Some interesting Ogden ink in today's Standard-Examiner. First, a nearly full page color ad here touting the downtown Farmer's Market [where hopefully more farmers and more produce will begin appearing; the SL Farmers Market is awash in fresh produce and farmers there told me their crops came in early this season]. And highlighting up-coming show at the Amphitheater ["A Cappellastock 2007"] and touting "Ogden's First Annual Paddle Festival" scheduled for Pineview's Middle Inlet Beach on 25 August.
Next, some really good ink, an article on Barnes Aerospace's breaking ground on its new facility at BDO. From the story:
OGDEN — Officials marked another milestone in their efforts to expand the aerospace industry in the Top of Utah when they broke ground Wednesday on a 165,000-square-foot building at Business Depot Ogden that will be the new home of Barnes Aerospace.Finally, a story headlined "Godfrey issues drought order." Here are the opening graphs:
Barnes executives, local community and business leaders, and local Barnes employees were on hand for a ceremonial tree planting to mark the facility to be built on the northwest corner of 1050 South and Depot Drive. Barnes will relocate its 175-employee operation from 1483 W. 2550 South to a 120,000-square-foot space in the new building after it is finished in early 2008.
OGDEN — Consumers who use large amounts of culinary water could see their bills increase 20 percent under an administrative order issued Wednesday by Mayor Matthew Godfrey to address local drought conditions. The order is the first of its kind since the city council enacted an ordinance two years ago giving Godfrey authority to raise water rates to encourage conservation in drought conditions. The ordinance allows Godfrey to issue a drought order when the annual rate of precipitation affecting the Weber River watershed drops to a level of 70 percent or less of normal.[This is one time when Hizzonah's being a Republican works to his advantage. If he were a Democrat, then today's story would no doubt draw a blast from Cong. Rob "The Lemming" Bishop with a headline like this: Democrat Mayor Plans Higher Water Taxes .]
27 comments:
Wow I find it interesting that boss Godfrey is ordering the raise of water rates when he doesn't have to water with city water. Have any of you seen how dead the grass is in homes below Harrison. that is the area that will pay and they can least afford this. once again what are we doing to the residents. I find that the city had a 6 million surplus in the budget last year or year before. where is all that money did it go to the mall site?
just where did the city get the 14 million for the parking terrace?
You raise an interesting point, History, and one I expect we will be facing in a variety of areas in the not too distant future. As water becomes more scarce relative to the rising population on the Wasatch Front, and the need to conserve become urgent and can no longer be left to voluntary measures, what's the best mechanism for encouraging [mandating?] conservation?
Charging high rates for increased use is one, but as you note, that can put a burden on those who do not have access to Pineview's non-potable water for lawns/gardens. And it also means that the very wealthy can go right on wasting all they please [at the higher prices] because they can afford to. Which bothers me. The pain of a shortage like this, seems to me, should be shared more fairly across the population. But how to do that? How to penalize waste without inadvertently loading most of the burden on low income families, or without establishing "waste all you want if you can afford it" as the standard?
Same problem with use of gas and air pollution. We want to encourage people to drive less because we now have, here on the WF, worse air than they have in Los Angeles. According to that consortium of Utah docs, it's staring to kill significant numbers of us every year. In the US, the mechanism for reducing use of a product is, generally, "the market" which means we can raise the price of gas to the point that people will drive less, buy fewer gas-guzzlers, etc. But again, this loads much of the burden on those who must drive to work because public transit doesn't serve them, and on small business owners whose businesses must use trucks [lawn service companies, plumbers, etc.] And it again permits the wealthy to pollute all they like if they can afford the $5 a gallon price. Or whatever it will be.
Not easy questions to answer. If you grant that the answer can not be "don't conserve" and that the public good, broadly conceived, requires --- or soon will --- conservation of resources like water on the Wasatch Front, then how do you bring that about? If Capt. Picard gave you the order to "make it so," how would you do it? Beats me.
You put up a chewy one, History.
It will be interesting to see if Godfrey takes credit for "creating" these "new" jobs.
This Barnes is the kind of company that is really important to Ogden, not this extremely small little circle of low paying ski oriented jobs Godfrey and Geiger keep bragging about. (Amer company excepted).
