Ace Reporter Schwebke's persistent digging yields yet more pay-dirt
A hearty Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat this morning to the Standard-Examiner's Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke, who has recently been exhibiting the traits of a journalistic ferret, digging out facts like an old-fashioned investigative reporter on a Mission from the Journalism God.
After nearly two weeks of hemming and hawing, the always evasive and hyper-secretive Boss Godfrey has finally released to Mr. Schwebke the Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc. "fiscal analysis," commissioned by an un-named "somebody" in May of 2006, and delivered in November of that year.
His Standard-Examiner story of this morning provides us a short synopsis of the document's contents -- and as an added bonus -- the Std-Ex has uploaded the full-text PDF version to its website.
Our quick glance at Mr. Schwebke's article reveals that the cost of this study was actually $16 thousand, and NOT the $200 thousand figure which has been rattling around these past two weeks, although it remains unclear which, among the various players involved in this story, actually coughed up the sixteen thousand bucks to Lewis, Young, et al. Curiously, the document has the word "draft" stamped all over it, raising the tantalizing question of whether the paid consultant ever got paid at all.
And our Evelyn Wood-style perusal of this "fiscal analysis" posted on the website suggests that it's nothing new, and that it's really no big deal at all -- raising once again the question of why Boss Godfrey didn't release it in the first place.
Our personal calendar is fully booked for the day, so we'll merely lay out the new information, and leave the analysis to our gentle readers. Number-crunching types are invited to pore over this document, and give us their lowdown on its true meaning.
For those readers with a burning issue of your own, you may consider this a pre-weekend open-topic thread.
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
57 comments:
Before I get into todays tidbit, let me make a point regarding yesterday’s thread, if I may.
I fear that I must disagree with Curm again.
It is not the government’s business to rejuvenate downtown. You people who posted about Layton are correct. The best the government can do is get out of the way. Hooray for Layton for not giving out corporate welfare.
Here’s an important fact you will never hear. When Clinton was president, he shrunk the size of government, both military and civilian. (Did anybody know that?) Under Bush, the government has grown faster than any time since LBJ, both military and civilian. (Did anybody know that?) Under Clinton from 1995-2001 the economy grew an average of three percent per year. Under Bush, from 2001-2006 it grew an average of pretty close to zero percent.
Zero percent you ask? Well, the numbers I cited take out the effects of people withdrawing equity from their homes in both administrations. Almost all the stated economic growth under Bush has occurred due to mortgage equity withdrawals.
The bottom line is that under a shrinking government thanks to Clinton, we had prosperity. Under expanding government and Bush, we’ve had stagnation. People have spent equity under Bush just to keep the economy going.
Less Government = Growth
More Government = Stagnation.
It’s been proven time and time again. But nobody ever learns.
This is why Ogden always lags behind. We have too much government. A study of the facts would reveal this to anyone.
Danny:
Well, we will have to disagree some. City governments can do much to help reverse decline in an urbran city center. Improving police services to counter downtown crime, for example, can improve the business and residential climate. Zoning can be used to encourage private development in useful directions. Revising business licensing and permitting processes to streamline them can improve the business climate and help generate a turn-around. And there are other ways as well.
I'd agree, cities should not become the developers as Ogden seems to have become. But they play a role. To take the Layton example, the building of a Convention Center was a decision by Layton's government, as was the recent decision to expand it. It has been a very successful facility, and has helped drive allied private development [hotel/motels, restaurants] in the area. So city governments do, I think, have an important role to play in such matters. What matters is, that they recognize that their role is both (a)important and (b) limited and that they play the role well.
By the way, in re: your posted information on the Clinton administration's successful shrinking of the size of the federal government [non military], and Bush's reckless and horrendously costly expansion of the size of the federal government [non military]: of course I knew it. I'm a Democrat. It's those who get their "news" [politely so called] from the Republican Noise Machine [Hannity, Limppaw, OReilly and Faux News] who don't know.
Curm, Respectfully: No.
OK. On today’s topic now –
So what else is new?
Sell the golf course to Peterson and the homes he will build will be eventually be worth $285 million, the bulk of the $500 million Godfrey has be touting. The remainder is the value of other real estate Peterson would develop.
Gee, hasn’t somebody been saying that the whole thing is nothing but a real estate scheme? (Yeah, everyone has been saying it.)
