By Monotreme
I'd like to start the piñata party over John Patterson's Op-Ed piece in this morning's Standard-Examiner, concerning the Godfrey administration's recently revealed GRAMA email collection.
Right out of the gate, Mr. Patterson promises us "the simple truth," yet his explanations are convoluted and don't even fit in the Standard's Op-Ed block. One has to go to the online edition of the piece to read the full version of Mr. Patterson's dissembling.
"Please understand all of the numbers we have used were calculated by consultants not hired by this administration."This is simply false. The ridership numbers used (and the financial projections) were made up out of whole cloth. No consultants were used to derive these numbers, because no studies were done.
I challenge Mr. Patterson to reveal the sources of the ridership numbers and financial projections used in the so-called "gondola study". The Baker Study concerned projected need for mass transit, as far as I'm aware, not how many people would actually ride a jacked-up amusement park ride. Big difference.
"The Adopted Strategic Plan stated GOAL 9.0: Evaluate the feasibility and merits of a gondola from Ogden to Snowbasin." Well, yes. And did the City Council, at any time, adopt a GOAL of looking into an urban gondola to nowhere in particular, connecting to a gondola to an imaginary mountain troll lair halfway up Mt. Ogden? The proposed gondola-gondola study, for which the city tried to obtain UTA funding, was for a gondola that did not go to Snowbasin.
The final paragraph is a masterpiece of nonsense. "There has not been any attempt by the administration to 'keep the public and the City Council out of the loop as they studied the gondola-resort proposal.'"
Heck, I'm a member of the public, and I felt kept out of the loop. What about the years of "we have the draft form of the double-top-secret gondola study, but I don't know if I can release it"? What about the years of "I don't have to tell you who paid for the consultants, the trips, the expenses for a public relations firm to prepare this dog and pony show that my friend Chris is peddling"? Yes, Mr. Patterson, we were kept out of the loop. We continue to be out of the loop.
Have you ever answered Councilwoman Wicks' question about how much city money was spent on this nonsensical (and now-abandoned) plan?
Come September 11, we intend to vote for someone who will keep us informed of how our money is being spent and how public policy decisions are made. We want a city government that operates in the light, not in the dark. We want a city government that informs us, not one that responds half-heartedly to repeated GRAMA requests. We want a city government that doesn't lie to us.
44 comments:
Well,well, well, this lying administration has officially responded to Dan's e-mail collection.
Mr. Patterson's op-ed this morning damn near made me puke. This piece was obviously written to address the most ill informed, in the dark segment of the populus.
Lets clarify some of Patterson's deceitful, disengenuous piece.
Starting with his explanation of ridership numbers. None of these numbers are a result of any study involving a gondola from Wall ave. to WSU. These represent numbers produced for a mass transit study for the downtown to WSU McKay Dee coridor, with 1998 numbers for a tram that would start at the top of 27th st. and go up Taylor's canyon to SNOWBASIN. In simple terms these numbers are totally unrelated and not applicable to any gondola.
As far as City Council involvement, it's quite clear that there are two major directives the Council was clear about that this administration totally diregarded in their zeal to appease peterson.
First, Snowbasin was to be the destination, not some little glen a few thousand feet short of the top of the mountain. Thus making this a gondola to nowhere, and totally ridiculus.
Second, no city money would be used. It's now quite obvious that lying little matty and his administration never intended to follow that directive, the contract for the bogus study was between Lewis Young and Ogden City, not peterson or UTA. Had been any honesty in the administrations' approach, nothing would have traspired untill UTA was solidly on board, on paper.
Lastly, why would any idiot in the administration think that UTA would get in bed with, and fund some insane private individuals pie in the sky private(?) enterprize?
Patterson's explanation is simply no explanation at all, it should fool no one, not even a fool.
For at least two years, thinking citizens from all sectors told the Gondolistas that the golf course sale/urban gondola plan was not feasible. We had logic and reason on our side, which was met with sarcasm, venom, name-calling, and a total refusal to listen to anything we said. (I'm sure John Patterson could write an article for the SE explaining how I misunderstood all of this.)
Now Godfrey, in his pre-election, survey-induced enlightenment does an about-face and says the whole project isn't feasible so he's calling it off (at least until after election day).
There is not one word of apology, not one acknowledgment that those of us opposed to the urban gondola were correct, not one hand extended to bridge the gap. Matt has decided (as ruler of the republic) that is isn't feasible, so it ain't.
