If you believe Bert Sperling, Provo is a better place to live than Salt Lake City, Logan is better than Provo, and Ogden is better than all of them. Sperling is maybe the best-known publisher of books ranking American cities according to such criteria as climate, cost of living, cultural opportunities and easy access to the Osmonds. (Just kidding on that last one.)Further on down the page, Griggs devotes a special paragraph to our fair little city:
That brings us to Sperling's Utah champ: Ogden, which the book calls "the unassuming, shy but quietly prosperous little sister of booming Salt Lake City." To Sperling, Ogden is the sixth most livable city in the country, helped by high scores for its affordability, its job growth and, frankly, its proximity to Salt Lake. Way to go, sis.With the string of flattering articles which have appeared recently in the national press, Emerald City is clearly on the public radar screen. Now that we're attracting public attention, lots of folks are checking us out.
In that connection, Ace Reporter Schwebke reports this morning that the long-silent Emerald City suitor, Ernest Health, has again raised its head, and is also giving us a "second look." Frankly, we're wondering what's taken them so long, inasmuch as we're the most livable city in their whole danged entire western U.S. operations region.
Curiously, the Standard-Examiner is still clinging to the the same knuckleheaded yarn that the newspaper mercilessly hammered for a full month during early 2006 -- i.e., that the then wet behind the ears and newly sworn-in 2006-08 RDA Board (the city council) ran poor old Darcey Brockette out of town with rude questions, the first time Ernest Health publicly expressed interest in locating to our city.
"Aggressive questioning" is what the Std-Ex (and Boss Godfrey) stubbornly continue to call it:
In January 2006, Ernest Health abruptly canceled its plans to build a $17.5 million hospital in Ogden after the RDA board, made up of city council members, aggressively questioned Brockette about the company’s finances and investors.Those of us who actually attended that January 10, 2006 RDA session of course had a completely different take from that of the Std-Ex, about the events which transpired that night. What members of the RDA Board did that evening, as it has done many a night since then, was to ask (quite politely we thought) whether the Ernest Health folks would be willing to 1) disclose the identities of their principles, and 2) provide some basic financial information. The atmosphere was very cordial, according to our recollection; and Mr. Brockette agreed that his company would do so, mentioning that he "expected the Board to do its due diligence," and adding that his company itself was yet to complete its own due diligence.
The real problem, of course was the usual problem: Boss Godfrey. The RDA board had asked for certain information necessary to an important decision; and Boss Godfrey had refused to provide it behind the scenes. Thus the Board had to ask its questions in open session. At the time, our gentle readers will recall, Godfrey's lame excuse was that the new RDA Board had failed to put their information request in writing.
What developed subsequently was a month-long anti-council harangue from the Standard-Examiner, and an extended and petulant Municipal Government Academy Award performance from Drama Queen Godfrey, blaming Ernest Health's failure to abandon its ongoing due diligence, and to immediately sign on the dotted line, on RDA Board over-aggressiveness. Blaming the victim has of course always been Godfrey's strong suit.
This ludicrous meme is just flat wrong, as we pointed out in a series of concurrently-published WCF articles. Our own Dian Woodhouse even managed to have published two rebuttal articles on the Std-Ex pages, one of which still survives online.
Now that the smoke has cleared, and Ernest Health is again publicly expressing interest in our city, we hope that Boss Godfrey will cooperate with the RDA Board. Ernest Health would be a great asset for our city, we think. However, it can't happen unless all the key troops are marching in the same direction.
And while we're still on the subject we're going to say one more thing. Ace Reporter Schwebke's morning article characterised the Godfrey adminstration's efforts as "continuing productive discussions with Ernest Health aimed at persuading the company to build" its hospital in Emerald City.
We think that's the wrong attitude for these negotiations.
We suggest that Godfrey and his henchmen read Mr. Griggs' above linked article, and some of the other recent pieces which have appeared in other media, all touting Emerald City as a danged fine place to live.
If Ernest Health is now finally aware of the ample benefits of moving their company to our town, it seems to us that it's "they" who ought to be doing the "persuading."
23 comments:
Godfrey needs to get off his knees and stop prostituting himself and our city for any business HE deems worthy to be here.
