, the Council has not committed the city to a gondola, nor has it indicated that it will concur in pursuing any joint public-private gondola venture as a city project. And in fact, there is a council resolution on the books declaring that it wants no more city money spent on gondola matters.
This is not a trivial point. No gondola plan can go forward without substantial Council involvement and agreement. The matter is, at best, still "under study," though as has often been noted, no proposal involving this alleged joint public-private project and all its allied projects ["Peterson proposal"] has yet so much as been put forth, much less adopted as Ogden city's "preferred" plan of action.
Who is in control over at UTA? Is anyone watching the store? Is Mr. Inglish back from vacation? Does UTA do any research before shelling out money? Or does it blindly accept the word of a Mayor of a city of Ogden's size with a Mayor/Council form of government about city preferences when in fact no such decisions have yet been made?
Perhaps Mr. Van Tassell of the Utah Taxpayers Association might want to pursue this matter in more detail with state legislators. And I hope Ogden's representatives in the legislature, including Mr. Hansen, Ms. Shurtliff [and, dare we hope, Mr. Greiner?] will start getting on the phone to Mr. Inglish and inquiring, ever so politely, "What the hell is going on over there? Is anybody watching the store?"
I notice too that Mr. Patterson says the UTA agreed to pay for the LYR&B study, and UTA insists it did not. From which Mr. Crandall will, I hope, learn a useful lesson about dealing with the Godfrey administration. What lesson? Well, there's an old bit of folk wisdom that might apply here:
When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
These are not stand-up guys, Mr. Crandall.
Great points Mono and Curm. My comment/question is a little bit more basic, I suppose. Assuming the facts as presented by Mr. Schwebke are correct, I would like to know how the UTA or the FTA consider this a transit project worthy of any type of public funding? It is not a public transportation project!, it only has a couple of stops along the entire planned corridor (unless the plans have changed). It will do nothing to further good public transportation in Ogden.
jill:
Exactly. Not to mention the WFRC comparative study of streetcar, bus rapid transit and gondola options which concluded that the gondola option was not a viable transit option for Ogden City.
And of course, we have to wonder what else Mayor Godfrey is not telling the Council and us, what else will have to be Grama-ed?
By the way, UTA clearly knew of the federal grant too, and it kept quiet about it when questions began to be asked about the recent study the Mayor kept secret. Why?
When this much effort is put into keeping things quiet not only from the press but from the City Council, can reasonable people help but start asking themselves two questions: 1. What are they hiding and why? and 2. What else don't we know about?
Mr. Mayor, this is no way to run a city under a mayor/council form of government. Not if the goal is [as it should be] an effective government working cooperatively to pursue successfully the public interest on a wide variety of issues [not just your gondola obsession].
Would you consider a subway "public transportation"?
Just:
Of course, if it's a mass transit subway. [The subway that connects the congressional office buildings with the capitol building in DC is not "public transportation" clearly though it is a subway. The NYC subways are.]
Not trying to be picky. Just noting that the form of the transportation is not what determines: it's the use to which it is put. Mass transit has to be designed for that purpose, regardless of the technology involved, if it's to be mass transit.
I'm curious, Just Wondering, why'd you ask?
Jill and Curm:
You somewhat over-state the case against the urban gondola. The conclusion of the study (completed two years ago) wasn't that it wouldn't work at all. The conclusion was that it wouldn't be cost effective on a per-rider basis, and that there are other options (streetcar and bus rapid-transit) that would be cost effective.
The reasons why the gondola fared poorly in the study have been discussed at length on wcforum so I won't repeat them. And it's also important to remember that the currently proposed version of the gondola would fare even worse than the version considered in the study, because its stations are less optimally placed.
Dan:
Well, Dan, seens to me that the conclusion of the WFRC study that [as you summarize it] the gondola was not "cost effective on a per-rider basis" is pretty good evidence that the WFRC did not consider it "a viable transit option for Ogden City."
Rudi:
On N. Ogden pool vote piece. Thanks for the link. I don't live in North Ogden and so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I liked the linked piece. Nice to see a public policy point argued cogently, on the basis of evidence and principle that support the conclusion reached, that accurately [so far as I can tell] summarizes both sides of the contest, and that does not end up calling those who think differently crooks.