If I weren't already so incensed from all that has gone before, this would put me over the edge.
The mayor said that no city money was involved! ha. how about the employees that called all the residents to come to the dog and pony show. what did that cost taxpayers? tell us mayor.
"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!"
Not only are these empty suits deceivers of the first order, but they are complete idiots when it comes to PR.
Instead of just letting this issue and series of disingenuous emails die off and slide away, Mr. Patterson, the same guy that was run out of West Valley city for sexual and other integrity related inproprieties, tries this monumental attempt at a cover up by baffling the public with bull shit!
I assume that he belives the citizens of Ogden are so stupid that pure word count and babble will placate them!
Jeeeze, talk about all around incompetence.
I am anxiously awaiting rebuttals on this nonsense from Mr. Curmdgeon, Mr. Dan and other intelligent wordsmiths that inhabit this blog.
This "bust the liars at city hall" is great spectator sport. Thanks for whoever puts this blog together.
One of the most striking aspects of this entire situation to date for us, is the adminstration's continuing insistance that the $247,000 "fund," which is being "held" by UTA for disbursement to Ogden City upon the fulfillment of specified conditions (mainly compliance with federal and state "procurement rules") is "NOT Ogden City's money."
The administration's continuing posturing to this effect is flat-out rubbish.
As our readers will recall, the initial federal grant was obtained by Ogden City's Washington lobbyist, Ken Lee, for the benefit of Ogden City (not Riverdale, Sandy, or any other city.) For reasons which are not yet entirely clear (although we do have our suspicions,) these funds were disbursed to be administered by the UTA on behalf of Ogden City -- and for the benefit of no other ultimate recipient.
What we're looking at here (in our opinion) is an implied trust, with the federal government acting as the Trustor (donor,) the UTA serving the role of Trustee, and Ogden City being the ultimate Beneficiary.
Under general legal principles applicable to trusts, the City of Ogden is the equitable owner of these funds, even though the city has not yet fulfilled the conditions necessary to perfect legal tile to these moneys.
Notably, the UTA has no discretion to expend these funds elsewhere, toward some other purpose or project. Under terms of the federal grant, these taxpayer dollars belong to Ogden City, and Ogden City only.
In that connection we reprise that wonderful mp3 link, wherein Boss Godfrey lies to the council, saying "It's not our money," and misinforms the council, by his mendacious denial that Lobbyist Ken Lee was involved in obtaining the original federal dollars. Listen up:
Audio link
That administration officials continue to deny that this fund is Ogden City's money is neither a trivial nor tangential point, we believe, if only because it demonstrates the continuing lack of trustworthiness of the Boss Godfrey administration.
Good point, Rudi.
Not only that, but if it's "not our money", then how come "we" feel the need to try and manipulate how it is spent?
"Our money" is spent the way "we" want. That's one of the ways we know it's "ours".
The fact that Ogden City was trying to browbeat UTA into spending it on something no one except the Godfrey/Patterson axis wanted makes it clear that, at least in the mind of the Mayor, it really was "our" money.
I also noted with interest the whopper told by the Mayor at the end of your brief audio clip.
"I don't think Ken Lee lobbied for the money at all."
Then what in heaven's sake did we pay Mr. Lee to do?
As Ozboy says, they don't even lie right.
I knew that something didn't smell right about the ridership numbers, so I checked.
Patterson says, "[t]he city gondola ridership numbers were calculated by a 2005 study (Baker Study) funded by UTA and Wasatch Front Regional Council. We used the data provided by their experts."
Well, no you didn't, Mr. Patterson.
The Baker Study projected an annual ridership of 321,000 (I took the higher figure, to make you less of a liar) in the year 2030.
Where, then, do you get your figure of 745,000 to 805,000 riders from?
ON Mr. Patterson's op ed piece:
They just can't help dissembling, can they? Others have already done a good job of pointing out much of it, like estimates of ridership for a tram or gondola direct from Ogden to Snow Basin being applied to two gondolas, one of which wasn't going to the mountains at all, and the other of which wasn't going to Snow Basin. Talk about spin....
And I notice Mr. Patterson is strangely silent on the Mayor's retroactive waiving of the competitive bidding rules for the LYRB "fiscal analysis" on grounds that LYRB was the only firm in the entire state of Utah qualified to financial analysis of that sort. Which is patent nonsense.