I also seem to recall somebody saying it was the city who paid for the Lewis “feasibility” study, and today Patterson said as much himself. Godfrey was lying. It wasn’t UTA after all. (Yeah, it was me who said that a few days ago.)
This is all too easy.
Here’s a last analysis, then I have to go, really. This Lewis study – its projections – are all made up. Lewis just took a bunch of crap from Godfrey, that Godfrey made up (no proposal from Peterson, remember?), then Lewis made up a bunch of other crap to go with it.
Welcome to Ogden – the place where the taxpayers pay again and again for bull crap studies like this one. Pay up, and we’ll tell ya’ what ya’ wanna hear, suckers!
Government – SHRINK IT!!
Danny is correct; the Lewis "study" is simple, rote financial extrapolations based on the fantasies and lies Little Matty Godfrey fed them a year ago, when the gondola freaks were in full shove-it-in-all-your-faces mode. Notice that it includes homes on the WSU parcel; notice that it includes the four-star hotel on the mall site that will have Prada and Malono Blahnik stores on its ground floor; notice how it references the impossible eastward expansion of the golf course; notice how it includes 600 condo/rental units in Wayne Peterson's and his Squirrel Patrol's fairy-tale castle in Malan's Basin -- guarded by magical dwarves -- that can never be built because infrastructure and services cannot support it (which is why the gondola freaks were saying the "resort" would be serviced by shit orbs underneath gondola cars); notice how the projections are based on nearly one million riders per year. The said thing is, and Elf Patterson confirmed as much, is the 16K was taxpayer money, which he assumed would be part of the larger 200K UTA feasibility study (and why those jackasses would agree to fund any portion of studying this idiocy is beyond me). It reminds me of Little Matty's comments regarding the milquetoast county attorney report of Vangate: "It's mainly positive."
On the Financial Analysis:
Like you, Rudi, I'm busy this morning and will wait to read the full text tonight. But the SE story merits a few quick observations:
First, this "is not a feasibility analysis of the project, said Ogden Chief Administrative Officer John Patterson." Hmmmm. Could it be that Mr. Patterson has begun to be concerned about his professional reputation in a post-Godfrey world, and has decided to speak plainly and directly? Whatever the reason, his candor is refreshing. This is not a feasibility study of the project, and it is not even a financial feasibility study. Thank you, Mr. Patterson, for your candor on this.
Second, "The 15-page study does not analyze any information submitted directly by Chris Peterson, whose development plans form a major portion of the overall project. " Very interesting.
So, this is what seems to have happened, according to the SE story. Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham were directed by Mr. Patterson, who told the SE that he managed the study, to accept the real estate developer's [i.e. Peterson's] projections, estimates and claims without analyzing them to see if they were reasonable, soundly based, etc. Lewis, Young el al. were stimply to accept them as accurate. And to accept the data provided by the city as accurate, without analyzing it. And then, assuming all that Mr. Peterson and the Mayor promised would happen would in fact happen, to summarize the economic impact on the city.
Not much to say, really, except to note that if you let someone lay out the assumptions behind a study, and you agree not to analyze them or even to ask if the assumptions are reasonable or likely, but look only at what the financial impact will be presuming all the unquestioned assumptions are so, you will get a result that (a) is favorable to those who made the assumptions you were not to analyze and that is (b) nearly useless as an indication of what is likely to in fact happen if the project goes forward.
I notice, for example, that the construction cost of the downtown gondola is assumed, in this study, to be 20 million dollars. It was based on figures, I think, now years old, and that are no longer valid. [Ask the Ogden School Board if you can build today for what construction costs were estimated at three years ago. Or ask UDOT what's happened to road construction costs in the last three years. Or steel and concrete prices for bridging. And so on.] One of the previous studies the Mayor said was provided to Lewis, Young et al. was completed in 1998.
Furthermore, the financial analysis seems based on the assumption that WSU will sell Mr. Peterson the land he wants for his gated community [another of those unquestioned assumptions]. WSU has since said it isn't selling. What does that do to the projections here? And so on.
Let me set the assumptions of any study and I can all but guarantee you how the results will come out.