Even tho Daps and a few others rant that Layton is not a fine example of a city worth emulating, I disagree.
Whether or not Layton gave some perks in the past to businesses...they don't do it anymore!
If Ogden can offer natural beauty, good location, fire and police protections, and good infrastructure (LOL)...then Ernest or any other like business should find this a welcoming place to settle.
Godfrey has an economic development team...perhaps we should see just what they are capable of without his meddling?
I was at that now infamous CC meeting also,. I never heard one disparaging remark, rude question or inappropriate fact seeking statements from any member of the RDA/CC.
In fact, it was Godfey and Cook who were the culprits. They refused to give the RDA ANY info on Brockette and Ernest prior (or after) the meeting.
If there is any apologizing coming from Godfrey, it should be for his own gaffes and hubris.
We STILL don't really know a lot about Ernest...but Provo (and some other cities) didn't give them a dime...and they still built there!
BTW Scott: good work. But, may I suggest that you drop the part about the Council running Brockette off? Let us not read that each time this story appears...it's as disingenuous as that tripe about "A" gondola and Peterson's non-plan adnauseum. Otherwise, Scott, I give you many high fives for your investigative work lately. Kudos.
After living in several different cities, I am convinced that many who have lived in Ogden all their lives don't realize what a gem it is.
I was at an event in Farmington and heard a man from Southern California who looked at the mountains say "they're right here, aren't they?"
They sure are. Let's keep our mountains and open spaces for the people. That's one of the things that makes Ogden special.
I would ask Scott Schwebke to be less administration-centric and avoid passing along Godfrey's digs at the council as in today's article.
As far as the suggestions that someone do a letter to the editor about Godfrey's study - it's being sent today.
Good comments Sharon, as always. Let's stop paying people to move here. If they need to be paid, we don't need them.
I, too, was at the Ernest Health meeting.
The questions asked of Mr. Brockette were normal questions asked in the course of doing business.
If Mayor Godfrey is back begging them to come then that means he plans to dangle some bribe in front of them. It is evident that our Mayor only thinks in terms of bribes and tax increment or some other giveaway.
Let them come but let them pay full price for what they get just like all the citizens in Ogden have to do.
Rudi:
Glad you pointed out that the root cause of whatever problems emerged over Earnest the first time sprang from the Administration's repeated refusal to provide Council members with information they asked for prior to the meeting. Having not been provided with it when requested earlier, they asked the company directly at the meeting. Think of the Bootjack mess as "Son of Earnest incident" and you'll pretty much have it nailed, as you did.
The only question I have about the Administration's eagerness to draw Earnest to Ogden [which btw I'm all for] is its eagerness to draw the company to the River Project RDA area. I thought the concept for that area was upscale condos and apartments, boutique-y shoppes, fern bars, bike shops and restaurants and similar forms of strolling commerce --- the "walking city" concept. How a rehabilitation hospital fits the concept escapes me. Never have heard that explained.
Dare we hope the administration will bring the Council leadership at least into the discussions, and provide whatever reasonable information members ask for in advance of the meeting this time? Stonewalling did not produce the results the Administration said it wanted last time. Are they smart enough to figure out that working cooperatively with the Council might produce better results all round this time and serve the interests of the Earnest Company better as well? We shall see.
Leopards never change their spots. Neither does little Lord Matty change his ways and tactics.
Godfrey wanted to 'give away' the property....$4,000,000. worth to Ernest. What do you think the appraisal will be on that property today? 1 1/2 yrs later?
The RDA simply cannot let Godfrey dangle that property in front of Ernest and not receive a dime in return.
If Ernest wants to come here, let them do it the way they have in other cities. Using their own money!
Honest to pete...this city is being built like a house of cards or dominoes...knock one down and the whole structure falls.
Curm...we asked that same question at the time...why have a rehab hospital in the midst of the 'cool and sexy' stuff?
Maybe for people falling off bikes?
Ernest wanted to be close to a regular hospital. That is why they didn't like the river front area to begin with. Or at least that is what they said. Their other facilities are all adjacent to, or very near hospitals. That seems to be part of their business plan because their patients for the most part are in such a condition they need that closeness and availability of hospital services.