And I notice how Mr. Patterson, now in full damage control mode, has suddenly become a fan of Mr. Arrington. The same Mr. Arrington Mr. Patterson in his emails angrily accused of suffering from "early Alzheimers" as Arrington kept asking questions Mr. Patterson apparently did not want asked. Poor Mr. Arrington, searching, searching for the file with all the other bids for the financial analysis the administration hired LYRB to do when in fact there were no other bids because the city did not ask for them, though city bid ordinances required that that be done. Imagine that.
Can't help wondering, how many other contracts that the ordinances require to be let by competitive bidding did the Godfrey administration conveniently forget to bid out?
But Mr. Patterson is clever. People not well versed in the administration's machinations reading his exercise in creative fiction this morning will again have planted in their minds some connection between "gondola" and "Snow Basin" --- just as the Mayor has been trying to keep that mythical connection alive on the city website long long long after Snow Basin management made it plan no tram, gondola or gondola/gondola would be connecting Snow Basin to Ogden or WSU or Malan's Basin. Period. Clever.
If former President Clinton ever decides to hold a panel discussion at the Clinton Presidential Library on "what the meaning of 'is' is," I hope he will invite Mr. Patterson. Based on his exercise in rhetorical tap dancing in the service of Godfrey administration damage control this morning, he will more than hold his own on such a panel.
"The Adopted Strategic Plan stated GOAL 9.0: Evaluate the feasibility and merits of a gondola from Ogden to Snowbasin."
One call to Snowbasin would have prevented the rest of it all. These clowns then used the locale of Snowbasin to continue the spin. What gets me, is the misconception these knucklenuts allow to persist in their puny grey matter, that Snowbasin would want it under some undertermined circumstance. Since they neither ski, snowboard or hike enough to see the forest for the trees, they are oblivious to the topographical and mountain safety limitations of the connection. A gondola will never be built because it cannot be used by beginners and intermediates without substantial and undesirable reconfigurations on the mountain face. Issue should be dismissed.
That was a very convoluted and lengthy dissertation put on by Mr. Patterson. Very confusing to say the least. Having not read the e-mails in question, I find his explanation of them to be highly suspect.
It seems to me that had he just picked the salient points of the emails and countered them with a simple explanation, he would have been miles ahead in the minds of the people.
As it is, I think he only muddied the waters futher with his overly long defenses. This only tends to make people even more suspicious of his motives and casts a longer shadow over the original e-mails and their content.
It is usually only the guilty that go to such great lengths to explain their actions.
Also note the e-mail patterson does not mention, the one where UTA reminds arrington of past transgressions committed by Ogden City regarding compliance and such with provisions associated with grants and other funding.
Lets face it folks, this mayor and corrupt bunch that make up his administration is a complete embarrasment for the people of Ogden.
No state agency or anyone in state government trusts or respects them.
Bill:
Your wrote: Also note the e-mail patterson does not mention, the one where UTA reminds arrington of past transgressions committed by Ogden City regarding compliance and such with provisions associated with grants and other funding.
Somebody needs to ask UTA to be specific about these "past transgressions." And someone likely to get specific answers. Members of the Ogden legislative delegation perhaps... from either party. Or both. Perhaps it's time for people to start calling, emailing or writing their Utah state legislator and asking him or her to get some answers from UTA about what projects Ogden did not handle properly in the past. With specifics. This is, after all, one of the things legislators ought to be doing... asking questions on behalf of their constituents.
The dead Greek pederast Heraclitus wrote "A man's character is his fate." Will OTown finally deliver Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey and his administration to their deserved fate, vis-a-vis their actions borne of their dispicable character?
There are three other items in today's SE worth noting, I think. First the Mayor announced a "war" on gang violence in Ogden. This got a little discussion in an earlier thread. The article can be found here.
Let me make sure I understand this: three and a half years into his second term in office, Mayor Godfrey has discovered that gang violence is a growing problem in Ogden? Little late to this particular dance, isn't he? But I'm glad, at last, he's noticed and decided to try to do something about it.
I don't know enough about gangs or police procedures to know if what he's proposing can be or will be effective. I'll defer to Chief Greiner's expertise on that. But this comment from the Mayor I found troublesome:
"Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he would not let “a couple of hooligans” increase gang crime in Ogden. "
Can he possibly believe that? That if only we can corral "a couple of hooligans" the gang violence problem will be gone? God, I hope not. But he did say it.