Sadly, the Godfrey administration's penchant for slight-of-hand and distaste for openness seems not to have diminished much, and Mr. Patterson's foray into plainspokeness seems to have not lasted long. We still don't know who paid for the study. Mr. Patterson tap-danced around the question when the SE asked him this way: " Patterson said he managed the study with the understanding Utah Transit Authority would pay Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham $16,000 for the work as part of a larger effort to evaluate the overall scope of the gondola project. " Does that mean UTA paid? Or that the city paid in the expectation that UTA would reimburse? Or that Lewis, Young et al. did it on spec, with a promise of payment later? If so [any of those], why the tap dance? Just say what happened, who paid, straight out? What purpose is served by tap dancing around the answer? Beats me.
Enough for now. But there does not seem to be much in the release but more of the usual Godfreyista hype. Seems I said. I'll reserve final judgment until I've read the full text.
OK, couldn't resist. Reading it at lunch came across this paragraph from page 2 of the study:
"As directed, the consultants have relied on the estimates of market absorption, pricing and construction costs provided by Ogden City for the various development components, including residential, hotel, golf course and resort village development, as well as gondola ridership, and have not concluded any feasibility studies, nor have we been provided with nor reviewed individual development plans, regarding the market assumptions provided."
Kind says it all, doesn't it?
From the above paragraph, I conclude that Lewis, Young et al. were being very careful to make sure their work could not be touted as "Respected SL City Financial Analysts Endorse Peterson Godfrey Gondola Plan." Wise of them. Very wise.
If we drop 80 public safety employees close one golf course, and close the airport we will have a government that mirrors Layton in the level of employees to residents and public safety employees to residents.
Then, economic boom town!!!!
Interesting footnote:
To give you some idea of the quality of the information LRYB had to work with, there is this interesting footnote to a table on p. 5 summarizing fiscal impacts for Ogden city from the project. I'll quote it exactly:
"Does not include revenues for potential ski operations at Malan's Basin. LYRB has been unable to obtain information regarding plans for future ski operations from the developer."
Just think what that means. The city [the report says it's for Ogden City] asked LYRB to analyze potential economic impacts from the Peterson proposal, a major element of which is the construction and operation of a ski resort in Malan's Basin and they were unable to get information from Peterson about ski operations planned for the basin.
And the beat goes on....
How embarrassing for LYRB, a seemingly reputable firm, to be associated w/ such a stinker of a project. In light of Curm's aforementioned comments, this all points to -------> LAND GRAB.
WoW!
The first thing that comes to mind with this so called "study" is the good old "GIGO" Garbage in, Garbage out!
Relying on Godfrey for the input on this "study" is like relying on Ted Bundy for information for a study on proper dating etiquette.
The next huge red flag is the $2 million dollar figure quoted as the price the city would sell the golf course to Peterson for. By my way of calculating that 125 acres is worth at least $40 million dollars on the open market.
Related to that of course is - if the city sells the golf course for $2 million and builds a Gondola for the reported $20 million, where does the difference come from?
This whole sorry assed affair would be hilarious if it were not so stupidly tragic in its potential devastation to the tax payers of Ogden.
And one slight correction Curmudgeon, the convention center in Layton is actually a Davis County owned project. It is very successful while Ogden's Egyptian theatre centered convention center lanquishes and for the most part is a complete failure. Thanks Mayor Godfrey for being such an incredible leader and manager!
Oz:
Thanks for the correction on the Convention center in Layton. It was not the city, it was the county behind it. I should have known that. But it still was public investment that spurred private investment, so I think we can still defend the argument that local government can do things that encourage investment in smart-growth projects... if they act wisely and do not take on the role of developer of private projects, as Ogden seems to have done in the mall redevelopment instance.
As for the $2,000,000 for the golf course: I wondered about that too. I'm not sure that that was in fact the estimated sale price but was instead a figure representing some combination of other revenues that would accrue to the city over the ten year period from the sale of the course. Not sure. Or, I wondered, would that in fact be the sale price of the land if it is sold zoned "open space." The much higher price you mention would apply, I imagine, to land zoned residential. Beats me.
Somebody who knows more about this financial analysis than I do will, I hope, unravel that particular section in more detail.
The price for the golf course is $2,587.200, or about $20,000 an acre.
It is the price to be paid for the golf course.
No wonder Godfrey was reluctant to release the study.