Not sure how I'd vote on the matter if I lived there, but the Reach Upward Blog piece you linked is how public policy debate ought to take place. Here too. Thanks again for the link.
Curm:
The study concluded that the gondola wouldn't be viable (i.e., cost effective) according to the criteria that UTA and the Federal Transit Administration normally use for projects that are funded entirely by public dollars. But that's not the same thing as saying that the gondola wouldn't be a public transportation project at all--and that's what Jill said, to which you replied "exactly".
If the city actually had a reasonable plan for funding the construction and operation of the gondola, mostly or entirely through city and/or private dollars, then it would be quite reasonable for UTA to cooperate in the planning of the system, as well as in its operation as it connects to commuter rail and bus routes. The problem here isn't that UTA is cooperating at all. The problem is that they apparently committed the funds for the study prematurely (long before the city had any serious proposal in place), and that they've been so secretive about it.
I know it's hardly news that the mayor gives false information to the City Council, but...
I've just reviewed a copy of the audio recording of the City Council's work session held May 15. During a discussion of funding for the streetcar/BRT Alternatives Analysis, Councilwoman Van Hooser brought up the rumored UTA gondola study. The mayor defended the study in part by saying "It's not our money." Chair Garcia then pressed the mayor regarding the source of the money:
Garcia: "Wasn't that the money that ... what's his name, Ken Lee lobbied for that money for buses, as I understand it and they're gonna use that money for the transit study."
Godfrey: "No I don't think Ken Lee lobbied for the money at all."
And in today's news article we read: "Ken Lee, the city's Washington, D.C., lobbyist, sought the federal funds..."
Dan S.,
To be nitpicky, I think you've overstated my comments. I never said it that it is not public transportation "at all." From the meetings I have attended regarding the gondola it has been explained to me as an "economic development" project, specifically different than "public transportation." Add to that the results provided from the already completed WFRC study (as you mentioned) and w/out the City having any known proposal in place, then I do not see how UTA or FTA dollars should be put to work to further such a gondola plan. And, I'm sorry, but I still do not see how the Ogden gondola as I have heard it explained can be considered public transportation. (I am not implying gondolas can't be used for mass transit, but in this instance it does not hit the mark. From what I can see, it is a contraption to get people out of Ogden's downtown up to a resort that is yet to be committed. How will I, an Ogden citizen and public transit user, benefit from this?)
curm -
I own property in North Ogden.
The City Council did not know about or authorize or pay for the poll conducted by Dan Jones several weeks ago regarding how residents or property owners whose property was located North of 3200 North felt about a pool cover.
My office and property is North of 3200 North and I just happened to have a telephone number that was called in the survey.
The first question asked was whether my property was located North of 3200 North which I thought was very strange.
I was asked to give answers by numbers to each question asked but the questions were slanted so that no matter what I answered I would be for the pool cover.
There was no opportunity to state that I would vote No on the pool cover.
I objected to the person doing the survey and that was when I asked if any one in North Ogden was being called who lived South of 3200 North. The answer was that no one was being called.
I proceeded to state that I would not participate in such a survey and promptly called a City Council member who had never heard of the survey until I called him.
Ogden has no monopoly on City Council members without integrity.
Jill asked:
Assuming the facts as presented by Mr. Schwebke are correct, I would like to know how the UTA or the FTA consider this a transit project worthy of any type of public funding?
I hope I can answer this. It has to do with how the earmark process works, which is an essential piece of this.
In order for an organization to benefit from an earmark, it has to be inserted somewhere in the Federal budget. There are only a few places to do that; if I recall correctly, about a dozen separate funding bills. Different agencies are included in different bills.
Then it's placed into a particular agency's budget. I don't know the ins and outs of transportation or mass transit funding, but I'm guessing it went into the Federal Dept of Transportation budget.
Someone from the Federal department has to release the money, and has fiduciary responsibility to make sure it's spent according to Federal rules (OMB Circular A-21, if you care).
We need someone to "cash the check" from DOT that is used to handling Federal money. They can subcontract the work to someone else, but they need to make sure the rules are followed.
I'm further assuming that that "someone" is UTA.