Second, there's an article about the Council meeting last night. [Did not appear in the print edition because it went to press early because of malfunctioning presses, so the SE put it up on the free webpage. Good move btw and nice use of the technology.]
Anyway, the Council set a public hearing for Aug. 21 to gather public input on a proposal to amend the city budget "to allocate $100,000 for renovations at the Windsor Hotel at 166 25th Street." Link
here.
Turns out the new owners of the Windsor want well north of a quarter of a million dollars to help them renovate the old hotel. $100,000 from the city budget, then another $111,500 from the RDA budget. They've already been promised $76,500 from "the city's Business Information Center reserve account."
The first $100,000 would come from "the municipality's sale of Asset Control Area properties, which are foreclosed HUD homes, said Richard McConkie, deputy director of the city's Community and Economic Development Department." The next $111,500 would come from "tax increment generated by the 25th Street redevelopment project area."
As I recall from the SE story on the sale of the Windsor, the previous owner wanted to renovate it himself but said he was not being given enough time from the city to arrange financing so he had no choice but to sell to the new owners, who, the story said, did have the financing they needed to renovate the old bordello into condos above, retail space below. But now it turns out, they didn't actually have all the capital they needed lined up. They are coming to the city for well over a quarter of a million in public funds to pay for the renovations they plan.
Seems to me we have ask ourselves the same question the Mayor and his Lift Ogden Amen Chorus should have asked themselves about Mr. Peterson's proposal years ago: if this is all such a good idea, why can't the owners find private sector investors to back the renovations they want to make? Why are the coming, tin cup in hand, to the tax payers to subsidize their project? I'm not in finance or commercial real estate development, but it seems like a reasonable question to me.
Curm,
In regards to your last post. I read the online story about the hotel conversion and once again the enitiy that wants the money is an LLC. Did the council ask who the owners of the LLC are? I would hate to think that we are potentially giving away more money to an FOM. The council should find out, if they don't know, who the partners are in the LLC and review their financial capability for two reasons.
1. They may have the money and just see the city as offering free-money or two, they may not have the money and we end up loaning money to an LLC that can't complete the project and we can't get our money back because it's an LLC.
Good catch, Curm.
I would humbly suggest that each of us write letters to the editor of the S-E to keep these issues alive between now and Sept 11.
There's only a month left, so only time for one letter each — okay, maybe two if you hurry.
Ogden's CAO John Patterson has had a knee-jerk reaction to his exposure by the Standard-Examiner in their recent excellent editorial.
I have been trying to get him as the Registered Agent for the Ogden Community Foundation to send to me a copy of the Foundation's application to the IRS for their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and other financials for over 6 months.
He has consistently and steadfastly ignored my requests.
Until today.
I am looking at his e-mail sent today stating that he is sending me copies of their 501(c)3 application and their form 990 which was recently filed for their tax year ended June 30, 2007.
Things must really be getting warm down in the Mayor's office and surrounding territory to effect this change of position.
However, I have a feeling that this is only a fleeting change of heart before he recovers and continues his usual modus operandi.
His change of character could also be because I had sent him a copy of an IRS response stating that as the registered agent he must furnish the things I had requested.
DL:
I am not familiar with all how foundations work, various reporting requirements, etc. Way out of my box. But I would say, based on your post above and the recent emails from Mr. Patterson, that the Godfrey administration general preference for keeping its activities hidden from public view until it is forced to reveal them or concludes revealing them is to its advantage, is still very much intact.
Word on the street is, none other than Scott Brown is really behind the Windsor Hotel, as well as alot of other properties around town.
He would be the same party that badgered the original owner out of there. He was also very much at the center of the bogus Riverside foundation and deed transfers to the Ogden community Foundation.
If it proves to be true, wouldn't that be 5X the severance package lying little matty gave Reid?
I feel so insulted by the mayor and his staff right now. He obviously doesn’t give us, the residents of Ogden, any credit for having any intelligence.
He probably knew long before, but it was highlighted that he knew for sure, through the e-mails as early as March of 2006 that the development in Malan Basin and the whole gondola project wasn’t going to work financially.