It will be great if Barnes does decide to expand in Ogden with real jobs for real people. It is interesting that a real company like Barnes is actually not rushing headlong to the public trough like the rest of Godfrey's recruits. They are actually standing back and looking at the State and City incentives that are being offered for more job creation. Of course they are a billion dollar plus company, as opposed to the $12.95 cent outfit Kahuna that Boss Godfrey is so proud of recruiting.
Incidently Barnes was here before Godfrey became mayor, maybe that is why he never mentions them?
And just imagine, Barnes has not predicated their Ogden presence on a Gondola or a penny arcade!
I was also interested in the article in today's S-E that indicated that Davis County may move or destroy part of their top-notch Legacy Center (county fairgrounds) to make room for the "Plan 3" Legacy Highway extension.
Has it come to this, that building roads, roads and more roads is the only solution to economic development? There has to be a better way. What a waste if this multimillion dollar facility goes down the drain so we can increase automobile traffic and air pollution along the Wasatch Front.
What a waste, on so many different levels.
History,
A lot of those homes you note as having yellow yards west of Harrison are actually owned by fairly well-to-do slumlords, I personally know of several (particularly along 25th and 26th Streets). I've also seen a lot of dead yards above Harrison. I don't think it is much of an affordability issue.
I think Jill is right, it's not really an affordability issue. The small amount of increase in an individual water bill is hardly a disincentive to use additional water for irrigation purposes.
IMHO, I think it's more of an infrastructure problem. We don't have any irrigation (secondary) infrastructure for large parts of the city, and we should. It is a ridiculous waste of resources to be irrigating with treated culinary water.
But you can forget about ADDING secondary water infrastructure, when our other, basic utility needs are in such sad shape with no apparant consideration given them in future, long-term budgeting. I'm talking about culinary, sewer, storm drain, streets, lighting, etc.
I hate to sound like a pessimist, but we are in bad shape on the water front. And all of our development debt is going to keep things grim for a while.
I own a house below Harrison (Brinker) and I have been grouped in with the slum lords and treated pretty shabbily by the city administration. I of course highly resent this kind of treatment by the Lord Mayor and his cronies in city government. My place is very well maintained and kept green and pretty. I just drove by there the 24th while in town for the parade and was very pleased with how it looks.
I have had the same older gentleman renting the place for 15 years now and I have never raised his rent because he is on social security and can't afford it, and we had a month to month hand shake deal then that we are both still living up to. So I have had to eat any number of property tax raises and city fees in those years. Yet the city could give a squat less, and treats me like a slum lord.
The point is, just because a property owner doesn't live in the place, don't mean they are slum lords, like the mayor continualy implies.
Incidently Godfrey is a certified verified slum lord of the worst kind. Rumour has it that he also has used city crews and equipment to work on his slum properties.
And...
Mr. Dan S.,
I want to briefly acknowledge the response you gave me in a previous post regarding Godfrey's environmental grade, if I may.
I understand your point regarding Godfrey's alleged environmentalism and how it is useful for a well known environmental group such as the Sierra Club to point out his shortcomings.
I also understand and agree with your point regarding the true confluence of interests of outdoor enthusiasts, hunters, ORV enthusiasts, gun lovers, and environmentalists. The common denominator is public land and access.
However, I disagree with you in that I don't think Godfrey has been selling himself as an environmentalist. It appears to me he's promoted himself more as a "rec-head enthusiast" more interested in adrenoline sports and the promotion of such.
That is what I heard also, the city used equipment on his rental on 23rd and Jackson back when he was giving all the residents ticket for not conforming to the zoning laws. Just ask the street crews that were told to go clean it up.
Rumor has it that Boss Godfrey has retained his second best butt-buddy (his European travelling companion will always be first in Boss Godfrey's heart, of course): Stuart Reid as his campaign finance manager.
Your blogmeiester sat in on a business meeting with several Emerald City businessmen today, within which two of them said that Boss Godfrey's "Campaign Finance Manager" (who else - Stuart Reid) essentially "shook them down" this week for a "four figure" campaign contribution.
Godfreys's targeted campaign warchest figure, according to both of these businesman who do business in Emerald City:
$250,000!
This works out to about forty bucks each, for every reliable voter (6,000 or so in number) in Emerald City.
