By Gentle Reader DannyI've mentioned the Godfrey Ring, the corrupt group consisting of the mayor and certain connected business cronies who are looting this city. Now, thanks to Kristen Moulton, we know some of their names.
Matt Godfrey - Ring Leader with $100,000 in kickbacks in his pockets.
Where some of it came from:
Staker Parson Cos., $10,000
Homer Cutrubus, $6,000
The Boyer Co., $6,000
Cottonwood Partners, $5,000
Fresenius Medical Care, $5,000
Dave Wadman, $5,000
Larry H. Miller, $5,000
Petersen Advantage, $5,000
Weber-North Davis Association of Realtors, $5,000
Gee, I wonder why these people would give thousands of dollars to see a small town mayor re-elected?
All of these CORRUPT SOBs have their snouts in the trough of PUBLIC LARGESSE, courtesy of Godfrey.
And now, on cue, they give some back.
Let me be the first to say it. Giving those kinds of sums to Godfrey paints each of these
Tell me, you remaining supporters of Godfrey whoever and wherever you are - In which gutter are you washing your dirty morality today?
Lawn Sign Wars Update: In another bit of Emerald City election news, Godfreyite Lawn Sign Campaign "Brownshirt," "little" Bobby Geiger, (Official slogan: "sieg heil Boss Godfrey") reportedly got caught red-handed again today by a council candidate with this particular soon-to-be-named aggrieved candidate's lawn sign in "Little Bobby's" grubby mitts. Oops! Film at eleven.
55 comments:
rudi,
I wish we WOULD see this on the news at 10 ! I wish this person would, if not already, file a police report pronto. This councilperson and Hansen would then have eough ammo to get the SE off their Godfrey loving butts long enough to print a story.
This is hometown news of the sleaziest kind.
A godfrey 'worker' stealings signs.
I guess being caught by Hansen twice isn't enough to deter this embarrassment and insult to the Naval Academy and the Marines.
Any Marines out there? Why don't you teach this punk some Marine manners?
Didn't see the Geigers' names among the big money boys. Just being a thief and a slug for Godfrey is worth a lot.
Little Bobby's putting up quite a rap-sheet.
He's a Godfreyite "crime wave" it seems.
Slow learner, too.
So much for the Mayors single handed reduction in crime. Who needs help when we have the Super Geigers around? Oh, yeah, thats right they are above the law, as long as they keep kissing the mayors smelly crooked little ass.
Hey Curt is that your nose? Or did your face grow an avacodo?
Who or what the hell is Petersen advantage? Is it Chris? If it is, he must not be too pissed that little Matty didnt sell him the golf course (yet).
Richard
For your information the "Peterson Advantage" is what one friend of Matt's used when he got the Wall Avenue property from the Mayor for $270,000, with no definition or promise of what he would do with it, when the city had a bonafide offer for $300,000 for the same property with a clause that would allow the city RDA to dictate what would go on the property for the benefit of the city.
As I recall, that offer was made by the same Owens guy that had the letter to the editor printed in today's standard.
Errraagggh, Peterson Advantage is an entity tied to Kent "Golly-gee I lost nearly one mill to a con-man" Peterson; Wayne Peterson's famed Squirrel Patrol has not yet manifested itself in the race, except for its captain being the chief agent of sign and Internet subterfuge (Nuts! Get 'em!); and to all you ninnies (even Rudi, whose action I understand and respect): sometimes you need the Fbomb. Sometimes you do. THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE.
For those of us who don't follow every detail of the business world, could someone go down the list of Godfrey's donors and tell us what exactly they do, and what their relationship with the city/mayor is?
Also, how can we get the full list of donors for each candidate? Perhaps Rudi could post those for everyone's benefit.
Staker Parson Cos., $10,000 Most likely a refund of the cost plus on the Soloman Center.
Homer Cutrubus, $6,000 Most likely a refund on the City contract to purchas vehicles.
The Boyer Co., $6,000 Protecting their interests in operating all of Ogden City developments, BDO, Junction.
Cottonwood Partners, $5,000 No Idea..
Fresenius Medical Care, $5,000 Just a little thank you for helping them out with the expansion at their present location.
