Worthy topics carved out from this morning's news
Although Councilwoman Jeske gave us our first heads-up on this story last night in the lower article comments section, there's a same-topic article on the Standard-Examiner front page this morning which deserves a front page spotlight. Specifically, Ace Reporter Schwebke reports that the Emerald City Council rolled over yet again at last night's meeting, and approved a $288,000 handout to another set of "Friends of Matt Godfrey" ("FOM").
It's unclear from our reading of this article what portion of these public funds are outright "grants" (the terminology used in the article), and what part will be derived from loans, funded by means of city-issued debt securities (revenue bonds), or other similar debt instruments. Weber County residents should take note: What is clear is that at least the reported tax increment financing portion of this latest FOM welfare scheme will divert tax dollars from the revenue stream of the various taxing authorities within Weber County. If you're complaining about Weber County property tax increases, folks, and looking for somebody to blame, you need look no further than Ogden City government to find a few of the culprits.
Regardless of what the financial "structuring" may be however in this instance, we yet again observe the action of a city council which behaves as if it's still absolutely necessary to pay investors to invest in Emerald City -- a council which slavishly bends over backwards for any FOM who arrives in town looking for a handout.
And to those hopelessly uninformed individuals who wax on in the Std-Ex letters section about our current city council's "business unfriendliness," we submit that last night's welfare-for-the-rich vote is merely just the latest example (in a long line of examples) of a city legislature whose "pro-business" attitude toward FOM's borders upon "fawning" and "slavish".
In another item, Std-Ex correspondent Tanna Woods reports that the City of Clearfield is moving full speed ahead to emulate the right wing socialist policies of the mayoral administration here in MattGodfreyWorld. Our old favorites Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham have been retained by that city to prepare a study, with the goal of imposing universal residential-rental business licenses and a mandatory "good landlord" program upon the lumpenlandlords of our neighboring city. In the brave new world of the neoCONS, property owners are considered unfit to manage their own properties, without the benevolent guiding hand of nanny government. Move over Matt Godfrey. It seems the city administration of Clearfield has thrown its hat into the ring for top honors in the "Joe Stalin Lookalike Contest."
And quite predictably, we find another Boss Godfrey endorsement letter arriving within the pages of the Standard-Examiner, via the Boss Godfrey Re-election Letter Mill. The latest set of dumb pro-Godfrey rationalizations come from former Godfrey council supplicant Fasi Filiaga. Among the list of reasons that Councilman Filiaga supports Boss Godfrey is Emerald City's purportedly "lowered crime rate." That factually-unsupported Godfrey "whopper" was of course thoroughly demolished yesterday on this very blog.
Mr. Filiaga also takes a not-so-subtle "cheap shot" at mayoral candidate Neil Hansen, for failing to show up at a recent Boss Godfrey campaign pep rally at the state capitol (Gov. Huntsman didn't show up either). It was at this contrived "meeting" that Boss Godfrey - for the very first time that we're aware - expressed interest in securing state funding for the long-sought Ogden Veteran's Home. What Mr. Filiaga fails to mention however is the Neil Hansen wasn't invited to the aforementioned "Godfreyites only" political sideshow/stunt. Moreover, Mr. Filiaga seems unaware of the basic truth: The idea of using state funds for the construction of a Veterans' Home was Representative Hansen's idea in the first place.
Sheesh!
We're not going to be too hard on councilman Filiaga however. As we all know, he hasn't been at his best lately, so to speak, if you know what we mean (and we think you do.)
Have at it gentle readers.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
64 comments:
We all know that Fasi has been in a deep sleep for the past 10 years, give him a break.
The weirdest part of the Filiaga letter is the (duplicate) assertion that he opposed the mayor. If that happened, Mr. Filiaga, we missed it out here.
The second paragraph is taken directly from Mayor Godfrey's campaign materials and webpage. You think the chorus would get a new hymn or two now and again.
Included is the tired old assertion that Mayor Godfrey has reduced crime in Ogden. We now know that's nonsense, Mr. Filiaga. You must not have gotten the memo in time
While I have come to distrust categorically all assertions about Ogden's well-being made by the Godfrey administration, I am not opposed to the granting of city funds to the developers of the Windsor Hotel for the preservation of historical characteristics. As a property owner on lower 25th Street, I'd like to see more residential units, which would increase the street traffic and fuel the demand for more businesses and services there.
Union Square is nice, but the time will come when I won't cotton to the two steep flights of stairs. If in its new incarnation the Windsor has elevators, views of Ben Lomond and Lindquist Field comparable to Union Square's, and decent soundproofing between units, I'm interested.
Memo to Ozboy: you have often lamented the absence of visible human presence at Union Square, observing that it looks "deader than a cathouse in Provo on Sunday morning." (Nice one.) I wish you could see the moveable feast that's been going on in the courtyard behind the iron gates all summer long. The residents have bonded with each other and are imbibing and dining together at picnic tables almost every evening. One couple has been renting while their new house is built; however, they say they like Union Square so much that they're leaning toward staying.
Oh, Fasi Fasi
A stupefying councilmenber...wasn't he?
Godfrey needs letters so badly
he turns to Fasi...who fractures English so gladly.
When one is des per ate
One will take even the third rate.
