A one-day respite from our usual WCF political red meat menu
By Curmudgeon
There are reports in this morning's Standard-Examiner and today's Salt Lake Tribune on the public water meeting held by the city council in Ogden last night.
The Std-Ex's story, by Charles Trentelman, can be found here.
The Trib's story, by Kristin Moulton, is here.
It would be interesting, we think, to hear from any of our readers who attended last night's meeting, just to flesh out the information in the above news stories.
And finally, on another topic, the Standard Examiner is trolling for political ads. Running an ad selling the paper as the best way to reach local voters. It's an interesting read, the general theme of which is "all politics is local" and nobody covers local politics like newspapers. It claims particularly that newspapers in general, and the Std-Ex in particular, deliver "credibility that is unmatched" in local political coverage.
I'd think the Std-Ex's failure, so far, to print, even as a news brief, Rep. Hansen's filing a complaint with the OPD naming names of those caught in the act removing his lawn signs and replacing them with Godfrey signs, might raise a question or two, at the least, about both the range and credibility of the Std-Ex's coverage, que no?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
65 comments:
You're right, Curm.
How can the Standard-Examiner NOT REPORT the story of the Lift Ogden Chairman, Mayor Godfrey's #1 political brownshirt, having been caught red-handed removing the signs of the Mayor's chief opponent, and replacing them with the signs of his boss?
So long as the SE continues to ignore stories like this, it can lay no claim to credilbility, reliability or honesty.
Seems like Laura Lewis and her firm have an exclusive with Mayor Godfrey for studies.
Her bill for $16,000.00 on a gondola study was the one Godfrey secretly tried for 2 years to convince UTA to pay illegally from the $247 thousand federal grant money Ogden was supposed to use to buy a new bus.
And incidentally, no notice was issued for bids on that gondola study even though Utah law states that any amount over $10 thousand must be put out to bid.
So, our Mayor puts a Waiver in the file months after the study was done with no bids.....that is his standard answer when he gets questioned ..............
I thank Dan Schroeder once again for phrasing his GRAMA request with the right terminology with specific dates to get an actual correct answer from the Ogden City Recorder.
Jackem:
You wrote: So long as the SE continues to ignore stories like this, it can lay no claim to credibility, reliability or honesty.
They should have covered it, but to say that not doing so completely undermines their credibility, reliability or honesty is, I think, going too far. We --- you and I --- are differing with the SE editors about their news judgment. We think the story was newsworthy. The editors evidently think it was not. They're wrong and we're right. I'd agree with the stark conclusions you draw from this disagreement if every questionable news judgment they made ran in one political direction.
But that hasn't happened. They've made mistakes in ways not favorable to the mayor. [E.G. running his picture next to the banner headline about a BR development business being investigated for fraud, which created the impression, or could have, that the Mayor was somehow involved in the fraudulent proceedings. He wasn't. In this instance, he was just one of the victims.]
So, they screw up their news judgment occasionally. They did this time. So long as they don't do that all the time in the same direction... and they don't, so far as I can see... I wouldn't say their honesty and credibility has been completely undermined.
There's an old quip about Freud that goes "you know, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." Same thing here: sometimes a screw-up is just a screw-up, and not evidence of a dark and sinister plot by greedy out-of-state robber barons in the Duchy of Sandusky to corrupt the voters of Ogden.
But they did, absolutely, drop the ball on this one.
Anon:
Well, you seem to have information regarding the incident in the police report that the rest of us lack. Since a police report was filed on the incident, and that report has become public knowledge, wouldn't the SE be serving its readers to cover the story, and provide the "other side" a chance to make the "rational explanation" you say there is public too? Wouldn't "checking both sides" on the story involve the accused being asked for his account of what happened, to be included in the story? Seems to me the person named in the complaint to the police would want the SE to look into the matter so his side could be gotten out as well, now that the incident is public, que no?
Accusations of sign stealing go on in every election, at every level, all the time. I can't think of a campaign I've been involved in where signs didn't disappear [from both sides], with each side claiming skullduggery on the other side. I imagine that may be why the SE editors passed on the story. "Signs Disappear During Campaign" ranks right up there with "Sun Rises In East" as far as being news.
What made this incident different, and I think newsworthy, is that this time, there were two eyewitnesses to the sign incident,and a person named as the perpetrator and a police complaint was filed. [99% of the time it seems the sign-stealing allegations refer to simply "they" or "them" with no names or witnesses included and, because of that, no police reports filed]. Once the report was filed, the matter became public and the SE should have looked into it and gotten statements from all involved as the basis for a story.
Well come on folks, the Standard-Examiner is in business to make money. Convincing people that thier rag is worth purchasing is their first order of business. Providing news to the community comes somewhat after that.