Dave Wadman, $5,000 Looking for more contstruction bids from the little guy.
Larry H. Miller, $5,000 Thanks for helping me out with my new movie theater.
Petersen Advantage, $5,000 Thanks Matt for promising to sell me the Golf Course after you are re-elected, and the other sweet deals that your economic development team has given me.
Weber-North Davis Association of Realtors, $5,000 Looking forward to selling all of those lots on the east bench after you rip out the trails, and golf course.
All-told we are a bunch of greedy pigs, looking out for our best interests.
Cordially,
The committe to elect Matt, Eccles, Johnson, Petersen.
For those who don't know (as I didn't), Staker Parson is a supplier of rock products, concrete, and asphalt. They apparently have played a major role in the construction at the Junction.
Wadman has played a role in the American Can building ownership shell game--but I can't tell from the news reports what that role actually was.
I very much doubt that Petersen Advantage has anything directly to do with Chris Peterson. A Utah business entity search merely shows that it is an LLC located at 1527 N, 2000 W in Ogden; the registered agent has a SLC address.
Googling "Cottonwood Partners, Inc" I came up with this:
Cottonwood Partners is a real estate investment, development and management organization with principal offices in Dallas and Salt Lake City.
Our Portfolio currently includes mid- and high-rise office buildings in major U.S. markets. Our investment strategy is opportunistic. We focus on projects which we believe will provide better than general market returns.
And this:
Press Release - October 7, 2002
Cottonwood Partners was recently awarded the bid to purchase and renovate the Scowcroft Building located on the southeast corner of 23rd Street and Wall Avenue in Ogden, Utah, for occupancy by the Internal Revenue Service. The 5-story brick Scowcroft Building is approximately 123,000 square feet and was originally built in 1906. It has been listed on the Local Historic Registry since 1986 and was placed on the National Register in 1978.
In addition to renovating the historic Scowcroft Building, Cottonwood Partners will also build a new 10,000 square-foot food services facility adjacent to the Scowcroft Building. Cottonwood has teamed with Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects and Jacobsen Construction for this project.
“We are very excited about this opportunity to develop this property. We think it will be a wonderful development for both the IRS and the City of Ogden,” stated John West, Managing Director of Cottonwood Partners Management.
Cottonwood Partners is a real estate investment, development, leasing and management organization, with principal offices based in Dallas and Salt Lake City. The company’s current portfolio includes approximately 3.7 million square feet of mid- and high-rise office buildings in Utah, Texas and Kentucky, industrial buildings in Texas, and residential land development in Utah.
Contact: John L. West, Cottonwood Partners Management, Ltd.: 801.365.6200
A caution: other businesses came up under the search term "Cottonwood Partners, Inc. Utah" so the partners listed on Godfrey's donors list may not be the one above. Searching for an Ogden connection turned up the press release above.
Petersen Advantage is Petersen Fabrication. Which owns property in the BDO site, and on 12th street.
Cottonwood did the 2nd phase of the IRS complex on Wall.
Looking over the list in Ms. Moulton's story, it does seem that the major donor list is top-heavy with people/companies doing business with the city.
That does not necessarily make them all "greedy pigs" or dishonest. Contributions by companies doing business with government [Federal, state, county and municipal] is a common practice nationwide. Which often has unhappy consequences for ordinary citizens. {Can we all say "Enron" and "Haliburton" together now?]
And so it is worthwhile knowing that such company interests are donating [heavily] to the Mayor's re-election campaign [including several headed by people who are not Ogden residents], and to ask the reasonable question "What do they expect to get in return for their money if the mayor is re-elected? What has he promised them?"
All of which is why I am [all other things being equal] more comfortable with candidates who get their campaign money from the $25 and $50 dollar check-writers --- as it seems Rep. Hansen has --- rather than candidates funded by non-resident deep pockets corporate donors.
I keep remembering the picture the SE ran on the front page accompanying the recent story about out of state developers buying up properties in downtown Ogden. The picture was a sign saying "Ogden for Sale." In light of Ms. Moulton's story on the campaign finances of the Godfrey Campaign, it takes on a whole new meaning.
The following are facts that we know for sure and have the proof in our hot clenched fists.