So, you see, it doesn't matter whether it's mass transit or chocolate bunnies. Some hunk of money gets stuck in the Federal department's budget. The legislation says, "$247,000 to Ogden City for chocolate bunnies" and that's all.
Most Federal departments, in general, would rather keep the money and don't like Congresspersons messing with things and sticking earmarks in their [ahem] ears. They make it difficult to actually get the money. Grudgingly and after much negotiation and hemming and hawing, the Federal department will release some percentage of the money to the institution or organization which is supposed to spend it.
If they've never dealt with Ogden City before, then they'll send the money to someone they have dealt with, such as UTA. That simplifies the accounting and fiduciary management from their end; they don't have to set up accounts and deal with a whole new bunch of people that way.
Is that any clearer?
It occurs to me that some enterprising person could go on http://thomas.loc.gov and do a search (one would have to experiment with search terms) and find the actual earmark somewhere in the budget. That would answer a lot of questions. I don't have time to do it right now, but it's a fairly simple interface and maybe an hour or so of digging should prove fruitful.
I've just spent a bit of time searching the web for more information on this apparent federal grant.
A Standard-Examiner article on November 23, 2005 states that "A federal bill that allocates about $40 million for a variety of Utah economic development and transportation projects, including several in Weber and Davis Counties, is awaiting President Bush's signature." The bill is identified as the federal Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, ratified the previous week by Congress. The relevant line item is apparently "$250,000 to the Utah Transit Authority for implementation of a bus rapid transit system study for Ogden."
(If you have a Weber County Library card you can access this article through the library's web site. Go to "Premium Sites" (near lower-left corner), then "Magazines, Journals, & Newspapers", then "Newsbank". Then enter your card number and proceed to "Standard-Examiner".)
However, when I looked up this bill on Thomas, I could find no mention of this apparent earmark.
The only other information I know of is the letter from UTA to Godfrey that Rudi posted last month, which on page 3 mentions "the $247,500 bus facilities earmark that the City lobbied for and received in the 2006 USDOT appropriation."
If anyone would care to dig further and find the actual language of the earmark, I'm all ears.
Waitaminnit....Ken Lee can lobby for funds without City approval? He just goes in and sees that there is some dough on the table and says, "I'll just take that for my good bud, Matt, for his visions"??
Is that how that works?
No oversight? What other city in America is run as badly as this one?
How do you like Draper getting a City Mgr to usurp the mayor whom the Council didn't think was doing her proper duty?
Oh, that we had such oversight from our Council!!!
It sounds like the money is not earmarked for a gondola study after all, but for a rapid transit system study. Godfrey has been lying about it out of both sides of his mouth, because he wants to use the money for a gondola promotion program, along the lines of his ridiculous Lewis study.
Godfrey is lying to the council, saying he knew nothing about the money, and he is lying to UTA, saying the city's preferred use of the money is to study a gondola, when the city policy body, the city council, has decided no such thing.
But it sounds like Garcia and Van Hooser are on the case, and know what's going on.
Please council members, make sure this money is used to fund a study of transportation alternatives, not used as a marketing tool for Godfrey's wants.
Remember council members, you are the policy setting group, not the administration. And unlike the mayor, you have the public interest in mind.
Regarding the question of removing names from the Standard's Letter to the Editor, and the letter earlier this month from Mr. Geiger, I received the following by email today from Don Porter, Editorial Page Editor at the Standard.
I'm satisfied. I find this an honest and forthright explanation of Mr. Porter's position.
It was an oversight. No ulterior motive. We made the determination years ago
to scrub most author names from letters reacting to previous letters; our
thinking was that it removed some of the personal rancor and directed
attention to the issues. I think it's a good rule of thumb, and that it has
accomplished what we intended.
It should be noted that there have been exceptions, though I'd have to do
some research to provide examples.
I have, from time to time, let names slip through unintentionally. When that
happens, it's my fault -- I'm the editor, and the buck stops here; we all
know the drill. I'm not really interested in making anyone look good or bad.
I'm interested in getting the best letters and commentaries on the page, and
giving people interesting items to read every day. Some days we succeed,
some days less so. The thing is, we try hard every day, but despite our
efforts we (I) slip up.