This means that all of the city funds spent for the promotion of these projects from at least that time on (including the money spent on these studies and that money he’s trying to give to Peterson) was simply to convince the residents that these projects were viable so that he could accomplish his true motivation, that of selling off our golf course and open space to his friend. He spent our money (a lot of our money) to try to convince us of what he knew was a lie. No wonder he kept the spending out of the publics view.
It takes a lot of gall and dishonesty to betray the public trust of the people the way he has. Patterson comments in the paper today were nothing but the twisting of facts and events, and fabrications. To think that the mayor and his staff don’t give the residents credit for remembering events or previous news stories just proves how little the mayor and his administration think of us or give us credit for having any intelligence.
For them to think that now that they’ve been caught in a lie, that they can now tell us another lie to convince us that their first lie was not a lie, is just downright insulting.
Bill:
Mr. Brown, no longer a city employee, has the right to invest in whatever he pleases and can afford. However, if it turns out he and/or other... well, let's say "close associates"... of the present administration are in the investment group involved in the Windsor, it will create, yet again, the perception of cronyism if the city ends up substantially subsidizing the venture. Particularly if, as the former owner claimed, pressure from the city prevented his having the time he said he needed to raise investment funding himself, and thus forced him to sell to the current owners. I don't know if in fact that is what happened. We have, after all, only the statement of an interested party to the matter. But it looks hinky, and I suspect folks are now more likely to credit such suspicions because of the previous actions of the Administration --- Bootjack, pushing the park sale to support the Peterson Project, etc. etc.
For a man who is supposed to be politically astute , the Mayor seems to have a tin ear [so to speak] for how the things his administration does appear to the public once the administration is forced to reveal them. Good government should be seen to be good government. The public must perceive it as such for it to be effective. I wonder if it ever occurs to Mayor Godfrey how much better off his administration would be today if from the start he had not adopted as his governing policy "conceal first, reveal only under pressure." Somehow, I doubt it.
Nice analysis, folks. I wish I had more time to look into this myself.
Again, I ask, why couldn't Schwebke do some fundamental investigative reporting and research himself? He should have been able to dig up that ridership information on his own. He could have come here to get it. He baffles me.
Also, driving down 1900 West, I noticed three (3) Hansen signs on the Staker/Parson property frontage. Guess Godfrey doesn't get that big player's support.
Now I see:
I hadn't considered your first option... Ogden just naturally gives away money to new downtown ventures. Hell, if I was opening something there and I thought there was a fair to middlin' chance I could get north of a quarter of a million from the city free for the asking, I guess I'd have my tin cup out too.
Then the question becomes not why are the owners putting in a request for the money... they'd be dumb not to if the city is handing it out. Then the question becomes... why is the city handing it out?
I don't know about the RDA money. Others more knowledgeable than I am can speak to that. But I'm hard put to see why the city should rearrange its budget to come up with $100K out of it for the developers. That's a hundred K that won't be there for other purposes. Oh, like for example expanded policing to control gang violence, maybe?
I went online to the Utah Commerce site to look up Ogden Properties II, LLC.
The Registered Agent is Daniel McEntee for the business which filed with the State of Utah, March 8, 2007. Entity #6520609-0160.
Address is 1128 Hyland Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95404..
Wouldn't it be interesting if he is a front for Gadi Lesham from California, the Mayor's big buddy who has already bought property in Ogden.
I urge everyone to be at the August 21st public hearing to protest awarding any tax increment or HUD monies or any other funds to the Windsor Project.
Also, what is the City's Business Information Center's Reserve account that has $76,500.00 in it that has already been earmarked for the Windsor Hotel project? Just who is in control of the Business Information Center? Does any body know?
That Business Information Center is the source of Scott Brown's funds from which he wrote a check to the Riverside Technology Non-Profit Foundation with the instructions that the check was to be hand carried to America First and not to be put through a bank account which is the required accounting practice.
Those instructions show up in another of Mr. Brown's e-mails regarding Da Vinci Academy/Riverside Technology High School that are floating around and will come home to haunt him.
If we are lucky they may just wind up helping put Mr. Scott Brown in jail.
Just Snooping:
Didn't know about the hand-carry instructions. Don't suppose you could post the email containing them?
Ogden's business practices -- or I guess financial practices is a better term since I don't think the city is supposed to be in business --- are starting to look... interesting?