One that has never been mentioned by the Standard-Examiner is the $3.5 million historical tax credit that Dave Wadman's Wadman Historical Foundation LLC received from being part of the restoration of the historical American Can property.
That comes right out of taxpayers' pockets.
I call a $5,000.00 donation to be pitfully short for the size of the favor received.
The $6,000.00 Boyer donated is disgustingly deficit for going to receive 50% of the rents from BDO for the next 50 years.
And Fresenius is not even in the ball park with $5,000.00 because Ogden's RDA at Mayor Godfrey's direction has given them millions in tax incentives again right out of the pockets of taxpayers.
Kinda gives a person incentive to kick Godfrey the h--- outa town.
But Curm, it's very very difficult to run a campaign against people like Matt, with the $25$50contributions.
The cost of running a camaign is quite expensive when you consider signs, prining, and mailing, also ads in the newspaper. It would take a lot of 25 dollar bills to make that work.
I gave:
Yes, it is difficult. But it can be done, and has been done at every level below presidential. Senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators, and mayors, have pledged to take no PAC or corporate money, and have won. Some of the consistently for years. Hard to refute the general proposition that elected officials best serve the interests of those who pay for their election campaigns. I don't think any reasonable person who looked at the history would deny that.
And so, we have a choice in Ogden this time round: permit the corporate interests to buy the city government yet again, so it will serve their needs first, and the general electorate's second. Or have the other candidates mount a populist campaign, funded by small donations... lots and lots of them... to put in place a government that will first serve the interests of those who paid for its election: the common electorate.
Yes, I Gave, it's very hard. But it has been done before and it can be done here. Have to tell you though, so far, I haven't seen any of the challengers ignite the kind of populist enthusiasm that such a campaign requires. And the clock is running....
Ah quit your bitchin you lame assed naysayers.
Here in Ogden we have the very best city government that money can buy.
Amen Lionel
A thought occurred to me reading about all of Godfrey contributors. Is not stuart reid on the city tax dollars though a contract that really makes him salaried. so what is he doing calling people to raise money of the boss Godfrey. Is that how we want our tax dollars spent is to raise money for the boss?
I think what I have seen of the Hansen campaign that he has used the money contributed to him very wisely.
I think that he is very smart with how he campaigns and it shows you that he is the man of the people and for the people just like his brochures says.
curmudgeon -
Much thanks to you for the research on Cottonwood Partners and uncovering their renovation of the historic Scowcroft Building that now houses the IRS.
No wonder Cottonwood Partners is still giving donations to the Mayor.
Do you have any idea of the value of the historical tax credits that they got for buying and renovating that building?
The historical tax credit was in the millions just like Dave Wadman got.
Another fleecing of all taxpayers with another giveaway.
I have to admit it - Godfrey and his RDA bunch are past masters at this connivance againsts taxpayers.
I don't want to detract from the ranting too much because I totally agree with you guy's - I just wanted to make a quick point about historic tax credits.
My understanding about State and Federal Tax credits for Historic Preservation is this:
There is a 20% (of eligible rehabilitation costs) state tax credit for residential rehab projects (although this has been on the chopping block for some time)
There is a 20% federal tax credit for commercial rehab projects
Your building has to be on the national historic register to qualify, and there is a fair amount of documentation that is required to obtain the credit.
The preservation tax credits used to be even higher in the 80's and it went along way toward preserving our nation's historic architecture. Since then the tax credits have been cut back quite a bit, but they are still an important incentive to help property owners work with historic buildings rather than tearing them down and starting over. I think it's a great program and I don't blame them for utilizing it - I would have. (But I wouldn't have donated to Matty's campaign).
Just a thought!
A finer point to the discussion is that the federal 20% historical tax credit is on certified historic structures while the credit is 10% on non-certified historic buildings built before 1936.
Another point is that there is a recapture of the tax per year if the property is disposed of within 5 years.
Sold after one year the recapture is 80%; sold after two years it is 60%; after three years it is 40%; after four years 20%.
I have contacted the Utah State Historic Preservation Office to see if they can provide a list of Ogden's certified historic sites with the amount of tax credit issued on each so that we might get a clue as to how much giveaway there has been.
I would think that the Weber County Assessor's Office can also provide a list of property tax incentives authorized.