Boy, the gondola and onion freaks are really bringing out the big guns in their futile quest to re-elect Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey: first, it's OTown's biggest queen, Tom Moore, and now it's Filiaga. Maybe the Ballantynes, and Ed and Bernie Allen (neither of whom can vote in OTown) will chime in next! Then perhaps we'll hear from THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE and Short-deck!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
MM:
You wrote: I wish you could see the moveable feast that's been going on in the courtyard behind the iron gates all summer long. The residents have bonded with each other and are imbibing and dining together at picnic tables almost every evening.
Imbibing? Imbibing? In the open air? In front of God and everybody? In downtown Ogden? Almost every evening?
Good lord, don't tell the Mayor.
Rudi:
I'm with MM and with the Council Majority in favoring what needs to be done to preserve the historic character of Historic 25th Street. I think doing that is wise policy. Other cities have done so, at some initial public cost, with great success. Think Pioneer Square in Seattle. Think Main Street in Park City. Once a historic district is established, and succeeds, it can reach a point at which such structures are worth a great deal more because they are historic, not less. Again, think of Park City or Seattle as examples.
So, the question, if it's agreed that preserving the historic character of the street [or what's left of it] matters to Ogden, is this: if private owners cannot profitably rehab the historic structure, should the city put in enough to make the project economically viable? Should the city reimburse the private developer for the expense of doing what is not economically in his interest [rehab rather than bulldoze] but is in the city's interest? "Yes" is not an unreasonable answer to that question.
My only reservations are those echoed by Sharon in the thread below: is it in fact true that no one would undertake purchase and rehab without a subsidy? Mr. Harmer says it is so, but the administration can no longer expect to have its word on such matters taken at face value. The administration assured the Council that a ceramics firm wanted to buy the Shupe Williams project and that the Council had to act immediately to approve the sale. It did, and then it turned out what the Administration had said was not true. The Administration assured the Council that the St. Anne's board was enthusiastic about the idea of selling their building and moving to 12th Street. Turns out not to have been true either. The list goes on and on.
So: if Mr. Harmer's presentation was accurate [which we can not, given past performance, assume], then the vote was I think appropriate. My concern in re: the Council is that they may not have taken the time to investigate the matter, to satisfy themselves that his presentation was accurate. That they may have trusted before they verified. [My god, I'm semi-quoting Reagan again. Where's the Pepto-Bismal?]
Arguing that the city should never subsidize private commercial development under any circumstances is certainly a coherent and defensible position to argue, so long as those who hold it understand it could mean, in this instance, that the new owners of the Windsor property would bulldoze the historic structure to erect some neo-brutalist modern concrete and glass bunker that would be far more profitable for them, but far less beneficial [I think] to Ogden. Paying developers via partial subsidies to do things not in their own financial interest but in the city's best interest does not seem unreasonable to me.
"So, the question, if it's agreed that preserving the historic character of the street [or what's left of it] matters to Ogden, is this: if private owners cannot profitably rehab the historic structure, should the city put in enough to make the project economically viable?"
That's the ultimate question alright, innit, Curm, (assuming that forbearance from subsidizing private investors is the general rule and that offering grants or other incentives is the exception"?
We believe exceptions to the general rule ought to be supported only in exceptional cases upon strong supporting evidence; and we're not sure that burden was met, at least to our satisfaction, prior to last night's council vote.
Indeed, our position is very similar to that which you've capably set forth in our earlier comments sections. And we'll add that we strongly support the rehabilitation of historic buildings in Emerald City, of which the Windsor hotel property definitely is an example.
We'll further add that Councilwoman Jeske's candid comments last night on this blog, expressing certain misgivings, is further indication that the council may not have adequately explored options prior to forking over a $288 thousand handout to a FOM.
As we said, we're "all for" preserving historic properties, especially in designated historic districts like Ogden's two-five drive.
What we don't like is "welfare for the rich," especially when predicated on seemingly weak evidence.
Also, as we've noted above, we understand that the Windsor Hotel building is situated right in the heart of a designated historic district. Thus we wonder whether "bulldozing the property" was actually an option for the new owners, who bought the property with notice of existing building restrictions.
Admittedly, this latest FOM subsidy is really a drop in the bucket compared with $45 million debacles like the junction, BTW. But in the final tally these numbers all add up on the bottom line.
The Fasi letter would be a real hoot if it, and he, weren't so pathetic.
The poor befuddled soul, with his IQ of at least 82 on a good day, sat on the council for eight years and did absolutely nothing but embarrass the city with his dopey presence. Oh yes, he also slept alot up there, that is when he wasn't bumbling through some incomprehensible babble about one thing or another, most of which was never on the subject at hand.
The poor fool evidently thinks that a Veterans home has been built already instead of just talked about. The giant still sleeps apparently! Talk about a waste of skin!!
On the Windsor give away to another FOM, I wonder why the same city subsidies were not offered up to the prior owner who apparently was coerced out of the place to make room for a bonafied member of the Godfreyites?
I am a strong proponent of saving our important heritage buildings, but I resent my tax dollars being used to subsidize select individuals to accomplish it. I restored the most important LDS historical building in private hands and did so without one damn dime of government money. If I can do it, why can't these leeches?
same question I asked Dorrene on hte earlier thread, Rudi....how come these Windsor folks can't "preserve" the hotel without our money, eh?
It's the same old story on the Windsor Hotel tax subsidy. The obvious point that so many have made is that the council should vote "no" until they get the info they need to feel good about something like this. Period. They didn't do that, again.