For news, and overall readability, I subscribe to the SLTrib. For local politics, I come here.
Curm, you are correct. It is newsworthy because of the witness accounts and the association of the perpetrator to a particular campaign.
Let me make one additional hypothetical suggestion: the SE will always refrain from publishing stories that are published here on WCFORUM first, because it then becomes an acknowledgment of the fact that they were scooped, and that they indeed are not the only significant local news purveyor.
Lawn signs don't vote. People vote.
Letters to the Editor don't vote (although they represent the views of one person). People vote.
Remember what I said earlier about low-turnout elections (like the Sept 11 primary).
The side with the most passion will win. Passion leads to turnout, and turnout wins the election.
The strategic error made by the people who plant lawn signs like mushrooms and write boilerplate letters like a cheap romance novel is that they will incite passion in the opposition.
I know the intent is like carpet bombing: they figure we'll just bow to their superior force. "It's all hopeless. They are too strong. I give up."
I don't think that'll happen this time.
What I think will happen is that they will incite the anti-Godfrey bloc to get out and vote on Sept 11. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. I know lots of others who feel the same. We're gonna vote, and we're gonna kick those petty thieves to the curb.
It was nice to have our favorite bipolar adopted son, Bob Geiger, and his inanities back, if only for a brief period. How did he subvert the dungeon's sensors? Anyway, have a nice day (I'm serious!), robust Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey campaigner: sell many jackets and preach the virtues of gondolas, gondolas and more gondolas! Keep up the good work!
On the Water Meeting
Well, this is probably a forlorn hope [shifting the topic to water], but the Water Meeting was interesting, and, though poorly attended, worth the time. [In my view it is essential for city governments to provide informational and citizen input meetings like this. If people choose not to attend, that is unfortunate, but well-attended or not, it is important to have the opportunities there.]
And I think the City Council is following precisely the right procedure in devising plans to deal with [i.e. pay for] the water, storm drain and sewer repairs the city is facing... many under federal mandate... and soon. Research first, then analysis, then conclusions and policy. [Unlike the Mayor's preferred practice of reaching conclusions first, and then commissioning studies galore in hopes that one of them will produce data to support the conclusion he has already reached. Especially where gondolas are involved.]
Some points learned at the meeting I think worth repeating here:
1. Ogden's water and sewer systems are paid for by "enterprise funds," meaning paid for by those who use the water and sewers. The are not funded by general city revenues, we were told, not even for construction projects like replacing antiquated and collapsing water and sewer lines.
2. Money raised by fees [water, sewer] can not be used for other purposes. The money will be designated exclusively for water projects, though it seems in the past water/sewer reserve funds [i.e. savings put into a rainy day fund to handle emergency repairs, etc. has been "loaned" to other city agencies for other projects. The briefers yesterday were adamant that that would not be permitted with water funds in the future and the Council could, and will, draft the tax ordinances in such a way as to make that certain.]
3.Ogden daily supplies 17 million gallons to approximately 90,000 users in the city. The city water system has 269 miles of water mains. And the average age of the pipes in the culinary water system is 60-80 years old. Design life of the sewer pipes is approximately 30 to 60 years. Average age of the pipes in this system is 60 to 80 years old. And Ogden has 300 miles of sewer pipe.[That does not include the 75 miles of storm sewer pipes.] Some portions of the storm sewers are a century old. Ogden Water repairs an average of 90 to 100 leaks a month.
4. Over the past two decades, Ogden has raised its water rates a total of 20%. Over the same period, inflation has risen 65%, which means the "reserve fund" [repair and rainy day fund] has been steadily depleted year by year. Soon there will be nothing left in it, and with massive federally mandated changes coming four years down the road, the city must increase rates to raise the money to deal with the problems.
5. The filtration plant for culinary water was last updated in 1960. Most plants are updated on a 15 to 20 year cycle.
6. The city has contracted with LYRB to conduct a study concerning how much the city must raise to deal with the water problems, and to analyze various ways to raise it it. Included will be recommendations regarding use rates so that they "reflect a reasonable and true cost of service among user classes" so that the resulting new [and higher] rates will be "as fair as possible." Recommendations will also include suggestions about providing some relief to low income users, and ways to promote conservation.
Last night's meeting was the first of two the Council and consultants will hold to get citizen input. Last night, those there were broken into several groups, each group including two council members and a member of the consulting team, to take suggestions, deal with citizen questions, etc. about the water system, the problems, possible solutions, how to deal with rate increases, etc.