I am intrigued by the comment from I think Mr. Crandall in the emails recently revealed regarding Ogden City and the "gondola study" quarter million dollar grant the city lobbyist got from Congress, funneled through UTA, that UTA has had other concerns about how Ogden handled grants in the past. I think, given all the sleight-of-hand and chicanery the emails exposed regarding this latest grant, that we need to know, now, what problems UTA has had with Ogden administering grants in the past. What's behind Mr. Crandall's statement? We need the specifics, I think, since the administration has squandered the public's trust on its handling of such matters.
If you're tight with a state legislator [preferably not one running for the mayor's job], might be fruitful to call him or her up and see if they can ask UTA what problems it's had with Ogden grants in the past. To see if your state legislator [either party] is willing to press Mr. Crandall or Mr. Inglish for the details.
On a few things, Snoopin, we disagree. I don't see how Ogden would be "lucky" to have Mr. Brown indicted, tried and convicted. Nor do I think Mr. Lesham's participation in the Windsor project is, in and of itself, a reason for the city to reject the funding proposals. There seem to me to be far sounder reasons than that to raise questions about the grant applications. But it would not be wise policy for the city to say "we'd make this grant, except that we suspect that Mr. Brown and/or Mr. Lesham may benefit from it." It would be very bad policy indeed to make who is applying for the money the standard of deciding whether or not to grant it.
That after all is what the Godfrey administration is suspected of having done when it arranged deals for its friends that seem not to have been available to others. Land sold without opening it for public bids, and sold for less than an announced competing offer. No bid contracts made even when the ordinances require that the contract be bid out. And so on. It would be no more right for the Council to do that kind of thing [base its decisions on who was asking] than for the Mayor.
The Windsor grants application should stand... or fall... on its merits, not on the basis of who is asking for the money or who what private citizens might benefit.
I find it interesting that the city just a couple of months ago passed on their option to buy a piece of land from the church, property in the heart of our new development of the Junction. The reason given for the city to pass up on the purchase was that the city and the RDA didn’t have the money to buy it. The land was then allowed to be sold to Stuart Reed, a former administrator for Godfrey and now a FOM.
Now the Windsor Hotel needs money and we are somehow able to find some. And once again the administration is suggesting robbing Peter to pay Paul (i.e. taking revenues from other projects to leverage into yet another).
Seems to me that we can’t find money when it’s to the advantage of the administration or friends of the administration (thus creating an opportunity for the FOM to but up things) and yet we can find money when it is to the advantage of the administration or its friends (so that the city can help fund FOM projects). This stinks.
Anyone but Godfrey.
Utah Code § 10-3-1304 Use of office for personal benefit prohibited.
.... (2) It is an offense for an elected or appointed officer or municipal employee, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Section 63-56-72 or 76-8-105 , to:
(a) disclose or improperly use private, controlled, or protected information acquired by reason of his official position or in the course of official duties in order to further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest or to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others;
(b) use or attempt to use his official position to:
(i) further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest; or
(ii) secure special privileges for himself or others... .
Utah Code §10-3-1310 Penalties for violation
In addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and intentionally violates this part, with the exception of Sections 10-3-1306 , 10-3-1307 , 10-3-1308 , and 10-3-1309 , shall be dismissed from employment or removed from office and is guilty of:
(1) a felony of the second degree if the total value of the compensation, conflict of interest, or assistance exceeds $1,000... .
Ogden City Code § 2-7-3: PROHIBITED ACTS DESIGNATED:
No appointed or elected officer or employee shall:
A. Improper Disclosure: Improperly disclose private, controlled or protected information acquired by reason of the officer's official position or in the course of official duties in order to... improperly use such information to secure special privileges or exemptions for... others.
.... B. Use Position For Privileges: Use or attempt to use the officer's official position to... secure special privileges for... others.
Ogden City Code § 2-7-11: PENALTY:
Any person who knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of this Chapter may be subject to the criminal penalties provided under State law. A violation of any provision of this Chapter, which is prosecuted by the City or which is not a criminal violation under Utah Code Annotated section 10-3-1310, is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable as set forth in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Any officer or employee who knowingly and intentionally violates this Chapter may be dismissed from employment or removed from office, as provided by law.
Patterson: "We have not acted as Chris Peterson’s agent."
HAH!