This is getting to be so ridiculous I'm thinking of offering some swampland to the the city council members. It's no wonder parasites like Gadi have swarmed here. The pickins are easy.
I liked the quote, "No representatives from Ogden Properties attended Tuesday night’s meeting." Oh really? What do you call their hireling mayor then?
And of course we had representatives from the local community agreeing that the city should funnel public money into properties around themselves. Big surprise.
Ogden's business model is this -
Nobody on the city council believes in free enterprise.
It's up to you and me to subsidize.
As far as the recent letters to the editor that are nothing but Godfrey support tracts, I recall the paper has a policy of not printing endorsement letters.
To quote:
2. No letters of endorsement or simple praise of qualifications and worth of candidates will be run.
It's nice to see the paper hasn't changed their real policy of only applying their policies to their political opponents. And so of course, these policies don't apply to simple letters of endorsement for Matt Godfrey.
Yep and a reread of Fasi's letter suggests that he did not pen the more articulate parts...the garbled syntax is pure Filiaga. He used to denounce me from his high perch..."You...grand ma"...You, white hair lady" (lady, yet!...wow) One time the old poop called me Miz Beech after being corrected by Safsten or someone.
The man can hardly put 3 words together in an intelligent manner. Therefore, IMHO, one of the Godfrey UNcreative writing club members wrote that drivel...and he contributed a few lines in his Samoan King's rendition of English.
And if the Se won't allow letters of endorsement, why did they take this drivel, coupled with an insult, most unfounded, to Neil Hansen??
Hmmmm?
Unlike Ozboy, I was quite amused by the letter supposedly written by Mr. Filiaga.
In two terms on the city council he was never able to string five words together that made any sense, now the Mayor's letter writing team would have us believe that he can actually construct whole sentences and paragraphs that are readable.
In England they call this "Cheeky". In Utah we just know it as BS.
Sharon and Myra:
You raise an important point. What is the purpose of life, if not to have fun?
I would appreciate (in all honesty) knowing about candidate forums and campaign rallies, and particulary Godfrey rallies.
I have always enjoyed watching people make fools of themselves, and in particular, when they have no idea that they are doing so. Throw in a dose of pretentiousness, and it is pure gold, and it's probably even free.
Rudi, take note. Let us know when you do, about these events. All this (sometimes dry) discussion is fine, but boys and girls like to have fun and I can always use more of that.
Ok, several points in reply to several posts:
(a) Danny. You wrote: It's the same old story on the Windsor Hotel tax subsidy. The obvious point that so many have made is that the council should vote "no" until they get the info they need to feel good about something like this. Period. They didn't do that, again.
Well, Danny, we don't know that. We know Councilwoman Jeske voted "yea" but wanted more information. We don't know about the others. It is possible they were satisfied that Mr. Harmer's presentation was accurate. Why not ask them? But at this point, you're assuming a great deal that we do not know to be so.
(b) Sharon: you wrote: same question I asked Dorrene on hte earlier thread, Rudi....how come these Windsor folks can't "preserve" the hotel without our money, eh?
Oh, I can think of scenarios that would fit that case. For example, as I understand it when people sell businesses [and the Windsor Hotel is not just a property, it is a business], they are usually priced as a multiple of annual revenues. The kind of low end short term residential "hotel" the Windsor was can be, and often is a real cash cow for the owners. If the owner refused to sell except at the usual commercial multiple of his revenues, the price for the property may have been well above what the price for the real estate [absent a working business on it] would be. And so, the only way a purchase could be arranged was at the higher buying-an-operating-successful business rate, not the buying run down real estate price. At the price the owner demanded, it may have indeed been impossible then to pay for the rehab and still turn an acceptable profit for the buyers without a subsidy. Or, to put it differently, sans subsidy, there may have been no buyers for the property because of the historic district rehab requirements. Meaning it would continue to operate as a run down low end short term cash cow transient hotel. Under those circumstances, the subsidy might have been the only way to entice a private buyer in.
No, I don't know for a fact that happened. But you asked for a plausible reason why a private buyer could not be found who would do the rehab without subsidy. What I've outlined above is one.
(c) Danny: would you put up a link to the SE "no endorsement letters" item please.
(d) On letters in general: look, anyone who's ever organized a local campaign for mayor knows how... or should... to organize a letter writing campaign. You want different people to write them. You want them discussing different reasons to support your guy. You want them spaced so they appear regularly, never more than one an issue, over the weeks leading up to the vote. You can even [it is often done] have campaign staff draft the letters and distribute them to people who will sign them and send them in on schedule. The Mayor's campaign seems to have organized such a letter writing campaign. The campaigns of the other candidates seem not to have. That's just good effective campaigning on the Mayor's part. Those opposed to his re-election can hardly fairly complain that he's doing things in a more organized and effective way than his opponents.