The one thing I can guarantee you is that I don't/won't skew the letters or
commentaries to favor any side in the gondola debate -- my latest mistake
notwithstanding. I will admit to finding almost all of them boring, on a
personal basis, since they so often repeat the same things over and over.
When nothing new was moving on the subject, I stopped running letters and
commentaries on the gondola for a time. Now it's back in the news, with real
developments, so the letters are running (in roughly the order the
authorship is verified, and space on the page becomes available).
That's my defense. It's honest and sincere. I hope it is sufficient. If not,
fee free to call me at 625-4205. Feel free to share this as widely as you'd
like.
Sincerely,
Don Porter
editorial page editor
Standard-Examiner
dporter@standard.net
Mono:
Thanks for posting Mr. Porter's note to you.
what does it matter what the money is to be used for. we will use it to futher the ogden commiunity foundation. we used the 900,000 from the state any way we wanted and now we will use this federal money any way we want. because we will not be held accountable, don't you people know anything! I'm in power and I'll do what ever I Damn well please, so there. and I will be re-elected because I know what is good for all of you.
That's right.
Fraud is perfectly OK to us, as long as we all get to share the loot.
I'd definitely vote for you in the next election but I'm not old enough to vote.
Mono:
Deleting extraneous names from the text of letters makes some sense to me, but when a letter writer is replying to a previous letter in the SE, removing the name simply adds to confusion and does not make much sense. If a letter engages a previous letter-writer in personal abuse/dispute, the simple solution is not to run the replying letter at all.
In any case, editing the letter by the SE staff should trigger a call to the letter writer to give him the choice: consent to the alterations, or opt not run it at all if you'd prefer. That puts that decision where it belongs: with the letter writer.
If the S-E is going to have a letter-writing policy, then I think it should be stated.
That's what I said in my response to Mr. Porter.
Still, I thought his was a classy response and I appreciated his candor and willingness to discuss the matter.
Mono:
You wrote: Still, I thought his [Porter's] was a classy response and I appreciated his candor and willingness to discuss the matter.
No argument from me on that.
And making people aware of the no-names policy [this little WCF dustup is the first I've heard of it] would doubtless cut down significantly on the use of silent edits as letter-writers, hoping to see their stuff in print, composed their missives in accord with the policy. But they can't conform in advance to a policy they are not aware of. Good suggestion.
Godfrey purports to be in the dark about the FTA allocation. "I don't know how it came about".
This from the micro manager of all time!
Of course he knows where every rotten thing and deed in his administration coems from. If he didn't think it up, one of his minions did. If it's nefarious enuf, he'll take the credit. If it brings suspicion upon him, then he plays dumb or points his skinny finger at an underling. Can we all say Martinez?
If the man really doesn't know about the FTA allocation, and Ken Lee can bring home the bacon without Godfrey's approbation, then it is truly obvious that this young laddie who would be king, must be dethroned.
Now before we're stuck with the tailors' bill....someone tell the emporer he is nekkid as the proverbial blue jay.
Dan:
Thanks to your intrepid work, I was able to enter the magic series of three words into Thomas:
"bus rapid transit"
Pages 499 and 504, line 178 of this .pdf of the enrolled FY2006 appropriations bill, as signed by the President, contain the following phrases:
"[Subsection c] The following projects are authorized for preliminary engineering for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code:
...
Ogden — Intermodal – Weber State University transit connection"
$120,240,000 was authorized for all 264 projects in subsection c (p. 508). That works out to an average of $455K per project. I'm guessing that DOT got to decide just how much engineering money was going to each one, and the share for "Ogden – Intermodal Weber State University transit connection" was $247,500. That's the best I can figure from the limited information, anyway.
I don't see any language anywhere that commits Federal funds to a study of a gondola, hanging wicker basket, human cannon-based rapid transit or zip-line. It does seem to budget Federal money for a study of the best or most efficient mode of transportation between the multimodal center and WSU.
I still think the S-E should continue mining this vein. Someone is being very sparing with the truth.
One more thought:
Could the $247,500 allocated in the FY2006 Federal grant to UTA (assuming that's the right amount) and the $200,000 set aside in the UTA budget for a "gondola study" pending management agreement be the same pot of money?