In the group I was in, for example, one citizen raised the possibility of charging one fixed per-gallon rate for water use, rather than the system now, which charges one rate for the "basic block" [first X thousand gallons per house], then higher rates stepped up over larger blocks of use. Consultants and city water people said that would be included as a possibility. Another resident noted that the engineering information about repairs the Consultants would work from was being supplied to the consultants by the City. The resident suggested an outside vetting of that information, to insure that "political pressure on the engineering department" had not affected the information supplied to the consultants. [Naturally, some of us at that point recalled that the information supplied to LYRB by the City for another recent analysis...had something to do with gondolas I think... left much to be desired with respect to its accuracy.] Many other suggestions were made by residents, and many more questions asked.
I discovered at the meeting that Ogden does not charge an "impact fee" for hooking up new subdivisions, buildings, to the water system, as other communities do. Impact fees, we were told, would be one of the elements looked at by the city, but not in the consultants' study. Asked why, Councilman Garcia replied "cost and time." It would hugely increase the cost of the study if the city asked for a detailed analysis of impact fees, and it would extend the time it would take to do the analysis well into next year. The Council hopes to have the process completed and the new rate ordinances enacted by this coming January to begin raising the money for the repairs the FedGov has mandated that Ogden begin in four years.
The consultants will work with a Stakeholders committee appointed by the Council --- ordinary Ogden residents, some on supplementary water systems, some not, representative of business, one from WSU --- and produce and report and proposed water plan. Then the Council and consultants will hold a second public meeting, like last night's to get public reaction to, comment on, the proposed water plan --- mostly the proposed new rate plan. And then the Council will act.
Finally, one tidbit of information that surprised me. From the materials handed out to all who came: "An automatic dishwasher can use as little as 9 or as much as 123 gallons of water to wash one load." At which point I wondered how much water our dishwasher used per load [when it deigns to work, which at the moment it isn't]. I have no idea. Probably should. Something we'll definitely look into if/when we replace it.
All told, an interesting meeting.
I attended the meeting and was in group C. I also brought up the impact fees especially where new construction and re-furbishment of older buildings takes place. One of the council member said impact fees wouldn't work and then Laura Lewis from LYRB commented that other cities this size had impact fees. Development will still take place with fees in place. Utah is one of the states that impact fees seem to be a bad word. With the legislature having realtors as representatives this isn't a suprise. I also mentioned McKay Dee Hospital not being charged for sewer hook up, they will check on that, when re-locating to the new facility. Also the water issue with so much acreage with grass to maintain.
I too think more people should attend these meetings. They will attend when the rates are proposed to be raised I'm sure.
Revenue is $7.5M water $4.4 M Sewer per year.
North Ogden and Pleasant View both charge impact fees to developers.
In fact these fees were just increased dramatically.
Failure for Ogden to charge impact fees reflects once again that the people in office in the City for any period of time should be kicked out the front door.
Impact Fees for Saratoga Springs per residential home.
Impact Fees for Residential Development
Impact Fees
Amount
Culinary Water1 $3,000
Secondary Water2 $1,800
Timpanogos Special Service District Sewer3 $3,120
City Sewer3 $1,200
Parks3 $1,800
Storm Drain3 $559
Public Safety3 $850
Roads4 $2,500
1 One (1) water connection is required for each residential unit. 0.5 acre feet of water rights are
required for every unit. Water rights are available for purchase from the City at $4,000 per acre
foot (or $2,000 per unit). The City also accepts various other water rights for culinary purposes
upon approval by the City Attorney. Water rights must be submitted to the City prior to
recordation of any subdivision plats.
2 Connection to or participation in the creation of the City’s secondary water facilities is required
and will be subject to the existing or planned infrastructure that is detailed in the City’s
Secondary Water Master Plan. Four (4) secondary water connections are required for each net
irrigable acre. Net irrigable acre = 90% of all land within any development project not used for
open space, streets and commercial and multi-family parking areas + 35% of all land within any
development project that is used for streets and parking areas + 90% of all land used for open
space. In multi-family developments the secondary water connections are based on actual
landscaped area instead of the net irrigable acreage calculation. Two (2) acre feet of water
rights per net irrigable acre are required to be turned into the City upon recordation of any
subdivision plats.
3 One impact fee is required per unit.
4 For single family units, one impact fee is required per unit. For multi-family units a 30%
discount is given on each impact fee per unit.
Anon:
Just out of curiosity, how much [how many thousands] do impact fees add to the price/cost of a new single family residence in Saratoga Springs?
Group C Anon:
Which council member said impact fees were not a good idea? [No, I don't want to rant at him or her. I'd like to chat with whoever it was to know their thinking on the matter.]