Attention all voters of Emerald City!
Is your vote for sale to Boss Godfrey for any price?
A question to Emerald City citizens:
Will you let Boss Godfrey "buy your vote," because he has the most campaign money?"
Because he has the most expensive "Lawn signs?"
We'll say in advance we don't think so.
This is why I'm concerned about the split between Van Hooser and Hansen. Split the votes, split the cash = Godfrey wins.
I knew Reid was a snake. Ha! And he ran as a Democrat. What a joke. I guess the joke is on the Utah Democrat Party (Bushism fully intended).
You're rightly concerned, native.
Many people who want Boss Godfrey out (yesterday) are wondering why Ms. Van Hoosen became persuaded, at the last minute, to reluctantly, we think, throw her hat into the race.
If she'd "declared" for Rick Safsten's council seat, where she's well-known and popular, she wouldn't have messed up Neil Hansen's "man of the people" juggernaut.
The net result is to make the campaign twice as expensive for legitimate challengers like Neil Hansen, who didn't dawdle at all, and who announced his candidacy months before the "technical filing period."
Susan Van Hooser is a very nice person we're sure. But she has no "fire in the belly."
Neil Hanson does, we think.
native (responding to your second-to-last post):
I agree that the image the mayor is pushing is mostly of the adrenaline-rush variety. However, he has recently learned (mostly from Amer, I think) that a large segment of the market for this kind of product is people who care about protecting the environment. Hence the recent efforts of the Sustainable Ogden Committee. Also, I assume, he wants to win back the votes of some of the local residents he's been alienating for the last two years.
As further evidence that the mayor cares about his environmental image, I'll offer this: Today I received a call from the managing editor of the Standard-Examiner, who said he'd gotten a complaint from the mayor about the article on the Sierra Club's scorecard. So it seems that the article struck a nerve. The content of the mayor's complaint isn't relevant to the point I'm making here, but it's interesting for another reason, and I'll write up a summary of it shortly.
Rudi:
Be interesting to see if the SE or SLTrib can get anyone to comment, on or off the record, on the campaign finances of Hizzonah, and of the other candidates too for that matter.
As for Mr. Reid being a Democrat and being Mr. Godfrey's campaign finance manager... well, an alternative way to look at it is that the Republican mayor, deciding he needed competence more than ideological conformity in his finance director, just naturally brought on board a Democrat. That's where the competence seems to be located these days...
Dan:
Interesting. I wonder, was Hizzonah complaining that the SC grading was unfair [as he's certainly entitled to claim, however wrongly], or was he complaining about the SE running the piece at all [which is another matter altogether]?
Ok, here's the story (continuing the thread from a couple of days ago).
Remember how, in response to the environmental scorecard that we put out, the mayor said "my goal isn't to please Dan Schroeder..."? Of course, he was insinuating that the scorecard was really put out not by a large organization but by a single individual whose views might not reflect those of the organization.
Well, this morning I got a phone call from the managing editor of the Standard-Examiner, Andy Howell, saying they had gotten three complaints, one from the mayor himself, saying that they shouldn't have covered the story the way they did, attributing the scorecard to the Sierra Club rather than just to me.
So Mr. Howell wanted to know a bunch of details about how the Sierra Club operates and how the scorecard was created and approved by the Club's local leadership. These are actually very appropriate questions, and I commend Mr. Howell for being careful to check. (Actually, Scott Schwebke asked several of the same questions when he interviewed me for the article--again, very appropriately.) My answers were lengthy and complicated, but the bottom line is that Mr. Howell said he's satisfied that the scorecard really is an official and legitimate communication of the Sierra Club.
This incident, though, provides a good example of how the mayor too often operates. I remember a year ago, when Weber Pathways took a position against selling public open space to Peterson, the mayor responded by saying (falsely) that the resolution had passed by only a single vote and (also falsely) that Weber Pathways and Smart Growth Ogden are essentially the same group. We didn't attempt to grade the mayor on his level of professionalism and integrity, but perhaps someone should.
Dan
Hopefully the voters will grade the mayor on professionalism and integrity this fall.
He apparently is going to spend a quarter of a million bucks to tell the people how he has the mostest integrity in town. It will be interesting to see if the people will actually buy that big expensive lie.