The other big reason they didn't come at that time was they were very much over extended with their other projects that were being built at the time. Their finances were stretched as a consequence. They were a very new organization with I believe two facilities newly on line and one being built. Contrary to what the little scam artist Godfrey was putting out, they were not a huge successful company with a proven track record.
The principals were also products of the Health South fiasco, the biggest hospital criminal conspiracy in US history. The people behind Ernest were not indicted themselves, but they most likely were a bit tainted in the financial community as a result of their being involved with the people that were.
I'm sure with a little investigation some of you computer wizzes here could get the current scoop on them and their company. Things like how well they have done since their first go around here in Ogden. As I recall, they were heavily dependent on Medicare and other government programs, some of which were in question at that time.
Godfrey used the already shaky Ernest deal that was going south
to embarrass and intimidate the brand new city council, especially Jeske and Glasmann who had just won handily against his preferred candidates.
He used the lame "they didn't put their info request in writing" tactic. This requirement was in place as it pertains to the Mayor Council information flow. He did this in spite of the fact that it was really an RDA affair. He is the executive director of the RDA, and as such he is responsible to the RDA board, which of course is also the city council. The mayor council communication procedure does not apply to the RDA and its executive director. In that capacity he is responsible to the board just as any other board executive relationship. It was a very disingenuous manipulation that he laid on them with the withholding of important info concerning Ernest. Information they needed to make an informed decision. It was all a Godfrey game of intimidation. Showing the council who was boss.
The sad part was that the Sub Standard Examiner went along with the scam hook line and sinker. They followed Godfey's script to the letter. They never did any independant investigation, they never ask any questions, they blindly acted as Godfrey's immoral hammer. Even Porter's editorial board got in on the lynching. It was one of the Standard's very lowest moment in their many low moments.
Godfrey was sleazy then on that go around, and you can bet your bippy he will be equally as sleazy in round two of the Ernest saga. It is his nature! He is low class, sneaky, dishonest, arrogant, incompetent and immoral. As pointed out above, he is not going to change his spots. He will lie even when the truth is better.
There will be veterans nursing home built by the fair grounds, maybe that is the best place to have them locate, right next to those that will need rehab.
mother:
As I recall, the Ernest facility will be a residential rehab hospital, and thus likely to be in competition with [so to speak] the Vet's home facility [if it ever gets funded and built; we can only hope the SL Roller Derby Team doesn't put together a ten million dollar public arena tax package for the legislature to fund by next budget cycle, I guess, or the Vets will doubtless go to the back of the line again. That's what passes for "support the troops" in Utah Republican circles these days....]
The idea, I gather, is that residents of the Ernest rehab hospital will need the services, close by, of a full service hospital like McKay Dee or ORMC.
Oz:
Granted the SE drank the kool-aid on the original Ernest coverage. However, since then, as I recall, the SE has been stiffed several times by the Godfrey administration refusing to provide public information, and the SE has had to file GRAMA requests and I think go to court at least once to get that information.
In short, the SE has now a lot more evidence than it had a couple of years ago about the Godfrey administration's MO. I hope that has made the SE a little more skeptical about Administration spin, and a lot less willing to take Administration boilerplate as unquestioned fact. The recent story on the "secret" financial analysis of the Godfrey/Peterson proposal is a good example.
We shall see. I'm hopeful. Cautiously hopeful, but hopeful, of less credulous coverage of the Administration and I think I've seen signs of that already.
This does not mean that I'm looking for the SE to do hatchet jobs on the Administration, nor does it meant he SE should necessarily make an editorial stand opposing the Administration its default position. Nothing like that at all. But it will, I hope, from now on as I think it has begun already to do, look upon all official pronouncements, statements, press releases from official sources [city, county and state] with a suitably jaundiced eye and skeptical eye, and to treat them as "not proven" until they are fact-checked independently by the SE or others competent to do so.
I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say the paper's approach to officials' statements ought to be something like this:
"Godfrey Administration Says Sun Will Rise In East In Morning; Schwebke Buys Compass."
And yes, before anyone asks, that same standard should apply to groups critical of particular administration proposals or advocating other proposals of any sort. To take a group I strongly support, Smart Growth Ogden, the paper's attitude should be there as well:
"SGO Says Sun Will Set In West Tonight; Schwebke Buys Compass."