Again, Danny is correct, although that $2.5 million+ figure might not include the surrounding city acreage; Little Matty Gondola Godfrey has proposed to give our property away to his buddy-traveling-pal-lover and his famed Squirrel Patrol for less than pennies on the dollar. This "study" simply magnifies his criminal intent with his half-baked scheme to build circus ride to nowhere. And where is the shortfall for the urban gondola going to come from? Again, gondola car sponsorships at 35K a whack. Yep, Little Matty is going to raise upwards of $20 million by selling gondola car sponsorships. The sick hilarity of it all just made me puke.
danny said...
"The price for the golf course is $2,587.200, ...
It is the price to be paid for the golf course."
The way I read it (page 7) $2,587,200 is the total taxable value of the NEW private golf course, not the price that the city would receive for the sale of the property.
As for the "value" of the land the current golf course is on, this study (page 4) quotes the "average lot price will be $350,000." I'm assuming that will be the price for an "improved" lot which includes power & sewer lines, etc. But even so that puts the price of the land at $140,000,000($350,000 X 400). Wonder how much Matt was going to charge CP?
Some of the apparent discrepancies might be why it is stamped draft.
I have always understood the golf course to be "traded" for the construction of the downtown portion of the gondola.
If you look through the report it doesn't ever say where that $20 million for construction will come from, nor does it show it as a cost in the Fiscal Impacts. In fact, it says: Doesn't include capital construction costs of the gondola (city-owned portion)
The $2 million from sale of property is curious though.
Perhaps the DRAFT stamp explains it.
OK, I erred. The consultants value the golf 125-acre golf course at $2 million, but they received this assessment from Little Matty Gondola Godfrey and is subject to no verification; therefore, they've put that figure into their grade-school extrapolations, assuming this is what Little Matty's pal-and-more and his Squirrel Patrol would pay. Little Matty said at one of his dog-and-pony shows last spring that he would sell the entire city acreage for $5 to $10 million, which is less than pennies on the dollar.
Get off your computer and head to 25th Street for the Car Show this evening....you can rail on Matt tomorrow!
Support your city.
A few initial reactions to the LYRB study...
As Curm says, the $20M figure for the urban gondola construction cost is unrealistic. Three years ago the city's consultant estimated $23.15M to build an urban gondola with only three stations, ending in front of WSU. Add a leg across WSU to the foothills and another intermediate station (as shown in the latest LO propaganda) and the cost rises quite a bit. Add in three years of inflation and some other miscellaneous costs and it's up to $30-40M. The 2005 study put the cost of a five-station gondola at $45M, including a 30% contingency margin.
Interesting that the mountain gondola is projected to cost 50% more than the urban gondola, despite its shorter length. This is the first estimate I've seen of its cost.
The ridership estimates are pretty bogus. For the mountain gondola ridership they seem to have just taken the estimate from the old 1998 tram feasibility study. But that was for a tram to Snowbasin, with a 600-car parking lot at the base so you can drive right to it rather than having to park downtown and take a 24-minute urban gondola ride from there. And even the 1998 study relied on cherry-picking the most successful trams elsewhere for comparison, ignoring all the ones that don't attract many riders.
But the most interesting stuff to me concerned the housing, condos, resort, and hotel.
The 400 houses around the golf course are each projected to be 3500 square feet (bigger than Peterson was saying last year), and worth nearly a million dollars. Of course there's no evidence to support the claim that you can even build that many houses of that size on the available space, or of the city's claim that the local market can absorb 400 million-dollar homes over only five years. Interesting, though, that only 40% of them are expected to be second homes. That sounds a lot more realistic than the higher estimates that we heard last year.
I see that the "ski village" in the foothills would have 100 condos worth $400,000 each, 90% of them second homes. This is the village that would be built right on top of the Wasatch Fault, where WSU's maintenance buildings currently stand. And again there's no market analysis of whether these condos would actually sell.
As we've heard before, Malan's Basin is expected to have 350 residential units--still with no explanation or plans to show how they'll all fit in such a tiny space. But now instead of simply "condominiums" these are referred to as "hotel/condo units" which would compete to some extent with Ogden's existing hotels for customers. Amazingly, this resort complex is expected to be constructed in only two years, after which the occupancy rate will be as high as in Park City!
Finally there's the downtown hotel, of which we've previously heard only hints and rumors. 200 rooms plus 50,000 square feet of retail space, including a restaurant. There's no mention of who would own it. The report estimates that 20% of its business would come at the expense of Ogden's other hotels--but there's no explanation of how they got this estimate.