It has been my experience that the more some one talks about their integrity, the less they have. If ya got it, it is apparent and you really don't have to tell any one about it. In other words, integrity speaks for itself.
Mr. Dan S.,
Thank you for that follow-up, that was VERY interesting. I stand corrected. I really didn't think the Mayor would give two hoots about the grade from the Sierra Club, but it is now apparant that he does. I can only conclude that the voting demographic of Ogden City is not what I expected it to be.
You know, come to think of it, my ORV-riding, gun-shooting buddies (except one), all live in North Ogden, Plain City, Pleasant View, Roy, and West Heaven. They all bitch, but not a one of them can vote in Ogden, which is the ultimate form of bitching. I plan to bitch at the booth this fall, which will be even more satisfying than all the bitching I do on this blog.
Oh, and Curm, that was a shameless plug for the Democrat Party.
For your information the city council had a work session with the city planning commission tonight to go over and discuss the Mt. Ogden community plan which is now in city council's hand. I am not sure if this was posted or open to the public or press. Did anyone attend? I wish I would have known sooner I would have liked to listen in on this discussion. Well, it is now with city council and those interested ought to keep an eye out on the future meetings with them.
Watch Godfrey, as all Republicans do. They raise un-godly amounts of money for their campaigns. Because Utah has the most corrupt campaigns laws. They pay their wives 40 to 50 thousand dollars to be a staffer. Just like our own former Speaker of the House did, Marty Stephens.
By the way, aren’t ya glad Republican Mayor Godfrey gave $35.000.00 and Weber County Republican Commissioners gave $120.000.00 to lobbyists last year and this year; to funnel your tax money, back into their reelection campaigns.
The Mayor is'nt going to spend 250k on his own campaign...he's going to spread it around to his faithful followers who he hand selected to run for the council positions.
If he gets re-elected and he gets between two and four council seats filled by his visionaries. Ta-da!! The Gondola plan will re-appear, the sale of Mt.Ogden Park will r-eappear, the Civil service commission will be disolved, and the debt will increase.
All under the guise of a new plan by Chris Petersen, that no one has seen in the first place. Most likely the same plan that has been on the drawing board for years behind those closed doors on the ninth floor.
this election will be and non the less about trust and who do you trust, it should not be godfrey.
Another water story in this morning's [Friday's] SE. Link here.
From the story [by Mr. Schwebke]:
OGDEN — A $67,000 water and sewer rate study commissioned by the city council is scheduled to be complete in October.
The study will be undertaken by Lewis, Young, Robertson and Burningham Inc., a consulting firm from Salt Lake City that was the only company to bid on the project.
A major goal of the study is to ensure rates provide adequate revenue to meet infrastructure needs. The study also will determine methods to distribute costs equitably among customers to promote water conservation.
The study is being conducted in connection with “Water Horizons,” a city council initiative aimed at gaining a better understanding of Ogden’s current and future water needs, said Alan Franke, a policy analyst for the council.
In about a month, the city council will hold a community meeting to share the study’s progress with the public and gather input regarding Ogden’s water and sewer needs, Franke said. Another community meeting will be held when the study is complete.
City Councilwoman Dorrene Jeske is optimistic the study will provide valuable insight into ways to improve the city’s water and sewer services.
“We hope we’ll get really good information,” she said.
Useful I think to contrast the current Council's way of tackling problems and looking for solutions with the Mayor's way. The Council's way is to study the matter first, to get hard and reliable information first on which to draw conclusions and base policy changes. [Note Ms. Jeske above: "We hope we’ll get really good information.” ] And the Council plan involves getting public ideas about the problem and potential solutions before deciding on a new policy, and again, later, to get public reaction to the draft policy before finalizing it.
So: Council procedure is research first, conclusions second, policy third. And the Mayor's preferred procedure? Well, based on his performance in the gondola/gondola matter, it's exactly the reverse: decide on your policy first [before doing any research or gathering any facts], then hold public meetings to sell the public on the policy you've already decided on, and promise that once the policy is approved [the park sold, etc] you'll do the research to find out if it all was a good idea in the first place.