I've been mulling it over since I read the posts above. The first argument against them seems to be that it's an attempt by city residents to get newcomers to pay for improvement, etc. The other side of that coin is that city residents have shelled out over the years for improvements, up grades,maintenance, and that new comers should via impact fees chip in for the benefits they will immediately enjoy thanks to the fees that others have been paying for years.
I'm going to have to do a little research on this one. Not sure where the weight of the evidence comes down. Thanks to you and the other Anon for your posts. Chewy stuff.
Curmudgeon
your "other side of the coin" argument pretty well says it all in relationship to the validity and fairness of impact fees.
The gondola is baaaack! Did we ever think it wouldn't be?
Heard:
It's never been away. All the mayor took off the table was the idea of selling the golf course to Mr. Peterson so it could be reconfigured on other land... which reconfiguration it seems three, count 'em three, experienced golf course planners told the Mayor and Peterson could not be done, would not work. So they took that element off the table. [Sale of the course and its reconfiguration.] Nothing else at all came off the table. Nothing.
Was there ever or is there any doubt that the Gondola ever really went away?
Just another little tidbit, I was out campaigning for one of the candidates for City Council, and met with a local business owner.
That business owner had nothing good to say about the present Council. What he and the Mayor wants is a Council that will "give the Mayor anything he asks for", no questions asked. They don’t want to have to "re-train" anyone to the ways of the (dark side), they want loyal Godfreyites. He mentioned that the Gondola is only gone for a flash, that "they are working on it" as we spoke. I don’t know who they are, but I would assume that it is the lifties, led by none other than his lordship.
At any rate, people need to be aware that the movement is underground for now, but it could be gone on September 11th, if we exercise our rights to run the little shit out of town on a rail, along with Royal, Kent, and Blain.
Otherwise be prepared to go further in debt, loose the open spaces, and the opportunity to take our town back.
Bottom line folks, get out and vote, and not for the Rubberstampers with the Check Book.
Campaign Canvas:
Occurs to me this is a question the Standard Examiner should be asking: what are the Mayor's plans vis a vis the gondola? What will he do if he's re-elected? Has he taken the additional 60 acres of public land above the golf course, through which some of the most heavily used trails in the city run, "off the table" too... or not? The paper might ask the same question of his opponents and of the council candidates. It's still the elephant in the middle of the room that the Mayor and his staff like Mr. Montgomery in the planning office like to pretend isn't really there at all when they discuss zoning ordinances and community plan drafts and such like.
The Mayor and his staff are reluctant to answer questions like that from residents. Maybe he'll answer them from the SE. Seems that a paper that prides itself on providing "unmatched" coverage of local politics would want to give its readers a heads up on where the candidates stand on such matters, que no?
Just thinking out loud....
Think out loud all your little heart desires Mr. Curmudgeon, the Standard is not going to be asking the mayor any hard or potentially embarrassing or difficult questions now or in the future. It just flat out aint in their make-up no matter how hard you try to portray them as being fair, balanced or even remotely impartial.
The Standard is a second rate rag, but they do know what side of their bread the butter is on, and who's followers are likely to keep slathering it on generously in the future.
Typical republican response. I can dig a ditch and throw you in, or if I steel from you ,or if I am gay. These things are O K, because everybody does it and besides, I am a REPUBLICAN.
But if I dig ditch, throw you in. If I steel from you. If I'm gay. Then I'll go to hell, because I'm a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
Republicans and Godfrey supporters….. Its not o k to lie, steel or cheat!
Republicans are just hypocrites.
I still want to know why Mayor Godfrey is good at following cops wives around and calling their licence plate numbers into his Chief Senator Greiner the weiner.
But when a man comes to the door of Godfrey’s house, to threaten to kill him.
He just soiled his pants because he didn’t have the guts to chase him off his property. Nor did he have the guts to chase him down to get the licence plate number to report it, to his side kick, Chief Greiner.
What a weeiinee!!!!
Why would anyone hang out with this clown. His name is just a discrace to be on a voting ballott.
If he wins again, "good night and good luck."
It is a lot safer to follow women around in cars than it is to chase some possibly deranged and armed nut down the street on foot.
That said, I also must add that I think the story of the guy on the mayor's door step with threats is another Godfrey lie. Just one in many.
The mayor is obviously a pathological liar, however he is not crazy crazy enough to chase an armed nut job.
Geno:
You wrote: The mayor is.... not crazy crazy enough to chase an armed nut job.
Absolutely right. If Mayor Godfrey exercised the kind of good judgment in office that he did in not going after the possibly armed whack job on his driveway, I might even be voting for him. Alas, he has not and, all signs suggest, will not if re-elected.
I find it interesting that, despite Mayor Godfrey's incredible! reduction in the rate of violent crime, Ogden Regional Hospital has now contracted for armed sheriff's deputies to be present when gang members are admitted.