Finally, it's perfectly legit to point out the inconsistencies in Mr. Filiaga's letter, to note that a good part of it is lifted all but verbatim from Godfrey talking points, to challenge its logic [politely so called]. But ad hominem attacks on his intelligence, age, etc. seem to me to be uncalled for, and more likely to garner him [and his POV sympathy] rather than the reverse. There's more than enough in his letter to justify challenge on the merits without sinking to personal attack. And if all those attacking his intelligence/age are correct [and clearly they believe they are], then Mr. F is in effect what they used to call in the middle ages hors de combat --- meaning incapable of defending himself. In which case the personal attacks are still more reprehensible. He lent his signature to the letter, and so the substance of his endorsement letter is fair game. But nothing beyond that. For the same reason that Michael Moore's attack interview with the Alzheimer-afflicted Charlton Heston in Moore's otherwise excellent documentary Bowling for Columbine was reprehensible. It was a dishonorable thing to do and detracted not inconsiderably from the impact of his film. I cringed when I saw that part of the film. The attacks on Mr. Filiaga personally detract from the challenge to the points his letter attempted to make in the same way.
I, for one, am thoroughly disgusted with Ogden's City Council.
Jesse Garcia did actually vote NO on the Windsor Hotel giveaway but the rest went along like blind sheep.
None of them seem to have made up their mind on where they stand on issues of right and wrong in regards to taxpayer giveaway and the concept of free enterprise.
For months we have been hearing the same old drivel about needing more information. This is after they have voted on the question.
Wise up, you Council people...you ask the questions before the vote... Comprende?
I find it quite humorous that the standard ex. not only will violate their own policy with regards to political support letters for lying little matty gondola godfree, but they have also forgotten Don Porters long editorial from last year chastizing folks for signing letters not written by themselves. He said they will not print any letters deemed to be NOT AUTHENTIC.
Sp my question to you Curm, are you advocating that a good campain knowingly violates media policy,knowing full well that they are doing it? It does sound like lying little matty's approach to all things, not a smidgin of honesty in that puke.
Danny's idea of having loyal WCF readers show up at Godfreyista rallies intrigues me.
It puts me in mind of legendary political prankster Dick Tuck.
For you young'uns, Dick Tuck was the original dirty trickster. My favorite stunt of his was when he hired dozens of obviously pregnant African-American women to stand outside the Miami Beach Convention Center at the 1972 Republican Convention. Each and every one of them was holding a sign with Nixon's campaign slogan that year: Nixon's the One.
Nixon, in response, decided to create a dirty tricks team of his own. However, since he was congenitally lacking in humor, he turned it into the Watergate burglary and the rest is history.
So, we should all go to these rallies, if we can find them, with a sense of mischief and fun. It should be good times. I'll be glad to make bail for anyone who ends up in the hoosegow.
Given Filiaga's past performance,
his outspoken and regular insults to every one who opposed the policies of the Administration and the rubber stamp council that he was a memeber of, and his continuing babbelings about things he is not knowledgeable about (including his uninformed attack on Hansen), I think he is fair game, in spite of Mr. Curmudgeon's sermon.
Filiaga is a moron, and he keeps putting himself out there as if he weren't. Kind of like a Whack-A-Mole figure. And you don't think it fair to whack him when he keeps popping up?
If an ignorant fool insists on holding himself out as some sort of authority or pilar of society, as Filiaga has done his entire public life, it is altogether proper to point out his stupidity. It is not as if people were randomly picking out some poor innocent and unfortunate illiterate and mocking them.
Curmudgeon, you sure go to some pretty ridiculous lengths to maintain your position on this blog as the intellectual moderator with the mostest! You would have made a great lawyer for Hitler had he lived to be tried! Whoops, now we ae going to hear another lecture about how people who have no other argument resort to bringing up Hitler! Personally I think that people who use that argument are themselves mining a very shallow vein.
Danny, Myra, Thoroughly...,
If we can get a good candidate debate going...I volunteer to bring the cookies!
I like fun too. To paraphrase that greatest of all nannies: "Just a little bit of humor helps the poop go down" or something similar.
Curm...the first guy who wanted the Windsor had his financing LINED up, but not in hand, when the mayor and his sycophants pulled the tattred rug out from under him....couldn't wait....recall Godfrey's MO especially when his BFF and FOM's are lurking in the hallway?
THAT guy didn't have his hand out, as I recall.
Ever heard of Cicero, Ill and other infamous places?
Plese, just once....swim in our pool....we really do have fun!
BTW many high fives and kudos to Chair Garcia. This guy is becoming more of strong leader every day. I'm wondering if Jesse voted last, thus not giving the others who went along with the giveaway an opportunity to say to themselves..."duh...maybe I should vote no"??
Bill C:
You wrote: So my question to you Curm, are you advocating that a good campaign knowingly violates media policy,knowing full well that they are doing it?
Absolutely. A newspaper's letters policy is binding on no one other than the paper's editors. If I were running a campaign, and I could manage to get letters in touting my guy in violation of the newspaper's stated policy, damn right I would do it. It's the paper's job to enforce its own policies. It's not a campaign manager's job to do it for them.
Sharon:
You wrote: the first guy who wanted the Windsor had his financing LINED up, but not in hand, when the mayor and his sycophants pulled the tattered rug out from under him.
Well, Sharon, we don't know that. All we know is he told an SE reporter that he had money lined up six months out and wanted to do the project himself. Mr. Harmer flat denied that, and said the city had been unable to get him to move on any upgrading or renovation for a long time.
Both statements by interested parties. Both guys had a dog in this fight. There is a tendency on the part of some Godfrey opponents to automatically believe claims made by those critical of him. An assumption that they must be telling the truth. Just as there is a parallel tendency on the side of Godfreyistas to assume that what the Administration claims something, it must be so. Both assumptions are unwise. We have lots of evidence to support that caution in re: the administration. I have no evidence about the reliability of the former Windsor owner's statements about his intentions and his financing "six months out."