Good thing we have a Council that believes, strongly, that research and fact-gathering should come before deciding on what a new policy or ordinance should be. Be a shame to see Council members who believe the city is best served when its leaders get the facts first before making decisions replaced by those who prefer the Mayor's approach: decisions first, research and facts later, if at all.
Curm: Let's not forget that Godfrey threw a fit over this water study when the Council first decided to do it:
Rate consultant issue adrift
Ogden mayor, council disagree; outside help needed to set water, sewer hikes?
Standard-Examiner (Ogden, UT)
April 21, 2007
Author: Scott Schwebke
OGDEN -- The Ogden City Council will flush money down the drain if it decides to spend as much as $80,000 to hire a consultant to study Ogden's water and sewer rates, Mayor Matthew Godfrey believes.
The planned May 4 hiring of a consultant, expected to be discussed Tuesday by the council, is unnecessary because the administration has the ability to calculate needed rate increases to meet some of Ogden's water infrastructure needs, Godfrey said.
"I'm very much opposed to hiring a consultant to do a rate study when it comes from taxpayer money," he said. "The $80,000 should be used toward addressing (infrastructure) problems. It makes no sense at all."
The administration has valuable raw data, but doesn't have complex computer models to determine rates to fund future infrastructure improvements, promote water conservation and ensure costs are distributed equitably among residents, said city council Executive Director Bill Cook.
"It's not just something you whip up in an afternoon," Cook said regarding the work involved in completing a rate study. As a result, the city council has budgeted $40,000 to $80,000 to hire a consultant.
The council and administration have been at odds over water and sewer rates for more than 10 months.
Last June, the council adopted a fiscal 2007 budget that rejected a recommendation from Godfrey to raise water and sewer rates by 13.4 percent. Instead, the council approved a 3.4 percent increase based on the consumer price index.
The council also agreed to form a committee to provide advice on whether the additional 10 percent increase recommended by Godfrey is adequate or excessive. The committee will be formed when the consultant is hired.
The council also requested as part of the budget that the administration provide a report analyzing sewer and water funds and the effect a rate change would have on city finances.
The report was supposed to be delivered in September, but the council hasn't received it, Cook said.
However, Godfrey said that information has been provided numerous times.
(The article goes on to discuss the deficits that the water and sewer systems have been running for the last few years.)
So basically, Godfrey wants to just raise everyone's rates by 13.4 percent, while the Council wants to step back and ask what's fair (and what would encourage more conservation). It'll be interesting to see what the consultants come up with--I'm sure people will have differing opinions on the definition of "fair". But I'm glad they're involving the public in the process.
Coincidentally, the cost of this study is almost identical to what the city paid three years ago for the urban gondola study done by Roger Gardner. In that case, though, neither the council nor the public was consulted at all.
Also coincidentally, the consultants for this study are the same folks who did the gondola fiscal impacts analysis that we read so much about last month. Nothing wrong with using the same consultants, of course. But I note that this time, there was an open bidding process (and LYRB submitted the only bid). For the gondola study the consultants were hired in secret with no open bidding, but the mayor did sign a memo to formally waive open bidding. Only trouble is, the study began in March 2006, and the waiver wasn't signed until June 2007.
Funny how Mayor Godfrey is good at moving business's around Ogden. Granted he has brought some new, but Barnes Aerospace was already located in Ogden at the Ogden City Industrial Park adjacent to West Haven. I'd like to know, who is going to fill another vacant building?
Shouldn't an increase in water rates be paired with a decrease in the required amount of green landscaping, which I believe is fairly large? Is there someone out there who knows the codes and can set me straight?
I moved to Ogden from Park City about 4 years ago to play tennis and to attend Weber State University. It was a big culture shock for me to live in a city like Ogden coming from Park City. Obviously, they are two completely different cities with different backgrounds and resources, so it's unfair to compare the two, but it's good to see a Mayor like Godfrey, that you rip on like he's an idiot, finally try and make something of Ogden. Ogden has a lot of potential but it's the people of Ogden, I've realized, that seem to have this desire to keep it from progressing and moving ahead. Take it easy on Godfrey; he's only trying to help the city and the citizens that reside in it. I know him and know that he has no other hidden agendas. Who knows, maybe if we all actually supported him and helped him to achieve his visions, we could actually benefit from our houses higher property value?
Post a Comment