Sorry to be following up on my own posts, in a multiple way.
As I re-examine the Inglish letter to Godfrey dated April 4, 2006 (linked in Dan's post above), I see these are two separate pools of money (p. 3 of the letter):
-- $100,000 from UTA, to be matched by $100,000 from the city, for a study of a gondola system, pursuant to an adult-written fiscal plan
-- $247,500 "bus facilities earmark that the City lobbied for and received in the 2006 USDOT appropriation."
The meaning of the latter phrase is now much clearer to me now that I have read the appropriations bill.
WCForum readers, please let me know what you think of all this, and my interpretation. Unlike some, I don't claim to be the Final Authority on any of this.
Monotreme,
Yeah, I found that reference to "Ogden - Intermodal - Weber State University" as well. But that seems to be a different bill from the one mentioned in the news article. The bill you linked is H.R. 3, known by the acronym SAFETEA-LU. Its purpose is to "authorize funds" for transportation projects. But the news article referenced an "appropriations" bill for transportation and a bunch of other stuff, which must be H.R. 3058. That bill doesn't contain any line item for the Ogden transit corridor. Perhaps, to figure out how much money goes to each of those preliminary engineering projects, you have to carefully combine what the two bills (and others?) say. That's well beyond my ability, at least for tonight.
I'm also puzzled because normally you have to do a locally funded EIS (which we haven't done) before you start preliminary engineering.
I'll try to do some more digging on this, but it may take a while.
Just how the hell does, pee wee Godfrey, think he'll pay for this pie in the sky (gondola).
They mayor and the chief of police are so over-paid. That can’t even afford to pay their cops enough to stay working for Ogden City.
If they get the gondola by some miracle? They can’t keep it safe.
Ogden city is down 15 full time cops. They're going to be down a total of 28 cops if the gondola is built.
Nice thinking Mayor!!!
This is why we need Neil Hansen to be the next Mayor of the great City of OGDEN.
Hey you guys, stop it, teasing the mayor like you do.
Shame on you.
He’s so smart, funny, and cute and he has integrity.
What the Hell is N. Ogden thinking, when they want to purchase a glass covering for their swimming pool. Nextthing ya know, Mayor Godfrey will want one to go over his gondola.
Dammet N. Ogden Stop it.
I've noticed something interesting among the family rightwingers lately: they have simply disappeared Bush and the Republican congress from their minds. It's the weirdest thing. You talk politics with them and they are already going on about how the Democrats are ruining the country with their big spending and high taxes. You ask about Bush and they look at you blankly and start talking about the Clintons.
They are fully back in minority victimhood mode without missing a beat. And there is a sense of gleeful excitement about the whole thing — "heh, heh, I just hope I live long enough to see what that horrible woman is going to do to this country."* If you mention Iraq, they shrug their shoulders and start babbling about John Kerry and the draft-dodging Clinton. Some lament that the Democrats wouldn't let us win it (we should have "glassed 'em"). For the most part, they seem absolutely thrilled to be in the minority and they are already doing the only thing they have ever really been good at — carping about Democrats from the sidelines.
Charlie Trentelman's Wasatch Rambler column this morning in the SE deals with the projected [now] $7 million Peterson/Godfrey administration spokesman John Patterson says the city may get from selling the Mt. Ogden golfcourse and adjacent lands to help finance the mayor's obsession, the gondola. Mr. Trentelman provides some comps [current prices for residential lots in the same area] by way of comparison and judging the fairness of the projected $7 million dollar sale. [Deals with other matters too.]
Well worth a look.
Running for bus to work so can't post link, but will later if no one else does.
I got in late and read the paper from yesterday morning. I had to stop and re-read a couple times the guest editorial from c. geiger. Sheesh - who stuck a roll of nickels in him?!? What a "fusty dog hearted scullian!"
To him I say (and borrow from the bard) "Canst thou believe thy living is a life, so stinkingly depending [on Peterson's land grab and Godfree's goldola philly-buster]? Go mend, go mend."
tsk, tsk. We should ALL fart in their general directions for taunting us a second (and third, fourth, fifth, ad nauseum) time. (oh, pardon me - did I just say fart on the blog?)