Even with all the optimistic, unsubstantiated assumptions about the project, it's notable that the net fiscal impact to Ogden City is projected to be less than $2 million per year. That's enough to cover only half of the annual operating cost of the urban gondola.
Remember, Mayor Godfrey is quoted in the SE this morning saying that the numbers for this report are "not cooked." Perhaps, they were only half-baked.
Southsider:
You are half right and half wrong.
You are wrong: $2,587.200 IS the price the city WILL INDEED receive for Mt. Ogden Golf Course, including buildings, etc.
You are right: The study does not correctly count the cost of utilities, which city engineering has estimated at hundreds of millions.
Hey Schwebke - here's a killer article. Go around asking people what they think about Godfrey's sale price of $20,000 per acre for the golf course. Don't forget the Geigers, and the pinheads at the Chamber of Commerce. Great stuff.
I would gladly have prepared the report, professionally authored by Monotreme & Associates, LLC.
In it, I would dutifully reprint all the numbers given to me by Mayor Matt and Cap'n John. I would call Chris, but he would not return my phone call. It would have tables and footnotes. I would stamp "draft" on every page using the cool function in Microsoft Word that does that automagically.
I would do all that for "only" $15,000, and that would have saved the taxpayers $1,000.
Next time, call me. Please.
Oh, and by the way, the report claims 510 jobs created. It's a wildly optimistic estimate, unsupported by any facts whatsoever, and containing a whole slew of minimum-wage jobs like "gondola operator".
It's also a far cry from 1200 jobs, a number I heard emanate directly from Mayor Matt's lips.
On the report, let's remember that LYRB was instructed to work with the numbers the Godfrey administration and Peterson gave them, unverified and unanalyzed. LYRB seems to have done as their clients asked, as they should have. But was also careful to note in the report the directions it was given, the unverified nature of the raw data it was told to work with. Any resulting disconnect between reality and the "projections" in the report, then, should be laid at the feet of those who supplied the raw data and instructed LYRB to accept it unquestioned for the purposes of their analysis, and not be blamed upon LYRB. So it seems to me.
Hey "stop typing,"
I went to the car show.
Thanks for the tip!
(Now if they'd just let them DRIVE those cars down the 'vard!)
The only reason that the mayor had this study done was so that he could claim that a third party came up with the numbers.
He's counting on the average resident not reading it and thus realizing that the mayor actually provided all of the numbers.
It's amazing how many people will believe it if it came from a third party.
Someone needs to write a letter to the editor pointing out where all the numbers in this study came from if the Standard doesn't pick up on it themselves.
I do think that the study was good in that it does provide us all with a copy of the cost numbers (though I think they are all low) that the mayor is assuming that the projects can be built for. Those within the community that understand business and the cost of building things can now disect these numbers to invalidate the feasibility of this "vision".
Curm:
Sorry if it seemed I was criticizing LYRB. I wasn't.
I agree with you. What I meant to say is that it's painfully stupid to pay someone $16,000 to repeat back the numbers you feed to them.
I have one observations and one question.
I also read in there that Malan Basin would be annnexed into the city otherwise how do we get the tax dollars off those developments that are show as revenues for the city. Yet no where are the cost of services to that area accounted for.
Now the question, where is all the raw sewage in Malan Basin going to go? If there are 350 condos and two restaurants and all of the other stuff mentioned, based on national averages, the development will be generating between 50,000 and 100,000 gallons a day of sewage. You can't store that stuff up there (ten days storage of that volume would equal the total capacity of one of the storage tanks at the top of 36th Street) and there are no sewer line up there. Is it going to come down Water Fall Canyon?
What a load of crap...literally speaking.
It's my understanding from Peterson's own smiling lips that he would have gondola cars carring 'waste' down from Malan's and dumping into the city sewage plant!
Pray for a windless day!
Danny,
I have to disagree with your statement:
"You are wrong: $2,587.200 IS the price the city WILL INDEED receive for Mt. Ogden Golf Course, including buildings, etc."
The study states on page 7, "The maximum taxable value of each of the development components is as follows, ... Golf Course 2,587,200," mean $2,587,200 is the taxable value of the new golf course. I don't see anywhere that it says we would only pay that amount for the whole parcel.
Do you have a reference for $2,587,200 as the purchase price?