"Question Everything" is a good motto for any newspaper. For any citizen, for that matter. All the time.
Curmudgeon,
I, too, think the River Project area is a poor place to locate a rehabilitation hospital. A "walkable" river is, by far, the best idea for the future of the Ogden River.
I'm going to add sustainable to walkable, because the river should be protected for future generations.
Other cities have had success with revitilization projects located around a river. Reno is a prime example. Check out this Reno Riverfront site: http://www.cityofreno.com/bus/redevelopment/projects/
The Truckee River Walk started in the nineties and has been a huge success. I'm not saying Ogden is similar to Reno. I'm saying a walkable river is a treasure and should be treated accordingly.
The Ogden River is in a class by itself. Let's hope that our mayor doesn't squander our treasure, as per his wishful plunder of Mount Ogden Park.
Thank you for your numerous thoughtful, and quality, posts.
Caddy:
I've seen successful downtown river projects too. [And thanks for the link; I hadn't seen Reno's.] When the whole river project idea was first proposed, that kind of development is what I assumed Ogden had in mind. I still hope it is, but the Administration's rush to locate a Rehab hospital there started me wondering, and I'm wondering still.
As I recall, during the first Ernest go-round, the motivation was largely financial: the city wanted the money from sale of the land the Ernst to finance acquisition of the rest of the property for sale in the river project area, or at least that phase of it. I gather the financial motive for locating what seems to be a non-compatible business on a large tract in the River Project area is no longer there. Or is it?
Thanks again for the link.
Reno Link:
The Reno riverwalk development link posted above does not work on my machine. I get an error message. But if you cut the entire address Caddy posted and put it in the google search engine, the Reno link comes up immediately, and it works perfectly. It's the same one Caddy posted, letter for letter. Why it won't work directly from his post escapes me.
Thought I'd post the workaround for anyone, like me, who couldn't get the link to work directly.
Unfortunately, the link given for the City of Reno didn't work for me, so I did some hunting on my own.
I think I found the site Caddyhack was giving , please correct me if I'm wrong.
Then, I came across this! Public information, planning, cost-benefit analysis, several studies, all out on the web for anyone to see. Quite different from the way Godfrey operates.
Curm,
The difference with Reno is that their downtown was already directly adjacent to the river and the river is substantial with a well defined channel. Our downtown is several blocks from the river and the river is reduced to a trickle in many summers and fall which is exactly the outdoor season for a river stroll. I'm not saying the River Walk is a bad idea. I think it is reaching for this point in time. Laying the groundwork as the city has done is a good thing although it could do better to accommodate current landowners and exercise flexibility and leadership in guiding current early development.
tec:
Understood. And it is true that most of the successful river-walk-based developments I've checked out deal with a river running directly though the downtown. Ogden's core grew up around the railroad, not the river.
One of the things that's concerned me about the River Project is the definition of the entire area from north of the river to the 25th Street area as "downtown." Pretty large and more than a convenient stroll between the riverside fern bar/ restaurants and the Mall redevelopment and 25th Street it seemed to me.
Ogden, too, exists in the shadow of a major city, SL, which changes the dynamics here dramatically from other medium sized cities that do not.
What I hope went on among those who did the planning for all this [Mall redevelopment, river project, etc] was a focus on our local, particular circumstances and what would work in light of them. I'm not always sure that happened, or is happening, when Our Leaders start telling us Telluride, CO's ski lift gondola should be a model for Ogden's development. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.... I hope the same sort of false analogies were not used as a basis for planning the Mall redevelopment and River projects.
Curm,
You are ever the optomist!
I was interested to go to OgdenLover's link on the whole plan and analysis that went into Reno's ED.
I was really interested to see the subtitles about the grocery store in downtown. I couldn't bring up any of the conclusions or recommendations...but just the fact that they DID a study was intriguing!
We need a grocery in the downtown area. It would well serve residents, tourists staying overnite in hotels, and those who tour the city and decide to camp, hike or fish in our great outdoors and need supplies.
I think we all questioned the feasibility of Ernest locating in the River Project area. Ozboy is quite correct in his post that Ernest wanted to be near a hospital.