As for Curt Geiger's letter:
"I'd prefer that the rationale for the decisions of our company be explained by me rather than Mr. Metcalf."
These guys are so obsessed with a gondola you have to really wonder.
Let's suppose there was a proposal on the table to link a proposed resort to our downtown. Whatever the mode of transportation, one of the choices was a mode as yet be determined that had these attributes:
That it would only operate at 20mph and there would only be 2 or 3 stops between downtown and the foothill. That it would not have UTA funding and that it would not affect the central residential district leaving it to decay further. It would also require the city to sell off our finest open space assets for second home development and closing the municipal golf course for some time for reconfiguration and acreage reduction.
This mode of tranport has obvious appeal as it can deliver 2400 passengers per hour yet the proposed resort would only have a carrying capacity of less than a thousand skiers on any given day.
The other transit options would be street level, stop every boulevard and halfway between. It would be nearly fully funded by UTA thus saving unnecessary liquidation of key city "quality of life" assets. These conventional modes would also contribute to and fuel a massive redevelopment of the inner city by creating transit zones where the pedestrian lifestyle is a natural and shops and cafes and galleries can exist in the quiet and shade of our wonderful central residential district. Many cities have deployed these conventional modes and witnessed a reconstruction boom along the corridor. Portland, OR alone boasts over $2 BILLION invested along it's several miles of transit corridor. Ogden would be creating roughly 4 miles of transit corridor by commiting to conventional transit thus leading the way and focusing development wisely along this modern transit corridor.
Curt, a little google search for you today.
Type very carefully "TOD" into your search engine of choice. Start reading.
speaks for itself...MART
Plans for the gondola were initially approved by the city on May 6, 1982. It was developed by the Mississippi Aerial River Transit-Perez Inc., or MART-Perez, which included noted local architect August Perez III. In 1983, the Banque De L'Union Europeene of Paris provided financing for the project through an $8 million loan.
During the fair, this was billed as the signature ride of the exhibition; however, it drew only 1.7 million riders, half as many as projected. Built to showcase a form of non-polluting commuter transit, after the fair the system was open for use by commuters traveling from Algiers in the West Bank to the Warehouse District across the river. By 1985, the system would shut down due to low ridership.
Later in 1985, the Banque De L'Union Europeene would file suite against MART-Perez when they defaulted on the $8 million loan. As a result on nonpayment, in 1986, MART was ordered by a federal court to pay the bank $5 million, plus $1.2 million in interest and attorney fees. However, MART never made a payment, and as a result, the gondola was seized by the United States Marshals Service in June 1989. After the seizure, the system was put up for auction in August with New York City businessman Moey Segal placing the winning bid of $1.6 million.
Segal intended to deconstruct the system and relocate it to Corpus Christi, Texas. It was intended to transport tourists from the primary hotel area to the Texas State Aquarium across the ship channel. Due to litigation, the proposal to move the system to Texas was dropped and Segal transferred its ownership to the 7349 Corp in 1990.
By late January 1993, the United States Coast Guard demanded that the system be demolished if it were not being used. In November 1993, the New Orleans City Council approved the demolition of the system and its demolition was complete by February 1994.
Talk about an overglorified,narcissitic,totally audacious examaple of a twisted estimation of one's percieved bloated self importance, Geiger nor descente were mentioned in Metcalf's piece. Geiger moved here long before this land grab gondola scheme was hatched. Chris Peterson still had his over funded no responsibility attatched cushy job with his father in-law. Little Matty was busy seeking tax payer funding to make Ogden, little San Jose, what a disengenuous pack of liars these guys are . Oh, did I mention that a peccary is a little pig, with a white collar?
Here's the link to the Trentelman column in today's SE: here.
As for Mr. Geiger's op ed hissy fit in yesterday's SE, it hardly needs refutation. He seems miffed that an outdoors industry leader with business creds as good or better than his, disagrees with him about the wisdom of "improving" [you should excuse the expression] Ogden's outdoors appeal by selling off the city's largest park and undeveloped bench lands tract to the Mayor's crony for a housing development. And at a bargain basement price too. [See link to Trentelman column above.]