Mono:
Agreed... unless you think it will be politically useful to be able to cite your own GIGO numbers as coming from an "independent" third party. I think "Thanks" hit the nail on the head.
I'm beginning to think this administration is incapable of doing anything significant on the up and up, without dissembling, slight of hand, tap dancing around the truth. I'm beginning to think they don't know how to behave differently. Not a conclusion I'm happy reaching --- Ogden is my adopted city and I do not benefit in any way when it is badly governed --- but the evidence is piling up to the point that it's becoming hard not to draw that conclusion.
Don't worry about the sewage problem in Malan's basin. Godfrey has been practicing up on the solution to this problem for 6 years now. That is how long he has been feeding the citizens of Ogden a load of crap.
Send in the nose smellers, it could mean that businesses will not come here if we smell crap form the east mountains!!!!
the golf course is losing over 350,000 a year? so does the buck stop at the little mayors desk for miss management?
Where O Where do these people come up with these numbers? None of them seem to have any connection to reality. 400,000 people in Malan's basin over a years time is a real challenge to believe for instance. That would be 1,000 to 2,000 people per day every day. If you have ever been in Malan's basin you would know just how ridiculous that number really is. Fifty people would be a crowd! What would thousands of people do up there, especially when there is no snow on the ground? The buildings themselves would take up all the availble space, so what would thousands of people really do up there? The land is very steep and boxed in with mountains. This is just simply crazy thinking. To hang Ogden's future on such nonsense is simply incomprehensible.
Julia
That does sound like a lot of people for such a small place doesn't it! Doing a little math with these numbers even makes it seem more far fetched. For instance, if they ran the gondola up the mountain for 14 hours a day, they would have to have a completely loaded 8 person car go up the mountain every 12 minutes all day every day.
But Wait! Thre's more!
Why, in just about 8 or 9 days Ogden will be swelling with pride and 'thousands'will be milling about in our very own uncompleted JUNCTION! Why, those thousands are going to storm the hang glider (it it true that only 1 or 2 can use that facility at a time?)
Then thousands will also be vying for a rid on the Wave, or whatever it is called. And thousands will be fighting for a seat at Miller's new 13 screen Megapleex.
No wonder Greiner will be sending in the troops.
Can you imagine the excitement? Can you just SEE the crowds spilling into the streets off the teeming sidewalks? Can't you just see the taco stands running out of whatever meat they put in those things?
Can't you just see people tripping over construction debris, children and elders falling and breaking a hip or elbow?
Can't you just see the lawsuits?
THOUSANDS every day in our fair city! And this is only with an unfinished construction site!
Just imagine, you slackers, what a gondola will do for our town!
Why we'll have MILLIONS here! Just ask the Geigers, Allens, Godfrey, and all their starry-eyed pals.
I don't know about you, but I'm going to get a wagon and sell sandwiches. Care to supersize with chips?
Show Me:
I'm skeptical too about the draw of the wind tunnel and surf pool. But I'd be very happy if my skepticism turned out to be ill-founded and Chief Greiner had to assign extra police to handle Mall traffic and crowds not just for opening day, but periodically through the year.
I expect there will be some hoopla and some kind of celebratory opening. Usually is for a project like this. There was for Gateway in SLC I think. And that's appropriate. But what will make [I hope] or break [I'm afraid] the Rec Center end of the mall is how it will perform over the long term. And for that, we shall just have to wait and see. We've reached the point with respect to the mall where neither booster predictions of phenomenal success nor skeptics' predictions of dire disaster mean much anymore. The city has placed its bets. The bonds have been floated, the money spent. We'll just have to see how it all plays out now.
Southsider:
See bottom of page 5.
Also, your reference page 7 is current value.
The flowriders are quite popular elsewhere. I hope Ogden has not gone for the cheapest model.
June? lo dudo. Any update on the grand opening?
Visit Our Site
Visit Our Site
The flow rider is large enough for two maybe three people at one time. I dont see how they will generate much revenue, unless they charge by the minute to ride it.
Don Ho:
All it needs is some creative marketing, like offering combo tickets at a discount to the flow rider and Mt. Ogden Golf Course. They can call it the "Surf and Turf" special.
Yeah, but you'd still have a line waiting to use the dang thing!
Let's hope that thousands do show up. I'm jest wonderin' where those thousands will go while waiting their chance for a ride on something? The mall ain't finished...so will there be ropes all around to keep people from the construction sites? Isn't it dangerous to have thousands milling around an open and ongoing construction arena?