Kudos to the SE for putting this article on the front page above the fold yesterday.
Mr. Porter, who edits the letters column in the Standard Examiner, has a column this morning replying to complaints he's been getting about what letters on the coming election he has decided to print, and what letters he has declined to print. [His column can be found here.] The complaints turn, it seems, mostly on a matter discussed here a thread or two ago: the SE says it will not print letters endorsing candidates, when clearly it seems to do exactly that. Some of the time.
Mr. Porter explains this way:
And the two guidelines for political letters that are the source of much grumbling each year are the following:
1. Contents must be discussions of relevant political issues and should avoid personal attack.
2. No letters of endorsement or simple praise of qualifications and worth of candidates will be run.
When I read them, they appear pretty clear to me. First, letters should deal with issues. If you accomplish that, it’s easy to avoid the “personal attack” part.
No. 2 is even stickier for lots of people. We don’t want to publish letters that are nothing but endorsements — “I’m supporting Candidate A because he’s a kind man and will do good things for my town.” That doesn’t really say anything, does it?
Furthermore, we don’t want letters that simply — or maybe I should say only — praise a candidate’s qualifications or worth: “I plan to vote for Candidate B because she has been a member of the planning commission/city council/mosquito abatement board for many years now and thoroughly understands the operations of government.” Good for Candidate B, but that letter is absent a discussion of issues, as well.
That said, there is a loophole I’ve always honored. If you send in a political letter and actually discuss a “relevant political issue” — and who gets to decide what’s relevant? That’s right: me, because, as President Bush would say, I’m the decider — I’ll run it. Or at least most of it, since sometimes we have to trim letters for length, edit them for grammar or to be consistent with basic newspaper style.
Leaving aside the "no personal attacks" rule [with which I agree], Mr. Porter's explanation of Rule No. 2 creates, I'm afraid, as many problems as he thinks it solves.
First, his "exceptions" policy. It seems to be this: "We print no endorsement letters, except those which are substantive endorsements." Which of course, immediately raises the question, as Mr. Porter realizes, of what substantive means and who gets to decide. Mr. Porter, to his credit, doesn't flinch: He gets to decide because he is "the decider."
OK, fair enough. It's his page to edit. But that also means that the standard has become a bobbing, weaving will-o-the-wisp called "whatever Porter thinks." Such judgments, with so wispy a guideline, will inevitably be subjective, which means reasonable people will reach reasonable conclusions about them different from those Mr. Porter reaches. Which leaves them trying to read Mr. Porter's mind about what he will find "not only an endorsement" and what he will not. Which in turn reduces what the SE apparently thinks is its clear letter guidelines about political endorsement letters to this: "We don't print letters endorsing candidates, except when we do."
As for not printing letters that say a candidate is a good man [not "man or woman," Mr. Porter? Get your flak jacket out. You're going to hear it from the feminists now!], well, such comments as the pundits like to say these days, "go to character." And "character" seems to be involved a lot in election campaigns these days. [Call the office of Sen. Craig -- Family Values Republican of Idaho --- for an update on how that works.]
In short, Mr. Porters"standards" regarding what constitutes an endorsement are so amorphous that reasonable people will, I'm afraid, decide that his printing decisions made based on them are arbitrary.
Finally, in what sense is a candidates qualifications for office --- or lack thereof ---not significant content in an election letter?
If Mr. Porter can't define clearly what distinguishes an "endorsement" letter [not printable] from a letter than endorses a candidate but is printable, he'd do better to drop the "no endorsements" rule [which it seems isn't really a rule at all] altogether.
But kudos to Porter to taking on his critics head on --- however unconvincingly.
If the standard would get some balls and really do some investigating reporting then they just might be a good as the salt lake trib.
The mayor is really hammering home the "crime has dropped 23% since I've been in office." I've yet to hear from him, however, what HE DID to bring this about. As long as he is claiming responsibility for these statistics, I'm sure he'll also want to take responsibility for the poverty rate in Ogden being over 50% higher than the national average.
Funny,
I don't remember anybody here calling for stories and investigations and executions and whatever else you want when the Lift Ogden signs were being stolen and vandalized by the literal hundreds last year. I KNOW that ya'all knew about that- yet nothing. The Standard knew about it too.
You're missing the point, Anon.
Imagine the press attention that would have been drawn if say, Mikel Vause had been caught red-handed in the middle of the night, switching Smart Growth signs for Lift Ogden signs last year.
Bob Geiger is the Lift Ogden chairman and a well-known Godfey supporter. That's the unique news element here.
Anon:
Not to mention, Anon, that at the same time Smart Growth Ogden signs were disappearing and being vandalized as well. By "person or persons unknown." The SE knew about that too.