It's risky, always, to assume that interested parties are necessarily telling things straight. And at the risk of having Lionel decide I'd be a good attorney for Atilla the Hun or Darth Vader, let me add that we ought to approach unverified claims by either side in a dispute like this with a healthy sense of skepticism and a large grain of salt.
Sharon:
You wrote of Chairman Garcia: BTW many high fives and kudos to Chair Garcia. This guy is becoming more of strong leader every day. I'm wondering if Jesse voted last, thus not giving the others who went along with the giveaway an opportunity to say to themselves..."duh...maybe I should vote no"??
Sharon, how carefully did you read his statment to the SE? Mr. Garcia said he favored making the grants, he just wanted $100K to come out of a different city budget line than the rest of the Council, and so voted no on the motion. He did not oppose making the grant, or so the SE reported.
As for Jesse voting last, I'm not sure how it is in Ogden, but in some bodies like the Council, the chair [or whoever is serving in that role] votes last as a matter of courtesy and traditional practice. Does anyone know if that's the practice in Ogden? Just curious.
Who exactly are the owners of the new LLC that now owns Windsor Hotel?
A low interest loan to them would have made better sense like the city has done for others. After it is all done and the equity high as can be, then it is profit for the new owners/corp. What does the city get out of it other then a restored building which is important but does not make financial sense for the city.
Another option would have been for the city to purchase the property and then fix it up as they have on Jefferson ave and other inner city homes and then offer it for sale at market price after it was done hence making the investment back with profit. Why was that not considered?
Filiaga didn't write that letter to the editor... Godfrey did, and Filiaga signed it, and sent it in. I know this because Filiaga can't even SPEAK ENGLISH....
Just Wondering:
You wrote: What does the city get out of it other then a restored building which is important but does not make financial sense for the city.
We disagree. A restored historic structure on lower 25th Street, and new retail spaces below on the street and mid range condo units above replacing a run-down transient hotel both make financial sense for the city.
As for your other suggestion --- having the city buy the property, do the rehab and development, and then sell it for a profit: several problems. First, you're assuming it would have been sold for a profit. That's not certain. Development always involves a risk. It is not certain the city could have moved the property eighteen months from now for the purchase price plus renovation costs. As it is now, except for the subsidy amount, the city carries nearly no risk; the developers carry it all. If the city bought the land and did the development, it would carry all the risk.
Second, I suspect the purchase price of the Windsor hotel was higher than the subsidy amount the city provided to the developers. If that's so, the city would have had to come up with a lot more than it did just to acquire the property, and a lot more after that --- estimate out there is $2.5 million more --- to rehab and renovate. And that would have meant issuing bonds for the money. Which adds the interest on the bonds to the cost of the project.
Finally, as many here have argued often, probably the city should not be in the business of developing commercial properties. [That was one of the objections some here had to the City's participation in the Junction project.] I am tending, as I think about it, more and more to agree with that POV.
Typical republicans. They cut benifits and funding for our soldiers, call it "less government." Then blame it on democrats.
Curm. I see. I agree with the restoration especially this hotel. And more are needed such as the Helena if Edwards will ever give it up or do anything with it. Also the Marion could use an upgrade. It is good for everyone I do agree. But giving that much money to one developer seems unfair especially to those who have upgraded their properties with their own financing or money.
And again... who exactly are the owners or principals in this corporation that now own the Windsor?
Curm:
There are a couple of newspaper policies at issue here. One is that they don't want mere endorsements of a particular candidate. I agree with your position on this one: There's nothing wrong with submitting letters that might violate the policy, and leaving the enforcement up to them.
But there's also the policy that they don't want ghost-written ("astroturfed") letters. They want the name that appears under a letter to be the person who actually wrote it. A person who submits a ghost-written letter is actually being dishonest, pretending to be the letter's author when he/she really isn't. If you don't have any ethical issues with that, then I'm afraid we disagree. And there are also tactical issues: If the ghostwriter is discovered, the backlash could hurt the candidate's campaign.
That said, there are plenty of articulate folks on this blog who have great points to make but who are making them to the wrong audience here. Please, everyone, consider sending more of your comments to the newspaper, as letters to the editor.
Dan S:
You wrote: But there's also the policy that they don't want ghost-written ("astroturfed") letters. They want the name that appears under a letter to be the person who actually wrote it. A person who submits a ghost-written letter is actually being dishonest, pretending to be the letter's author when he/she really isn't. If you don't have any ethical issues with that, then I'm afraid we disagree.
Well, it's not quite as black and white as you suggest, I think. It's a little more complex. For example, there are people who cannot write a coherent, or even minimally grammatical letter, and who ask people who they know can to do it for them. I've done it for family members, and occasionally someone out of the family. You just have to keep asking as you compose it for them "Is that what you wanted to say? Does that get your idea right?" I, clearly, didn't and don't have a problem with that kind of ghost writing.
On the other hand, a campaign that sends out the text of a letter-to-the-editor to supporters, suggesting they type or write them in their own hand, sign, and send them into their local paper is another matter. [National campaigns and national lobby groups often do this, often successfully since the letters appear "original" in the local small town weeklies they appear in.] That's pushing the envelope further than I'd push it, and it can [and has] backfired when uncovered.