It has occured to me that if they really do want to come back to our AREA, they may build somewhere close to Ogden Regional Hospital!!
It's difficult to fathom the small thinking of Godfrey pushing Moyal and Singh out of THEIR property and dreams to open an Indian Cuisine Restaurant and fix up the motel....and welcoming an unknown entity (Ernest) to the RIVER FRONT!
Ernest should willingly open their books to the RDA and take frank questioning. If Brockette shows up again, he may want to be professional and bring portfolio with him!
Ah well, greater minds than mine may mull this over.
Sharon:
I said, vis a vis the SE, cautiously optimistic, based on how the SE has I think improved somewhat over the past two years.
Newspapers, like most organizations [or people for that matter] rarely remain unchanged over time. They get better or worse or sometimes just different, but they rarely remain the same. The NY Times, for example, once one of the great papers of America, has become a pale and embarrassing shadow of the Great Grey Lady it used to be. [I think it's interesting that the Times began its precipitous decline when it began to do what so many here have charged the SE with doing too often: accepting the statements of elected officials as if they were graven in stone and handed down from the Mount, minus even basic fact checking. The fact that those statements appeared un-sourced in the paper just made it worse. The SE at least has to my knowledge never done that, and so, in that regard at least, has held itself to higher journalistic standards than the NY Times.]
So it was inevitable that the SE was going to change, and will change from where it is now. Only question is: in what direction. I think the signs are generally encouraging, over the past two years. Not unmixed, not in every case, but overall. And so, as I said, I'm cautiously optimistic about its future. We shall see.
BTW, interesting front page story today in the SE about a dispute in Layton about downtown development [walking city mixed use advocated by the City Council vs Big Box development advocated by two state legislator/developers.]
Ogden Election Issues:
Driving The Geezer [grandma Curmurdgeon] home from a family dinner tonight, passed the parking lot at the 36th Street trailhead. Someone has painted a very large sign and attached it to the lots chain link fence: "BREAK IN AREA."
I suspect crime and crime control is going to develop as a significant issue in the coming mayoral campaign. If it doesn't, it should.
Interesting pro-gondola etter in the SE this morning by one Milt Neely of Clinton. Link here.
What makes it interesting? Well, first, here's how the SE headlined the letter: "Ogden business owner happy with progress." Why is that interesting? Because nowhere in the letter does Mr. Neely indicate he is a businessman of any kind, in Ogden or in Clinton or anyplace else. Creative writing kudoes to the headline writer on that one.
Mr. Neely is happy about "about all the positive changes going on in Ogden," and particularly about the River Parkway, which he enjoys a great deal. No problem there. Good things, and the River Parkway is one of them, please me too.
But then he goes on to say that "the gondola needs to be installed" because "it is a good risk to take." Does he offer any reason for thinking it's a good risk? Any evidence in support of his claim? Of course not. But it gets better. He then says: "I have seen this in another city, and it appears to be a major asset." Does he tell us what other city he has seen a gondola being a major asset? No, he does not.
Mr. Neely concludes his letter this way: "At this time, I would like to raise a middle-finger salute to all the critics who have stood in the way of Ogden's progress. There are those who get things done, and there are those who complain about what is being done."
Of course, it did not occur to Mr. Neely that many of those enemies of progress to whom he so happily gives the finger in this morning's paper [presumably for opposing the Peterson/Godfrey gondola/gondola/real estate speculation scheme] were major supports of and movers behind the various River Parkway projects... the only specific element of progress in Ogden that his letter mentions.
So, he likes the gondola, but he can't explain why; he's seen it work as a major asset in another city, but he won't say which one; and anyone who thinks differently than he does is an enemy to progress to be flipped off at will.
Gotta love those gondolistas. Class acts all the way.
re Curm's comments about the Grey Lady:
I recently heard Peter Bart, editor of Hollywood's Daily Variety, speak about the state of journalism during his book tour. Bart alluded to the NYT's "new attitude" and attributed it to their "desperation to seem hip."
MM:
Ah, me. What a world. The editor of Variety critiquing the NY Times editorial policy... and being right.
Sigh....
Post a Comment