As Curt notes, what makes the latest instance different is that the person involved was seen by two witnesses, identified by both, and a police report naming him was filed.
hey bob,
when a lift Ogden sign go missing, it does not play with democracy, like when you replaced Hansen sign with Godfrey sign. there is a big difference.
ha ha ha:
Well, actually, when a Lift Ogden sign [or a Smart Growth Ogden sign] goes missing, it does "play with democracy" since both are advocacy groups trying to build public support on policy issues. Sign vandalism is reprehensible at all times, no matter whose signs are involved, and when those signs belong to public policy advocacy groups like Lift Ogden or Smart Growth Ogden or Hansen4Mayor or "Bring the Troops Home Now!" vandalizing them does indeed corrupt the democratic process.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE.
Furthermore, Bob, how do you keep getting past the screener? God, it's fantastic! I love to read your blather! God bless you squirrel-hating, gondola-loving douchewads! Do you honestly think Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey's tough-on-crime mailer will work? He's Gondola Godfrey, fer Chrissakes! The word is out on him and you, and your onion-reeking father! God bless you onion-lovers!
curm,
you are right and that is what i hope bob will learn when he messes with other peoples property.
Ha ha:
I hope so too. Still have no idea if FOM Chief Greiner is having his people investigate the complaint further.
Dear Short-deck Geiger: How's that GONDOLA project coming? Did the $35K sponsorships plan fall through? Did your onion budget cut into its funding? God, you jokers are a laugh a minute! Gondolas! Gondolas! Gondolas! Ha! Ha! Ha!
The abusive behavior of certain individuals to steal or destroy ones signs in an election is not only crimminal, it is a thumbing of the nose at the core of our beliefs, Do Not Steal, all I know Gofrey your time has come, and dont let the door hit you in the arse.
The Sub Standard apparently is not interested in Bobby Geiger's great sign caper, however the SL Trib thought it news worthy.
Campaign signs, vacant buildings equal angst in Ogden
Does this mean that the local representatives of the Sandusky owned Sub Standard are covering Godfrey's skinny (and ugly) little ass, or are they just plain incompetent?
Jest Wonderin:
Nice catch. Thanks for the heads up. Now the interesting question is: who is the realtor who gave Geiger permission to put up a sign on property he did not own, without getting prior permission of the owner? Granting permission to use the property for political purposes, and for supporters of candidates he favors to remove signs for others does not seem to me to be in the normal range of a real estate agents' authority.
Does it?
And which of course raises the question of how many other property owners have signs on their land, with permission granted by their realtors, promoting candidates the owners are not aware of, and possibly, would not favor?
The Geigers do seem to be targeting realtors not owners with their aggressive phone calls. Mr. Curt Geiger seemed to think, the testimony is so far, that he was talking to a realtor when the made the call to the Millstream Motel. From Ms. Moulton's story: "Curt Geiger said he thought he was dialing a real-estate agent...."
As they used to say on "Laugh In", veddy interesting.... Sadly, the possibility of the doing-favors-for-cronies ethically challenged debt-amassing preferring secrecy to open government Godfrey administration in office for another four years is no laughing matter.
We talked to the listing agent, John Barker early in the morning after this event was reported to us. Curiously, and to Little Booby's detriment, listing agent Jon Barker happens to be the brother of the property owner Dan Barker, whose son is married to Neil Hansen's daughter.
John told me that neither he nor his broker gave permission for Little Bobby's sign switchereroo That's what he old us.
"We don't even know these people, [the Geigers] John Barker also told us.
Bobby's goose is cooked.
He has as no adequate defenses to his anti-democracy crimes.
The really funny part is that Boss Godfrey refuses to pull strings to defend the little shite.
No prosecutor in Weber County will touch this case.
It's now being "shipped" for prosecution to Davis County.
Rudi:
Ah.... veddy interesting indeed....
Oh what a tangled web we weave....
Ain't it funny that Arrington would make some lame attempt at blaming the golf course for the cities infrastructure woes. Where to start?
On March 30th 2007, I had my grama appeal hearing. It was specifically about the Golf Fund Loan documentation.There is none. Nor is there documentation on the building of the tennis courts, parking lots or the Lorin Farr pool.I filed multiple requests, Arrington's initial response was he's not required to keep data that long and that was so long ago that nobody remains in his department that was there at the time. No one has any recolection, he said. So I grama-ed his hire date, he was there, hired a year ealier. He's shown to be not near as adept at the telling of falsehoods as his boss, lying little matty gondola still godfrey.