Do we have enough restaurants to handle thousands of people at a time? HOW ABOUT BATHROOMS? Will Godfrey put up porta potties...so Patterson won't catch anyone 'peeing' on the sidewalks?
How many people fill up one of those 13 theaters?
I guess Greiners whiners will really be busy!
I'm jest wonderin' and one of you sophicated types could answer this, but wasn't the Gateway FINISHED and ready to be shown off before the opening day?
Don't cities usually polish a jewel before inviting thousands to 'come see?'
Jest wonderin'.
Jest Wonderin:
There is some risk involved in opening a development like this sequentially, over time, rather than all at once, I agree. But we won't have a good grip on the full potential [or lack thereof] of the recreational aspects of the mall redevelopment project for two or three years, until the project area itself is fully built out, and Front Runner has been operating for at least a year, and probably longer. Then we will be able to draw some judgments about whether the city's decisions were wise ones or not.
It's going to take patience before we know much. Annoying, I know, but there's no help for it. And we need to be careful not to buy into pronouncements [by both supporters of the mall redevelopment project, and its opponents] based on short-term outcomes, that it's a fabulous success or a miserable failure. Time will tell, but time, annoyingly, takes time. So to speak.
The flowriders create a very social atmosphere as people learn to ride it. This is much like the scene at skateboard parks. It is quite challenging as evidenced by the you tube clips. The fact that only one or two at a time can ride is not an issue since initially there will be few who can even hang for more than a few seconds. Any time-hogging by an individual will generate considerable disrespect. It's self policing.
There are now flowrider contests and sponsored pros. These things generate interest and events. The tie-in with the other board sports that are thriving in Utah cannot be underestimated. It is only too bad the planners did not consider a downtown skateboard park as a part of the Junction.
Look closely at the websites and see the positive and party atmosphere that surrounds these things. I'm a beach bum from way back. i'll be trying that thing.
They do sell season passes at most of the flowrider parks.
Tec:
Hope your take on the potential of the Flow Rider works out. I very much hope it does. Ogden needs more public places that generate a "party" atmosphere more or less as a regular thing, not an occasional Big Event or Festival. Boy, do we need that.
My own view of a missed opportunity for the public portion of the mall redevelopment would have been an outdoor ice skating area [winter] roller skating area [summer]. Skateboard parks work less well, I think. Fairly or not, they are associated in the minds of many exclusively with kids, and [fairly or not] kids without a high regard for rules in public places. [Damn, I am getting to be a geezer.] Ice skate and roller skate areas such as SLC has established [and is planning more] might, I think, have worked better.
In any case, from what I've read/seen so far about the mall project it will not contain any public activity open area site, other than a walking/strolling plaza, some benches I guess, statue or two, from which people can watch climbers on the wall in Gold's. Missed opportunity, I think.
But we'll know soon enough now.
Curm,
Your geezer credentials are solid. I heard ice skaters sometimes take up arms(sticks) and attempt to direct a projectile into an opponents' cage. It's brutal with high speed collisions and occasional fighting.
Roller skaters have been known to form teams and oppose one another in a derby where skaters are forced off the track one by one in a race to the death.
What you've heard about skateboarders is typical of media generated attitude generated by the isolated events or actions of an individual or small group out of the entire skateboard community.
You'll be excused for the geezerly view. Skateboarding has been shown to enhance downtowns and appeals to as broad an audience as the other skates. It's also a lot more exciting to watch than a public roller rink. ;)
Hey, Tec. I like the idea of a skatepark. The idea doesn't have to be a dead one. What about using the old and empty Berthana building for such a thing? The floor space in there is huge and open (plus that great building needs a new use), sets itself up quite nicely for a skatepark. One thing I notice in Ogden is that there isn't much for teens to do, and I doubt many will frequent the new rec center. It was nice seeing kids on the corner at Club Boomva (corner of Washington and 27th Street) on weekends, unfortunately that is now gone. A skatepark is one thing that will bring teens downtown.
Jill
Please not the Berthana!
That is where I met my first ex-wife!!
Also don't think it is configured right for a skateboard park. Roller Skating yes, skateboarding no. Ya gotta have something that looks like an empty swimming pool for a skateboard park.