Several years ago such a list was provided by Asst. Assessor Doug Larsen in answer to a request.
This trend of thought brings up a new issue which is the tax credit for low income housing rehabilitation.
Does anyone have information on whether the Mayor has been into claiming that credit himself on all the properties he is said to have bought via credit cards before he became Mayor?
FYI and NitPicky:
FYI: Good points, all of them. When the most profitable thing a new buyer can do with a run down historic structure is bulldoze it and build an entirely new building, and the public [via its elected officials] has decided that saving the historic structures is in the public interest [as I think it is], then some kind of incentive is necessary to make rehabing and preserving such buildings profitable for owners/developers. Tax incentives are one way to do that.
And, as you note, these incentives are federal and state incentives, not municipal ones. And damn right I'd take advantage of them if I owned, or bought, a historic building. So it seems an exaggeration to say the Mayor "gave" companies/owners the tax credits the state and federal government provide them.
NitPicky:
Can you explain what "recapture" means in your post above? ["Another point is that there is a recapture of the tax per year if the property is disposed of within 5 years. Sold after one year the recapture is 80%; sold after two years it is 60%; after three years it is 40%; after four years 20%."]
Does that mean if, say, someone got a $1,000,000 Federal tax credit for rehabing and preserving a historic building, and sold the building within five years, he would have to pay the Feds $800,000 of it back? Or does it mean something else? I'm not familiar with the term "recapture" in this situation.
curmudgeon -
recapture means pay back what you have claimed as either a tax credit or a deduction for taxes.
If the developer keeps a certified historical site renovated property for the full 5 years there is no pay back. For each year less than 5 years that it is kept, the pay back is 20% per year.
You don't get the whole picture of how Mayor Godfrey uses this program. The law was passed by Congress but the Mayor adds his special little twist to each grant. There is not room enough on this Blog to discuss each one in detail.
He gets taxpayer funded grants like the Utah $900,000.00 grant to buy American Can property and then the developer gets another taxpayer funded federal grant of 20% of the cost of renovation to work on the property.
Usually the Mayor also gives away more taxpayer funds in the guise of property tax incentives to the developer.
This program is overseen by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior parks department in every state.
In Utah and each state, taxpayers pay for a special department to oversee the historical buildings tax credits in that state with an office and staff and operating expanses. Taxpayers also pay for the federal department at the top in Washington.
The whole program costs taxpayers boo-coo big bucks before you even get to the actual historical tax credits that are given to the owner/developer on each building that qualifies... and the tax incentives the local taxpayers pay for.
Then there is the cost to Internal Revenue for auditing the fraud that is easily involved which has probably happened in the case with American Can and the Riverside Technology Non-Profit Foundation, Da Vinci Academy and the Ogden Community Foundation.
The concept to save historical buildings in itself is a good plan. The problem is that it has become an industry for some developers and is another bureaucratic duplication and waste of taxpayer funds. And is easily manipulated because few people understand the law and the ease of abuse.
The law has been expanded to 2015 so we have it for 8 more years.
What needs to be understood is that the historical tax credits that a developer qualifies for by renovating a certified historic site can be and usually are used on the individual's personal 1040 form.
Let's just say that a person with a personal taxable income of $500,000.00 or up per year is the one using the tax credits.
That person is already very wealthy or he or she would not be in the position of being able to purchase and renovate the building.
This is the typical case of the rich get richer and the average taxpayer gets poorer because of it...in more ways than just the income tax involved.
Nit Picky:
Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it.
Owens saved and restored the Richards Grist Mill, (Utah's most significant historical bldg in private hands), in Farmington, to the tune of over a million dollars, without any public money, hand outs, or tax credits.
Don't forget that he has an expensive, anonymous campaign manager.
History:
People are free to buy and restore what they like at their own cost as a matter of personal preference or public service. More power, and my thanks, to them. But I doubt that would work for all the historic buildings the public might want preserved. If we depended exclusively on philanthropic actors to save, rehab, refit public buildings, I think we'd lose most of them, particularly in deteriorating blocks of cities.