Needless to say, those are not just rumors that you've heard about the loans just being a slush fund for the city parks dept. Which back then was in charge of the golf fund and it was them that recieved the money. And if you don't believe me, ask the city to document it. They have no idea.
I'll just add this, Rudi...
A standard Utah property listing agreement wouldn't give either the broker or listing agent any authority to plant political signs anyway.
The standard agreement allows the erection of "for sale signs," etc. only.
Thus Booby's apparent claim that he "got pernission" from the real estate office is pure Bullshit.
As a consequence of this, Booby is definitely going to the Davis County Pokey, unless he can come up with better legal defenses than "I got permission from somebody in the real estate office."
Booby, meet Bubba, your 300# homosexual rapist roomie for the next 30 days.
After reading the story in the SL Trib, I suggest people do what I did and e-mail the Standard-Examiner to ask them why the SL Trib has been "scooping" Ogden political stories for the past year. They are our "hometown" paper and should be covering the news, all of it, for Ogden.
Rudi,
if the case is being shipped to Davis County it seems that Godfrey is pulling strings for Booby. If the prosecutors in Ogden/Weber are unwilling to prosecute someone for breaking the law, wouldn't this suggest that they either think a case doesn't exist to prosecute, or that they are being pressured not to prosecute? After all, isn't it their job (as it say on Law and Order)"to prosecute the offenders"?
Just goes to prove the Machine that Godfrey has in place, he wants to win at all costs.
VOTE THE LITTLE PRICK OUT, ALONG WITH HIS HAND PICKED RUBBERSTAMPERS. ECCLES, HOWLAND, PETERSEN,JOHNSON.
Former Subscriber:
Well, the SE hasn't been beat on every story. On many, the SE and SLC published on the same day. And the SE was the only paper to carry the GRAMA emails Dan S. unearthed about the Mayor's machinations desperately trying to keep the press, the Council and the voters from finding out he had ordered yet another "gondola" study, and that he was trying to get nearly a quarter of a million dollar federal grant funneled to Friend of Matt [FOM] Chris Peterson. Still not a word about that story in the SL Trib.
But on the Great Geiger Sign Caper, the SE was well and truly skunked. And it's its own fault. The police report has been known, talked about, up on a public website for gawd's sake, for nearly a week now. More than enough time to have done a story. Egg on their face on this one. No doubt about it.
Ernie The Atty:
You wrote: Booby is definitely going to the Davis County Pokey.
Well, I'm not an attorney, Ernie, but isn't what Mr. Geiger is accused of for his part in the Great Geiger Sign Caper a misdemeanor? And a relatively minor one at that? Isn't the probable outcome if he's found guilty or pleads out a fine and some community service, not pokey time?
If so, maybe he could spend part of his community service time doing trail maintenance on the trails just above the golf course which Mr. Geiger has been trying for two years now to turn into paved streets and sidewalks in Chris Peterson's El Dorado dream gated community of vacation homes for rich Arizonans.... Seems fitting to me.
I think Bobby's punishment should be having him carry a great big sign, for eight hours a day, especially during rush hours, at the very corner that was the scene of his infamy - 30th & Harrison.
On this sign should be printed,in very large and bold letters:
"I have been a very very bad boy and I have cast abuse and disrespect on the very constitution that I was once sworn to preserve and protect"
I think Mr. Geiger should plead guilty to the misdemeanor.
Then, some months later, he can make a public statement:
"I was wrong when I declared, in a sworn statement to a judge, that I was guilty of the misdemeanor. What I really did was lie under oath, and so I am guilty of perjury, a felony. I'm getting a lawyer now."
That's what a good Republican would do.
Monotreme:
He he he. Love it.
Though I think to be a real Republican, he'd also have to claim that "I didn't do it" and "if I did, I was entrapped" and "whether I did it doesn't matter because Jesus has forgiven me" and "the charges are all political; the cop was a Democrat" and "it's really Bill Clinton's fault" and "I wasn't on that lawn to take down a Hansen sign; I saw a piece of paper on the lawn and I was trying to pick it up."
I still want to know why Mayor Godfrey is good at following cops wives around and calling their license plate numbers into his Chief Senator Greiner the wiener.
But when a man comes to the door of Godfrey’s house and threatens to kill him.
He just soiled his pants, because he didn’t have the guts to chase him off his property. Nor did he have the guts to chase him down, to get the license plate number to report it, to his side kick, Chief Greiner.
What a weenie!!!!
Why would anyone hang out with this clown? His name is just a disgrace to be on a voting ballot.
If he wins again? "Good night and good luck."
Republicans arn't gay. But to get the gay vote.
They'll tap toes with them in the mens room.
Is that what their calling it these days?
Discrepencies?