There's a third level of semi-generated letter that, again, I wouldn't have a problem with. The kind generated when people involved in a campaign meet with supporters and say "ok, we need a letter to the editor on Our Candidate's support for more widgets in the schools. Who'll write it? Here's a list of our talking points on the widget issue. Then we need one on our guy's support for a constitutional amendment banning marriage between right handers and left handers for next week's paper? Who'll do it? We have a list of the points you might want to cover." And so on. Such letters aren't astro-turfed in the sense that the SE ban suggests, but they are hardly spontaneously original either.
So, as I said, I think the matter is a little more complex, involving a little more grey area than your formulation above suggests.
Dan S and Curm,
figures that the history prof would see more gray areas involving plagiarism, huh? Couldn't resist, Curm.
I, for one, think very poorly written letters typed by THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE or Short-deck, and signed by someone else -- brain-dead, gondola-and-onion-loving idiots like Filiaga (Ooops! Ad hominem attacks! Curmudgeon's pword patrol will be all over me!) hurt Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey's "effort." Keep sending them in, GTrain! Speaking from a factual but anecdotal perspective, there are dozens of voters who see through this and are annoyed by such tactics. Furthermore, let's wait and see if those fags at the Stand-Ex have any editorial balls whatsoever: Short-deck broke the law on behalf of Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey and was caught in the act. We'll see if the Stand-Ex runs a story about Lying Little Matty's main agent behaving thusly. But maybe they won't and Curmudgeon will have to settle for letters to the editor signed by Bernie Allen and THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Curm:
I didn't mean to imply that the distinction between original and astroturfed letters is absolute--only that there is a line to be drawn, and crossing over it is unethical (in my opinion).
Does anybody know anything about the water town meeting the council is going to hold on tuesday. Are they going to raise rates again? Anybody going?
Did any one get a load of the absolutely precious editorial in today's Sub Standard Examiner?
Talk about writing out of both sides of their mouth. The SE has got to be the most two faced organization in the history of Utah!
Today they are falling all over themselves congratulating the city of Layton for avoiding, like the plaque, the use of tax incentives to attract business. They laud Layton mightely for being sooooo successful without doling out one red cent, let alone millions of dollars in hand outs, to any lame assed corporation to intice them to set up shop in Layton. They even zero in on WalMarts attempt to coerce the city into giving it millions to stay in town, pointing out that Layton told them to forget it and good luck in your new location. It worked for Layton big time as WalMart swallowed its pride and built a new super center there anyway.
The silly editorial closed by strongly urging Layton to hold its ground on the new efforts by the State economic wonks to start giving out free tax payer money to entice more manufacturing jobs!
This is the same lame rag that has been a strong advocate and booster of the the Godfree give away of millions and millions of tax payer dough to attract a hand full of chicken shit little ski companies to Ogden! Talk about a double standard!! Of course I do realize that the Sub Standard didn't get a shit load of benefits from Layton, like they did from Ogden, for their new corporate home.
I guess tax payer funded corporate give aways are A-OK for these two faces dicks when they are slurping out of the trough, but not when they aint!!!
Once again the Sub Standard demonstrates just why they are such a second rate rag...
I just drove by 25th and Lincoln and notice that Neil Hansen sign had been sliced up, It must of been put up last night because it wasn't there yesterday. I also noticed that godfrey sign are going up in place of other candidate signs, what happening?
Cookie:
I expect to be there. I got an invite from a councilwoman Jeske which describes the meeting this way:
The evening will include presentations that address the current utilities study as well as infrastructure needs. Those attending will also have the opportunity to discuss water-related issued directly with Council members."
My sense of it is that the meeting has two general purposes: (a)to inform people of the problems with water infrastructure [pipes, sewer lines, etc] that need to be fixed in the relatively near future, some of that fixing under federal mandate and (b) to solicit public feedback regarding those matters, ways to deal with them [particularly financially] and public concerns regarding other water matters.
So, a chance to both get informed, and to inform that Council.
Sounds like another crime of vandalism was committed did this go a police report or it didn't happen. good work on this crime Godfrey.
Cato:
Ahem.
When historians do it, it's not plagiarism. It's research.
Frank:
Don't understand why you think it's a silly editorial. You seem to agree with it's argument completely.
You can hammer the SE for inconsistency, as you do, but the editorial itself, seems to me, is in no way silly.
Frank
While I agree with your take on the Standard Editorial being disingenuous to the extreme, may I point out that in this case they actually got it right.
Layton is Ogden's main competition for business, they are kicking our butts in the race, and they are doing it apparently without giving away the store, or a hundred million in tax payer money.
Seems that they have the winning formula and Godfrey doesn't. Imagine that!
Amy Wicks' website is up and running.
We love you Amy! Savior of the people
Great article in the Economist that advocated creating a well managed and well run community. This seems to be a better approach to building a community rather than clamboring to attract the huge solve-all-your-problems development.
Where the grass is greener
Ogden well-managed and well-run....
Now there's a radical idea.
Thanks for the heads up on the article, Jaxi.
Curm,
The link for the letters posting policy you asked for is (cut and paste)
http://www.standard.net/live/opinion/submitaletter
Monotreme,
Thanks for the Dick Tuck link. Brilliant. A real keeper. Everyone should read it and have some fun. For some reason it gives me a hankering for a two-part Halloween-themed Godfrey parody.