Monotreme and Dan S:
It's the rule rather than the exception that you couldn't find the specific line item for Ogden in the bill language of H.R. 3058 (transportation appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006). You must look in the related committee reports. The line item, "Ogden Buses and Bus Facilities - UT," for the amount of $250,000, can be found at the bottom of p. 192 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3058 -- that's House Report 109-307, Nov. 18, 2005. You can access it through the "Committee Reports" link at thomas.loc.gov.
The thing that first struck you about Bob Geiger's postings to this blog two years ago were their incredible solipsism: "I was right there with the mayor" ... "I was in the room" ... "I'm not at liberty to disclose," ad nauseam.
Sigh. Now we realize it's inherited, thanks to Curt Geiger's exercise in narcissism (and little else) in yesterday's S-E. The words "I," "me," "mine," etc., were used 24 times in the screed. (Compare that to the reviled Metcalf piece, which had a total of 8.) For this clan, even the gondola and the ski-gear are merely second fiddle to The Ego.
Sharon...I'm sure that of the 19,429 municipal governments across the country, this is the worst (as you imply.)
Get real.
Yesterday, after my 10am flowrider session I asked around the Salomon Center if there was wi-fi on premise or plans for it. The desk guy made quite clear there was no intention for it as there was no where for people to sit and use it while I was looking a maybe a hundred empty seats, tables, benches etc surrounding the bowling, arcade and striker's grill. First of all I did not know it required special areas or any more breathing space to access wi-fi. It's invisible and wireless.
Anyway I then spoke to the manager at Fat Cats and posed the same and was told the city was going to provide it blanketing the downtown. I am aware of several attempts at municipally provided blanket wi-fi coverage. I'm pretty sure none of them have developed to fruition and have been beset by many regulatory and administrative problems. Hence there is little coverage and too much talk on this trendy yet potentially highly functional amenity. It is always when there are monetary charges or desire for filtering or a desire to administer the network by those who know nothing about it that damns all these attempts. These little routers are cheap, powerful, easy to install, and can be adminsitered remotely. It is only when the attempt to bring complexity and centralization to a wi-fi network that it becomes overburdened, expensive, and hence, eventually not deployed and thus we have no service. It would be easier to locate a couple of cable connections across the street in a vacant building and beam the network over to the junction than go through the typical bureaucratic rigamarole at city hall. There is always this stupid fear of people downloading porn or using the networks for their primary connection or some other cooked up nonsense. In the real world, these networks are simply a convenience to check a movie time, get a google map and directions, maybe order pizza, make a quick VOIP call in the absence of a cell connection in a big steel building, etc. Check any Starbucks who have them. There are not tons of people with their laptops open watching movies, d-loading, whatever. I have never seen more than a few people using these connections but they are vital and have far more capability than your common and very expensive wireless WAN connection. A wi-fi connection at or near city hall would allow participants in council meetings and councilfolk alike to do instant research. This could answer many question with a click and help the council move ahead instead of tabling simple stuff for later after some research.
Can anyone enlighten me as to when our downtown will have municipal wireless or is this just another of Godfrey's sexy goodies that will be another "component" to his dream downtown. The place is open. It would be natural. Customers are there right now.
Tec-
Please check out this X-mission press release. X-Mission Press Release
I thought this was a big announcement a few months ago, but I haven't heard any follow-up since.
JWIYF,
Thanks for the link. I had seen it but forgot about the x-mission deal.
The press release does not mention the junction as part of coverage but includes treehouse and tech center.
It also speaks of a five-year rollout which seems pretty lame considering I could make a deal with any neighboring property owner tomorrow and start beaming for less than a hundred bucks a month. But that is not my business. It demonstrates again the layers of useless regulation, fund allocation, approvals, and costs associated with government in meeting the simplest needs of the people.
The very kind folks at x-mission could not give me an update on this phased rollout.
On another note, the changing/restroom at the flowrider has no hooks in the stalls so you are forced to drop your clothes or backpack on a wet bathroom floor, yuk. Cost cutting?
Costa Vida still has no corn tortillas. Their tortilla press is on back order I'm told. They'll lose my biz till then.