I think they ought to preserve the Berthana as a lasting memorial to the stupidity I exhibited in my youth when I went in there and fell in love - for the first time.
To any one that doesn't agree with me, I offer up the good old Ogden Middle Finger salute in hopes that the Gondolistas will welcome me into their club.
Jill,
Nice thought but...
You and curmudgeon are confusing an old-timey roller rink with a modern skateboard park with concrete bowls, hips, rails and other potentially bone shattering obstacles. Kids do not roller skate anymore unless you like wedgies, hoots, and social rejection. Just kidding, but you guys need to get out a bit. Watch a little skateboarding on you-tube or somewhere. You'll get the idea. Skateboard parks are now being integrated into urban plazas in several cities. To have overlooked one for the Junction reveals the kind of vacuum in which Ogden is currently enveloped. To place ice climbing ahead of skateboarding is like putting curling ahead of baseball. Wake up Ogden before you become an even greater laughing stock. And don't sell the park.
Actually, Tec, I was thinking of the Vans indoor (mostly vert) skate park I used to frequent in Southern Cali years ago. The building'/warehouse's interior space was similar in size to that of the Berthana. It has been a few years since I've been "out" but I do think I know what I'm talking about.
Sorry Jill, My bad. Although you may want to check up on their viability. Several Van's parks are now closed down after only a handful of years operating. Milpitas, CA, Woodbridge, Va, Moorestown Mall, PA to name a few. This points to the need for solid municipal sponsorship.
Most indoor parks are privately owned and struggle desperately to survive while most all outdoor parks are public owned as an extension of parks and rec depts. This assures access to everyone for free and integrates the park into the outdoor downtown atmosphere. It also palces the municipality squarely on the side of the local kids and they're need for something to do.
The one at Ontario Mills Mall in Ontario CA also closed. This place was awesome and had a huge clientele yet could not cut it paying mall rents. Mall developers spend many millions on every detail. Ontario Mills reeks of wealth and huge crowds. If malls now replace downtowns, should they not also be shouldered with providing recreation and parkspace to these newfangled city centers.
Tec, Ogden does have a small skate park. It's part of the Loren Farr Park, down by the rodeo grounds and Ogden River. I wonder if these new plans for a new swimming pool east of the cemetary will eliminate these amenities, someone should ask the administration.
The letter writer that offers the middle finger salute was listed as residing in that hotbed of lift Ogden support, Clearfield.
Tec:
Well, actually, what I really was talking about was an open air venue for some public recreational activity as part of the mall plaza. A flat facility can be used for roller skating in summer, ice skating in winter. I'm not all that familiar with skate board parks, but I've seen none as part of developments like the one Ogden is planning downtown. I have noticed in many places that strollers, passers by, etc. seem to be drawn to and to watch, at night in winter even, skaters. Think of the rink at Rockerfeller Center in NY as the prime example: the gallery surrounding it has hundreds watching much of the time. Hell, I've seen people standing outside the boards watching skaters on cold winter nights in small towns in mountain New Mexico. Ideally, what you 'd want to create is a strolling environment more or less constantly. Think Xmas village, but year round on a smaller scale.
And since one purpose [I hope] of the mall redevelopment is to put bodies on the streets in downtown Ogden at night, to make the street scene there come alive -- so visits wouldn't be limited to people driving down, walking into a restaurant, eating, walking ten yards to a car and leaving --- I thought a public recreational open air venue might have been a good idea. Still not sure a kids skate park would work in that way as a skate area [changing seasonally] would, but hey, could be.
All of this moot. My understanding is the current mall plan has no such open air public recreational space included.
Sounds nice, Curm.
After seeing the terrible accidents some skate borders have suffered in SLC, a skate park seems like a good idea.
I think there was a death of a young skate boarder yesterday in SLC.
Yo Tec
I think Farmington has a skate board park of some sort. Right on the south border of town just east of I-15. Don't know much about it, maybe you can clue us in.
I haven't had a fractured skull since I mouthed off to the squad of Marines at a bar in San Diego a whole lot of years ago. Maybe I'll try this skate boarding stuff if you can turn me on to a good place to do it.
Tec,
Yer right, it has been a few years. Too bad about the Ontario one, that's the one I was referring to. What do you think about Ogden's current skate park? It seems popular with the kiddies in my neighborhood. Are you proposing Ogden have two parks?
Ozboy,
So, that explains it...
Post a Comment