Perhaps the rush to force sale of the Windsor, and force the occupants out of there despite the previous owners claiming they were in the process of getting private funds for renovations, was really a rush to get this through the city before primary/election day. Remember, the buyers supposedly had finances all ready to go for renovating the hotel.
From the June 24 SE article on sale of the Windsor:
Ogden Properties wants to get to work on the building soon, and is conservatively estimating the project to be finished by spring next year, said Scot Nicol, one of the company’s three owners.
“It’s a beautiful old building that needs a lot of ‘TLC,’ and we intend to restore the building and make it one of many gems that exist on 25th Street,” Nicol said, in an e-mail. “We are currently evaluating the property and will prepare a plan based on our engineers and architect’s advice.”
The two businesses on the buildings first floor, a bar and a small store, will be leaving in the next few months. There is no information about what will happen with those areas as of yet, Nicol said. He said his company also owns Studio 25, a fullservice beauty salon, on the same block as the hotel.
“We’re really excited about 25th Street,” he said. “We are extremely excited about the renaissance that downtown Ogden is experiencing due to the work of people like (Mayor) Matthew Godfrey and others in town who share the vision.”
Ruben Villalobos, the previous owner of the hotel, said the sale closed June 4, but declined to share the purchase price. According to Weber County property records, the hotel and the 0.12 acres it sits on are valued at $286,319. Villalobos said he wanted to convert the building into an upscale dwelling when he originally bought it in 2004, but it wasn’t feasible at that time because there were many unsold residential units at the Union Square development on the other side of the street. The Union Square units are all sold now, he said, and property values in the area have gone up. He said he is disappointed he couldn’t fix it himself.
“The city gave me an ultimatum, either sell it or clean it up,” Villalobos said. “I wanted to renovate it myself, but I guess the city wanted to get it done right away.” He said he was about six months away from securing the necessary funding to clean and fix up the building. “My plans were to keep it historical and make a bed & breakfast-type place,” Villalobos said.
So why wasn't Mr. Villalobos given the option of having his renovations financed by the City of Ogden? The quote from Scott Nicol probably tells why.
ogdenlover -
Google lists numerous Scott Nicols.
The most interesting is the one in films in California which could be the link to Gad and Mori Lesham.
Whatcha bet?
Scot Nichol is from California and the founder of Ibis Cycles.
Scot Nichol sold the business to investors in 2000 and they managed to kill the business by 2002. In 2005 with involvement from Mr. Nichol, the company was brought back to life.
Scot Nichol is from California and the founder of Ibis Cycles.
Scot Nichol sold the business to investors in 2000 and they managed to kill the business by 2002. In 2005 with involvement from Mr. Nichol, the company was brought back to life.
Ogdenlover:
If the new owners of the Windsor paid for it anything in the range of the city valuation of the property, then the money they are asking Ogden City for will in the end have subsidized most, if not all, of their purchase price. Talk about a sweet deal.... Have the city put pressure on the owner to sell, then get the city to give you the money to buy the property, or a significant portion of that money.
Wonder if I can get the city to give me most of the money it would take for me to buy a nicer house than I live in now? One with a deck and outdoor jacuzzi maybe. If I promise to do a little renovation once I own it. Somehow, I doubt it.
Two items from the latest Salt Lake City Weekly.
First, from former editor John Salta's column. He thinks Murray is the SL Valley's top city [I know nothing about Murray so can't say]. What I found interesting was his top reason, number one, he thinks that. Here it is:
Murray has a mayor who spends more time administering his city than trying to put it “on the map.”
Imagine that. Mayor Godfrey and all candidates for his job, please note.
Second, there is this story [Note: if all this appears in blue, please note the previous two words, "this story," are a clickable link] about all the closed shops and boarded up storefronts in downtown Salt Lake, and the city's inability to do anything much about them. It's really a chewy piece on downtown redevelopment, a city's proper role in that, "land banking," RDAs and how they fit in, or don't. With interesting interviews from folks on all sides of those issues. Here's a sample:
The city’s current zoning discourages property owners from tearing down buildings and replacing them with surface parking. But, beyond that, “there’s nothing we can do about land banking,” says George Shaw, Salt Lake City planning director.
The city hasn’t always been so reticent about forcing certain development. In the mid ’90s, the RDA tried condemning the Flower Patch, a downtown florist, on behalf of Earl Holding’s Grand American Hotel project. Such cases reveal a double standard where the city is concerned, says florist shop owner Tom Gordon. So, when the city says it can’t do anything, it’s just not true.