FLowrider is rocking success. Getting tougher to get quality time with better riders. Would be cool to have a day pass or overall seasonal pass so one could ride a few and take off at your leisure. This would be great for locals. Visitors aplenty will keep paying hourly. It's structured now so we are forced to ride that hour which can get either physically exhausting as a beginner or kind of boring if you just want to carve it up for half an hour then get some lunch, beer, a movie and then ride a few more before leaving. As it is I go there, I ride, get exhausted and have no energy but to go home. I'd spend more being a local if it was more free form. Still the flowrider is becoming a great scene. It's the easiest to relax and watch as the action is continuous whereas the iFly you wait an eternity to watch the next flyer for a ...minute. boring. I keep wandering up there to watch but it's pretty dead. Yesterday while the flowrider had a crowd of riders and watcher's there was one flyer finishing and no spectators when checking it out.
I really want this to succeed. I have been a regular and have spent a load down there. These little things may seem minor but it's the little things that count.
Tec
I hope that your enthusiasm for the Junction catches on.
I encourage every one to check it out and spend some dough down there on the Pike.
Tec:
You wrote: On another note, the changing/restroom at the flowrider has no hooks in the stalls so you are forced to drop your clothes or backpack on a wet bathroom floor, yuk. Cost cutting?
Oh, I doubt it. Probably just one of the kajillion small matters that get overlooked in the opening of a big project. The high-concept guys are focused on statues of climbers on belay and artistic front elevations and uplifting quotes on monuments... not coat hooks in changing rooms. Bet, you being a regular and all, if you mention it to the FlowRider management, they'll get it fixed right quick like.
Besides, well all know you surfin' hippie hang ten types are not into haute couture in any case. Probably they thought y'all'd be more comfortable in surroundings with clothes on the floor.... [grin]
Yeah, I'm kind of nit-pickin'. I'd change naked in front of all if I had to. I ain't proud.
Just finished another flow session. So fun. Mayor Matt was watching the action for a while. Couldn't get him to drop trow and join us. People are coming to flowride from all over. Kids from Logan and Orem were there. I'm surprised Lagoon doesn't install one of these things. Anyway being the only one for over 500 miles assures a captive audience. I'll give whoever pushed this one through big props. Ogden has needed this badly. I'm not into bars or restaurants as a place to go out to regularly. Eating and drinking are so overrated as is the food and prices. I make slammin' healthy meals for myself for pennies on the dollar. Leads to severe isolation when a guy is too cheap to go eat out inferior tacos. Along comes this Junction with a host of healthy activities and a focal point for the community. I'm in. Everyone is having such a blast. I really don't care for the architecture or some of the attractions but there is truly something for everyone. Ogden people, get out of your cozy homes and get downtown for something other than shopping.
My goodness, isn't Kammie Geiger in charge of hooks in changing rooms? What is she being paid to do, if not oversee that kind of thing? How about hooks on the backs of bathroom stalls?
Silly...you silly goose, did you stay up all night researching just how many municipalities there are?? Bravo...which ones did you find that are run as badly as Ogden? THAT was the question.
Ozboy...I used to wander the Pike in Long Beach in the olden days....we may have been on the ferris wheel at the same time!
Thanks, Moroni!
I guess I'm not very good at using Thomas. Even when I find the correct committee report, I can't find the table listing the Ogden earmark when I try to access the relevant section from the report's table of contents. But when I download the full text (html or pdf), I do see it there, as you quoted.
Since the earmark is clearly for buses, I suppose UTA must be playing a shell game with its money. This money for buses frees up other UTA money which it then says it'll spend on a gondola study. I suppose.
Today I submitted a GRAMA request to the city for all correspondence between UTA and the city regarding this gondola study. We'll see what turns up.
Dan:
That's a great strategy. We'll see what it turns up.
I am amazed, but not amused, that the city has been sitting on a $250K windfall for more than a year, just because of their inability to submit a proper management report to UTA.
The questions posed in the Inglish letter to Godfrey are on-point. I think Godfrey and Patterson should give them due consideration, and do what it takes to collect the money and spend it on a proper transit study.
Dan S.: We owe you our thanks for pursuing the GRAMA strategy. Good luck.
Why aren't these comments showing up in the SE every day, as letters to the Editor? The public needs to hear these things!
Post a Comment