That the tax-incentives-to-save-historic buildings program may have gotten out of hand, and turned into yet another welfare for the rich program is certainly possible. Given Congress's preference for welfare for the rich programs [that being the only form of welfare most
Congressmen hereabouts do not denounce regularly]. it would hardly be surprising. But I'm not sure throwing out the baby with the bathwater and relying on volunteer actions like the one you described would be a good idea.
Nit Picky above added in the cost of monitoring the tax rebate for rehab program as adding significantly to its cost. Probably it is, but I'm not sure what the solution would be, since wholly un-monitored incentives seems to me even more likely to lead to abuses.
Haven't really thought much about the process of using tax incentives to encourage saving and rehab of urban historic buildings. It's a lot more complex, it seems, than I had once thought.
I seem to remember also, that "Cottonwood Partners" was one of the insiders together with Gadi Leshem and city planning director Greg Montgomery as beneficiaries of the river property confiscation. A little money goes a long way. Perhaps I should see how many million I could get for a $5,000 investment with Godfrey, instead of being a naysayer. What was Godfrey's campaign URL again?
it's www.Chickenshit little mayor.giveaway.cronyism.com
For what it's worth, here is a letter of mine that was run today in the paper. They added the newspaper references, which were not in my original letter. They also deleted a line, which I have included after my name. I really don't know why they do these sorts of edits (my letter was under 250 words), but I do appreciate them printing letters.
Mayor takes us further into debt without vote
Sunday, September 2, 2007
I am astonished by assertions that Ogden until recently was dead, that Matt Godfrey is a seasoned CEO and that Ogden's city government is a business (Aug. 28 letter, "Godfrey revived a dead Ogden").
Perhaps the perception that Ogden was dead comes from a small group of marginal businesspersons who lately feel comparatively more alive since Godfrey has been directly or indirectly feeding them with massive public spending.
As far as our "CEO," when Godfrey was elected at age 29, his business experience consisted of a short stint at Iomega after leaving college.
His "business experience" as mayor has consisted of trying to close the Marshall White Center and Union Station, and trying to sell the golf course and city bench land because they don't make a "profit," putting the police on a ticket quota to increase revenue, forcing private property owners to sell out to his cronies, and finding innovative ways to take the city deeper into debt without a public vote.
In letters to the editor, many insist that Godfrey is the one who can best continue this government/business combination. I suspect they are correct. In addition, it seems voting for Eccles, Peterson, Johnson and Stephenson for city council will further the mayor's accumulation of experience in these matters (Aug. 19 letter, "A new Ogden council should be pro-business").
In contrast to this madness, the best American tradition has been to understand government and business are different, and should be kept separate.
David Smith
Ogden
Deleted line: And fortunately, other than for those candidates mentioned, there are more reasonable people running in all city races this fall.
I don't recall seeing any mention here of the Tribune's recent article on the Ogden City Council candidates. Reasonably informative, I thought.
There's a superficially similar article in today's Standard-Examiner, but I don't think it does a good job of bringing out the differences between the candidates.
The David Smith letter to the Editor today was a good letter.
curmudgeon -
Just stop and think...all government programs start out with the premise that they are going to be good for the public in general...
And then the politicians and the connivers get involved and the programs all deteriorate and cost much more than they were ever intended to cost in the beginning.
There is hope...may your strength give us strength...may your hope give us hope, may your love give us love...into the fire...
THE BOSS
Pain is pain, and Godfrey is Godfrey, what makes the difference is that soothing ones pain is taking an antibiotic for the pain and soothing godfrey is taking him out of office.
Nit Picky,
I think it is important to designate the fact that there is a clear difference between Ogden city grant money/giveaways and the historical tax credit program.
From my personal experience it would be very difficult to take advantage of the historical tax credit program. You have to work directly with the architect at the State Historic Preservation Office. Everything that you do has to be well documented and approved by SHPO and only specific types of improvements qualify for the credit. For example re-roofing, painting, and necessary structural upgrades qualify; but a new addition or appliances don't.
Like I said, the program used to be far more generous and was being used as a sort of tax shelter for property investors. It's since been overhauled to close a lot of the loop-holes. It's a very important program, and without it we would have lost some significant historic structures, either by demolition, or by neglect.