Ms. Moulton's story in the SL Trib about the Great Geiger Sign Caper says Mr. Geiger had the permission of the real estate agent for the property from which he removed the Hansen sign. Rudi reports above that the listing agent denies that he gave Mr. Geiger that permission. Both claims can't be right.
I can think of several possibilities to reconcile the two versions. Mr. Geiger called the wrong agent, confused about which property was involved. That's possible, I guess -- that both Geiger and the realtor were confused about what property it was they were talking about. Not likely, mind you. But, I guess, possible. Sort of. Or Ms. Moulton accepted Mr. Geiger's claim that he had permission from the realtor without checking with the realtor he claimed he called to see if he would corroborate Mr. Geiger's story. [Accepting without checking any claim by Godfreyistas is a dicey business.]
As Matt Drudge likes to say about very nearly everything he posts, this story seems to be "developing."
Reading that story this morning in the trib all I could think was that Hansen looks even worse off than before. It was an obvious mistake and trying to press charges over that just makes you look like somebody trying to get in the way rather than actually creating progress. He looks only more and more like an anti-Godfrey and less like somebody who actually wants to help the city. It didn't work for Kerry or Garcia in the last election and it won't work for Hansen if this is the road he keeps taking. Nobody likes petty stuff like this except for maybe the 3 people around here.
I completely agree with my buddy moose.
I guess that when it comes to law and order we should just throw it out the window and just like Godfrey, you can do anything you darn well please because i'm the boss and just shut up.
Curm: to complete the stations-of-the-cross in political penance, current standards dictate that Bob Geiger must also check into rehab. Bob Ney, Mark Foley, and Ted Haggard all did it; God knows where Larry Craig will check in. (Maybe taking a page from Bettye Ford, he'll found his own center.) In any case, Bob G. certainly "shall not want" for lack of mentors.
Ha, ha, ha,
No, we shouldn't ignore the law, but Hansen himself admitted in the article that he has placed signs incorrectly- is he going to be disqualified from the race or disciplined or charged or anything like that for this? It all comes back to the pettiness factor.
Moose:
OK, now try to follow. I'll type slowly for you. The matter at issue is not whether someone put up a sign on a vacant lot someplace without getting prior permission of the owner. The issue is Mr. Geiger removing a Hansen sign from property where he had permission to place it and setting up instead a Godfrey sign he had no permission to put there. Coupled with allegations of other pressure on businessmen who seem to have permitted Hansen signs on their property.
There was a way to have handled a genuine misunderstanding [which Mr. Geiger's people are now claiming is all that was involved]. That way would have been for Mr. Bob Geiger to have, promptly and publicly and gracefully apologized for his mistake. He did not. His reaction [the typical Republican's reaction when caught with a hand in the cookie jar... or some other inappropriate place] was instead to attack, and to whine. Oh lord, have the Geigers begun to whine. And, if Rudi's account is right, to dissemble.
Finally, Moose, there is a still larger question involved here: the integrity of the election process. Your guy is at least supposed to pretend that he thinks it matters. [Yes, even Republicans are supposed to pretend they think it matters.] He hasn't.
A prompt, public, graceful and unforced apology could, and I think probably would, have eliminated the matter as an issue. But you have to actually recognize that you've done something wrong before you can apologize for it. That's not been the Godfrey/Gondolistas' long suit so far.
The most remarkable thing about the Short-deck sign story is that THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE takes it upon himself to call people who express themselves politically; he admitted to doing it with the signs, and he does it when people write letters to the editor. I am truly grateful these assclowns and morons like GTrain Wilkerson are the fore cheerleaders for Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey. You dupes and onion lovers are doing one heck of a good job, but why must you manifest your animus for squirrels?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Curmudgeon
You are in fact correctomundo, as usual. However, Moose does have a point with his "pettiness" factor.
My initial gut reaction to this story was that it had the potential to make Hansen look petty in the eyes of a lot of voters.
I would like to see Hansen rise above this, not pursue it fruitlesly in the press or the courts, but treat it as the humorous bumblings of a slightly deranged mayorial sycophant, which is what it really is - after all.
Ozboy:
Possibly right. As noted above, all it would have taken was a little bit of class on Mr. B. Geiger's part to have defused the whole thing. Couldn't summon it up, and in that sense it's instructive.
I doubt Hansen will make this any kind of major campaign pitch, but I don't think it hurt to put it out there. An interesting example of campaign skulduggery, followed by an instructive view of Geigers being unable to summon the class to apologize for a mistake, and instead whining about being treated unfairly.
A pleasant diversion along the campaign trail, but absent significant further developments [e.g. other merchants coming forward saying they've been pressured by the Godfrey campaign to change sides], something Hansen should not make too much of.
Post a Comment