Frank,
Good editorial in the SE, and as you said, strangely uncharacteristic. Kinda like the fact they got all the BS they wanted in downtown for years, then they MOVED.
Curm...every time I disagree with the admin....(trust Harmer??? Good grief, man. Don't you attend those work meetings and listen to the guy?) Then you scold me or anyone else as being against the mayor and therefore we cannot possibly be objective, like you.
Now, don't scold me again, and point out that I actually paraphrased that, but the thot is the same.
Curm, if you were on a jury, I'm afraid no one would ever get home. You'd be so busy DELIBERATING whether we should JUDGE the criminal's heinous acts, that I doubt the jury could move forward. snore
Sharon:
I didn't say trust Harmer. You will note I said the evidence for not taking him and the administration he speaks for at their word is substantial. Nowhere did I suggest the Council should take him or the Administration's word. In fact I said the Administration had long ago forfeited by its actions any reasonable expectation of that. Remember? "Verify... then trust." But verify first. That's not "trusting Harmer [the Administration]." It's the opposite.
I didn't say "anyone against the mayor" cannot be objective. I said there is a tendency among some who oppose him to take what others opposed to him say at face value, to assume it must be true --- as it seems you did with the comments of the former Windsor owner reported in the SE. I did say we ought, in evaluating counterclaims of people on two sides of a dispute, to demand the same standard of evidence be applied to each before drawing hard and fast conclusions. I still think that's a good idea at all times for all disputes involving all parties.
If you are criticizing me for trying to be objective in drawing conclusions... well, have to plead guilty on that. And thank you for the compliment.
As for juries: their whole purpose is to evaluate evidence, and good juries that take their oaths seriously do it objectively [or try to]. Which, please note, is exactly what I've been suggesting. Not a whit of difference.
Curmudgeon
I would say it all hangs on just what your definition of "is" is.
Oz, Oz, Oz.... That just stirs up the Republicans, make them long for the good ol' days when Clinton was President, the nation was at peace, the economy was humming, average take home pay was rising, Kenneth Lay was an un-indicted "Kenny Boy" bosom buddy of Gov. Bush [Village Idiot--TX], the budget was balanced, FEMA was not being run by an organizer of horse shows, American troops were not dying in foreign "nation building" experiments, and GOPers got to pretend that a president cheatin' on his wife was The Most Important Crisis facing the nation.
Danny:
Thanks for the link.
Red America: round up your children because your President needs them on patrol in Baghdad. Good Luck, Christian soldiers!
Draft? What draft?
What IS the definition of "is"? Is the hokey pokey Really what it's all about?
I saw a sign that is me! I'm just Raggedy Ann is an Barbie world. What's a gal to do?
These are weighty matters and just where can we turn for the answers?
Harmer? Patterson? CC? Curm?
befuddled:
Who/what is CC?
One of my favorite bumper stickers, found a few months ago on a colleague's office door, says this:
"What if the Hokey Pokey IS What It's All About?"
Deep stuff we're getting into now, Befuddled.... Deep deep stuff.
CC equals the City Council who after getting piddly answers apparently regret their vote...at least Dorree admitted that!
Sharon, Curm was right about Jesse. He isn't opposed to giving the grant to restore the Windsor Hotel -- he said that he was objecting to taking $100,000. from the fund that buys, fixes and sells HUD homes to improve the inner city neighborhooods. Now if you had given kudos to Councilwomen Wicks and Van Hooser, you would have been right. No wonder Jeske's stomach was bothering her.
BTW to all who are wondering about the order the Council votes: it is done alphabetically so Jeske always votes first on the first issue, then Safsten, Stephens, Stephenson, Van Hooser, then the Vice Chair, and the Chair always votes last on every item on the agenda. Then the voting goes down the alphabet again starting with the next person on the list, which would be Safsten on the second item. I can't believe that those who attend the council meetings haven't picked up on that. Just watch the next time you go to a regular council meeting.
I am sure receiving some interesting rumblings on the mayoral race. I think that there are going to be some mighty big surprises. Do we have any who are willing to bet on the outcome of the primary?
betcha:
Since you seem to be up on Council ballot procedures, I have another question: can a council member "pass" or I guess "abstain" and then, when all the rest have voted, change his or her vote to "yea" or "nay"? Or is a particular vote locked in once it is given as the clerk calls the roll?
So VanHooser voted "no"?
Perhaps I need to get one of her yard signs (and pull out my wallet)
For her to be more firm in her convictions to follow her instincts than Jeske, says a LOT.
I was already keen for Amy, but for Amy to out do Jeske is also encouraging.
Jeske, a rule I follow is if my mind and "gut" are in disagreement, I follow my gut. I find that no matter how much I learn, my gut is almost always right. It puts the odds in my favor. Only go with your mind over your gut when you are very, very, very sure.
Betcha
I lay my money on Godfrey, VanHooser and Hansen - in that order, in the primary, and Godfrey by a landslide in the final.
Godfrey is a shoo in for both races unless one of the other candidates steps forward and gives the voters some good reasons to vote him out.
He is well financed, has a big success story to tell and a lot of momentum going. Voters are reluctant to vote an incumbent out of office with out a good reason.
The misdeeds and unpopularity of Mr. Godfrey is not a city wide phenomenon. It mostly exists here on this blog, in our wishful thinking and in a few other isolated circles of discontent. Most voters are not aware of his MO of secrecy, incompetence and insider dealing. Unless some one steps forward and educates them on how he operates and how financially devastating his policies have been, and will be, to Ogden, he will be re-elected with a wide margin.