Considering that most rehab projects end up costing three times their initial budgets, I don't see many people making huge profits by restoring historic structures - sadly it's usually more cost effective just to cut a building up into slummy apartments and rent it out until the whole thing falls down.
I liked David Smith's letter in today's S-E. Very well said.
Potato Nose? Have you noticed how much Curt Geiger looks like Lex Luther in the "Superman Returns" movie? It must be those evil, crooked eyes and of course that nose! The only difference is Geiger has hair. BTW, I heard it almost from the horses mouth that CURT was the GEIGER who was caught sign-in-hand by the council member, and his response was, "It was laying on the ground and I just picked it up to put it back up." His co-hort in the truck was heard to say by the council member, "Do you think ___ believed you?" WOW!! What dumb asses Godfrey picked for his flunkies! But then that's what you'd have to be to be one of that little prick's flunkies. I guess it's just his friends that he gives all the good benefits to, since it seems the Geigers can't afford to donate to his campaign.
What I can't figure out is how John Thompson and Sexton figure they don't have any expenses -- I've seen signs around town for them, and John's have been BIG ones! Does someone need to look into the accuracy of the reports they filed?
Take heart, guys, I remember in the last election, it wasn't the big spenders who won! We can hope that the grass roots movement works its magic again this election. May the "Force" be with Van Hooser, Youngberg, Wicks, Freed and Hansen! What a hoot if Godfrey didn't even make it past the Primary! Good will prevail over Godfrey and his dishonest "Sign Snatchers!"
Historic Perspective. Prior to the Historic Tax Credit programs, developers used to receive incentives for demolishing old buildings, in turn destroying urban cores and community defining structures. The community/citizens (at the national, state, and local levels) spoke up and demanded a change. Can you imagine Ogden w/out its historic buildings, or SLC, or any other town in the United States? W/out this program a lot of important structures would have been lost. Rehabbing old buildings does revitalize and is an impetus to local economic development. The added bonus is important community icons are saved in the process, too. Look at 25th Street. Imagine if the City would have promoted the tax credit program and encouraged rehabbing the old buildings along Washington Boulevard where the Mall Site/Junction is. Imagine the money it could have potentially saved this community in the long run. Historic Preservation and the Tax Credit programs are about planning for the future. We are too shortsighted in the decisions we make today. The Tax Credit program, IMHO, curbs this trend. It makes developers and others really think about the longevity of their project. Although there is a tax credit at some public expense, it is one that is recouped and is has been proven, in dollars and cents, to be worth it. It is a truly win-win situation for the community and building owner.
So who's sign did the Geiger flakes have?
By Default:
A tax-incentive program to encourage [and, by tax credits, to partly subsidize] the rehabing of historic buildings that might otherwise be lost is a very good idea.
The questions that have been raised here deal more with the way such a program has been applied and structured, not its existence or goal. Is the program so structured that it achieves the maximum good for the public interest at the lowest cost to the public revenues? Or has it been so structured as to operate as a kind of "welfare for the rich" program flying under the cover of "save our historic buildings?"
FYI and you have offered the former argument and Nit Picky the latter. I don't know enough about historic preservation via tax incentives to reconcile the two opinions or to choose between them. [Starting to look into it for myself, which I would probably have never done absent the discussion you guys triggered on WCF, which is one of the benefits, for me, of WCF: gets me thinking about matters I would not have much thought about otherwise].
But I don't think anyone who's chimed in on this so far has seriously questioned the end in view: incentivising [god that's an awful word --- right down there with "prioratizing"] the preservation of historic buildings via tax policy.
Wanna know-
It was my sign, In Bob Geiger's hands. He told me he was just putting it back up.
Mz. Wicks
And that is possibly the second biggest lie in the world!
Ozboy:
What wast the biggest one? My guess would be this: "I'm a uniter, not a divider." G.W. Bush.
Curmudgeon
You might be right in a literal sense. However, my remark to Wicks was actually part of an old dirty joke. The biggest lie in this joke is rather naughty and probably shouldn't be repeated on such an honorable and dignified site as this.
Actually there were two different punch lines, both of them funny but too lewd for the polite society herein.
Oz:
Damn it, now I'll have to email all my old colleagues asking about the joke and the alternate punch lines. I can think of three at least highly likely to know....
Post a Comment