“If their hands are tied, then they should keep their noses out of it, and there should be no threat of condemnation,” says Gordon. “If the city or RDA has the power of eminent domain, then market forces don’t take place.”
Not all of it relates to what is happening... or not happening... in downtown Ogden, but much of it does. Thoughtful, chewy article. Worth a look, I think.
If this is the individual that is trying to buy the Windsor Hotel it doesn't appear to me, from his ownership in the bike company, that he needs financial assiance from the city to accomplish what he's trying to do.
Let the free enterprize system work and let him fund his conversion of the hotel with his own money.
Don't forget that Salt Lake is tearing down the Sugar House area to put in new upscale shops for tourists...to H--- with the locals.
That area will be torn up for the next two years. My doc has to relocate and he is very upset about that and so am I.
He will probably have to move to Tooele to get a decent rent.
I blame the politicians who promoted the Olympics to put Utah on the map for all our growth problems. I can't see that every day ordinary people have profited from any of the growth.
Grumpy:
You should know that in Ogden, the Council passed a mixed use ordinance that is designed primarily to work for large developers... for people who will buy and raze an entire block and rebuild... the kind of thing going on in Sugar House in SLC. [Hardly surprising, since the Mixed Use Ordinance began life as a Resort Development Ordinance intended to serve the needs of the now defunct Peterson Proposal, though the Planning Commission and Council wisely substantially altered Mr. Peterson's original draft ordinance.]
Fortunately, the Council when it adopted the new Mixed Use Ordinance limited it to the River Project development area, for the most part. It is not applicable to the whole city. Yet.
The administration is currently urging the Council to make the ordinance applicable to the entire city. If that happens, there will be no opportunity for mixed-use areas to develop through smaller single-business owner development, such as exists in SLC on the block where The King's English Book Store and several restaurants and small shops have sprung up. That small mixed use zone [each side of a street one block long] become so successful, that the AAA magazine recently recommended it to visitors to SLC even though it is miles over crowded city streets to the nearest interstate. Worth the hassle to get there, the AAA said. That's precisely the kind of neighborhood small business oriented development that the Ogden ordinance would not encourage if it is extend to apply to the entire city. Only large developers who wanted to do large mixed use projects all under their own ownership and direction need apply.
I had an interesting conversation this afternoon regarding Gold's Gym proposed renovation to their Roy location.
The makeover has been put on hold because Gold's is not happy about the new Ogden location. It seems the Ogden facility is already showing signs of disintegration and the same contractor had been plannned to do the Roy location.
It doesn't look like that will be happening.
The Gold's person said that the contractor started making changes to the Ogden location during construction that downgraded what was supposed to have been constructed.
Since Ogden was a cost plus job the downgrade could very well have happened.
Bill Glasmann and Mrs. Curt Geiger should be able to inform us all about that since they were overseeing the job.
Ms. May:
Please tell me that Ogden did not let a "cost plus" contract for construction of the Salomon Center. Please....
Cost plus contracts make sense in only one circumstance: when you need something done yesterday and the cost be damned. Like contracting for tanks and bombers the morning after Pearl Harbor. Cost plus contracts contain no incentives for doing the job efficiently and economically. In fact, they put a premium on doing the job in as costly a manner as possible, since the builder's profit is a percentage of the cost of construction: the higher the cost, the more his profit. If they did let a cost plus contract, the building would therefor not have downgraded construction because of it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I do know the city was running short of construction cash as the projects neared completion... remember all that scrambling to sell the Shupe Williams property to get money to finish construction, etc. And rumor has it toward the end, the city was downgrading some elements [mostly exteriors, I heard] to save dollars. Perhaps that had something to do with any design or construction changes for the Gold's facility.
Arn't ya glad Godfrey took the money from Ogden's Gang Unit to promote the Gondola.
Just:
Can you document that he did that?
Grumpy and Ms May,
The 'eminent do ain' redevelopment of unique Sugarhouse can be stopped. Go to www.castlecoalition.org .
I atteneded their magnificent conference in VA in June. They take cases to the Supreme Court. A better organization to fight these land grabbers cannot be found. Anyone interested may contact them. They stand ready to help everyone!
Sugarhouse and other deliteful communities must be preserved.
Post a Comment