This is not a high school popularity contest like at least one candidate for mayor seems to believe with her amateur feel good tactics. Imagine that if you will!
An uninformed electorate will return Mr. Godfrey to another four years at the helm, and you can bet on that one.
C'mon...you want a novice like Van Hooser who doesn't think Harmer, Patterson, Cook, et al, are ready for the trash heap?
You want a woman whose husband thinks that as long as she's on the council giving all those hours 'she should run for mayor and be paid for it?'
That's a real qualification, isn't it? "Imagine", she says. Well, Imagine someone who is so susceptible to flattery that she thinks whe's a good choice for a mayor of a city that is in dire financial straits. Do you think her years of teaching qualify her to run a city????
THINK about it!
Shaking:
Back in the days of the American Revolution, when all of the states [except Rhode Island] were, in the middle of a war, drafting new revolutionary state constitutions to replace their now defunct Royal charters, there was a debate over what qualifications someone needed to vote, and more largely, to serve in office. One extreme view at the time was that all it took to actually govern was honesty and common sense. That view did not prevail in most of the new revolutionary states. But the idea didn't die.
By the time of Andrew Jackson, that idea had been embraced, so far as we can tell, by the voting majority of the day [adult white males]. It became in fact one of the founding hallmarks of the Jacksonian Democratic Party. Rhetorically at least.
Still seems like a pretty good standard to me. We certainly don't want to elevate village idiots to executive office. [We did that in 2004 nationwide and look where it got us.] But seems to me someone with intelligence and common sense, someone who is honest and has a firm grip on what honor and integrity require of a public person, is certainly qualified to run for the job of Mayor of Ogden City.
We don't have to imagine what happens when the Mayor of Ogden city has little grasp of what honor and integrity require of a public person, or what happens when a mayor sneers at open government and public disclosure, or when the word of an administration cannot be trusted. No imagining needed for that. All we have to do is look at the Godfrey administration.
From a tactical POV, I can think of nothing that would delight the Gofredyistas more than have his challengers turn on each other. What each of the challengers ought to be doing is explaining to the public why he or she should replace Mayor Godfrey as Ogden's CEO, not going after each other. If I were a challenger's campaign manager [and I hasten to add that I am not], I'd be advising my candidate that his [or her] goal is to make himself, in the voters' minds, the alternative to Godfrey. Period. Every moment spent attacking other challengers is a moment off message, time and resources taken from the main task.
It seems clear you are not a supporter of the Mayor, and clearly you are not a supporter of Ms. Van Hooser. I'd advise you as strongly as I can to counsel whichever of the others you are supporting that if he wishes to succeed, his job is to convince voters that he is the alternative to Godfrey, not the alternative to Van Hooser.
If the Mayor survives the primary, whoever goes through with him, including your guy if he's the one, will need the support of those who voted for the candidates who did not make it through. Having supporters of your guy attack Ms. Van Hooser or any of the others now, particularly in the demeaning borderline insulting terms you use, is the most foolish of tactics, because if your guy goes on to the main election, he will need Van Hooser's supporters votes. The more you demean her [or any of the other challengers] now, the harder that will be to make happen.
Mr. Curmudgeon
Amen to that!
Damn, sometimes you make more sense than a barrel of monkeys! Then again sometimes . . . . .
Curm....let me tell you that I have never heard Neil say one negative or disparaging word about Mrs Van Hooser.
On the other hand...she and/or her closest supporters are spreading the unkind and untrue whispers that Neil isn't smart enough to be mayor!
Let us remember that we have a real "smart guy" in the mayor's chair now...and he's corrupt, sneaky, a liar and employs or utilizes some pretty low life persons in his campaign staff.
Neil has been the epitomy of discretion with nary an unkind word even about the mayor!
Carl:
I haven't heard a disparaging word from Neil about Ms. Van Hooser either. Nor have I heard Ms. Van Hooser disparaging Rep. Hansen.
But some people who are clearly supporters of Neil have posted some pretty negative stuff about her here. And some VH supporters are doing the same in re: Neil. I've heard at least one of them myself. I don't think they are helping her when they do that, and they are helping [however inadvertently] the Mayor. Just as Hansen supporters are who spend their time disparaging Ms. Van Hooser.
If this were an election without an incumbent, things would be different. Then each candidate must distinguish him or her self from all the others to win. But this is an election with an incumbent in the race, and a well funded one. That requires different tactics on the part of challengers. To win, a challenger --- any one of them --- has to establish him or her self as the clear alternative to Godfrey. Scattershot attacks on other challengers do not help their cause much, if at all. All it does is encourage voters to take their eyes off the prize.
My advice to Ms. Van Hooser's supporters who are disparaging Rep. Hansen is the same advice I had for Hansen supporters disparaging Ms. Van Hooser: you will, if your candidate makes it through the primary, need the votes of every one of the supporters of the person you are now attacking. Every single one of them.
If [from my lips to God's ear] it turns out Rep. Hansen and Ms. Van Hooser both make it through the primary, then their turning on each other will be an appropriate tactic. But with a well financed experienced incumbent in the race, doing that before the primary is a very unwise tactic for their supporters, no matter how zealous, to adopt.
Post a Comment