More fuzzy reporting from the Standard-Examiner - BLOCKBUSTER UPDATE!
By Curmudgeon
There is a remarkably un-informative story in the Standard-Examiner this morning about last night's City Council meeting, at which the Council reportedly voted [only Mr. Stephens dissenting] to urge the public to vote in favor of the quarter-cent transportation tax on this November's ballot.
The story reported that The resolution in favor of a quarter-cent sales and use tax increase was originally slated to be approved jointly by the city council and Ogden's administration. However, Mayor Matthew Godfrey had concerns about the resolution's language preventing the administration from joining the council in adopting the document, said Bill Cook, the council's executive director.
Naturally, I wondered what the Mayor's objections were. I'm still wondering. From the story:
"Godfrey did not attend Tuesday night's meeting and could not be reached for comment regarding his position on the resolution or the city council's vote." OK, so the Mayor was AWOL, and, if the story is to be believed, sent no one to explain to the Council, on the record, his objections to the language of the Council resolution. [Nothing in the story indicates what the language was the Mayor objected to.]
But surely, the Mayor --- recall the Mayor at the recent debate claiming he could not imagine a single instance in which he had failed to supply the Council with information it requested --- had discussed the matter with Council members before the vote, indicating his problems with the proposed resolution. And if he did do that, surely Mr.Schwebke could have gotten from a Council member, or several, some hint as to the Mayor's objections. Of course, if the Mayor had not told the Council why he objected to the Council's resolution, then that, certainly, would be news.
Mr. Dave Hardman, representing the Ogden/Weber Chamber of Commerce was apparently there, touting the new tax he wants the Council and voters to approve. Mr. Hardman told the Council, according to the story, that the $8.5 million the tax is expected to raise annually "would be distributed by the Weber Area Council of Governments based on a project priority ranking system spelled out in state statute." How artfully vague. In fact, the project priority list as it now stands is not binding; WACOG and UTA and UDOT could fund the projects on the priority list as it now stands, or they could substantially alter the funding priorities. None, repeat none of the projects on the list [with the exception of corridor land purchases for the extension of the Legacy Highway] is locked in. What the WACOG and UTA and UDOT are saying is "give us the money, with no guarantees about how we will spend it, and trust us to use it wisely". And in fact, there is only one, count 'em one, Weber County transit project on the recommended list now... a Bus Rapid Transit route from downtown Ogden to WSU and McKay-Dee Hospital. [And the Mayor is opposing that in order to preserve that route for his gondola obsession.]
[The story does not report whether Council members inquired of Mr. Hardman whether his organization had put any more study or research into the outcome of the transportation tax than it evidently did into its long and loud support for selling the Mt. Ogden Parklands for a gated-community real estate development to help build a flatland gondola in Ogden --- a project Mayor Godfrey now tells us was never feasible from the beginning. Though Hizzonah has not abandoned his gondola obsession.]
Further along, Mr. Schwebke reports that "the city council's resolution recommends that 40 percent of the funds be used for transit projects." Note, that 60/40 split [roads/transit] is merely a recommendation WACOG and UTA and UDOT are not bound to honor.
But as to what the Administration's objections were to the Council resolution, Std-Ex readers are still in the dark. I suspect that suits the Mayor just fine. In the dark is just where he prefers the press, the Council and the public to be on some matters.
Editor's Addendum: Mr. Hardman expresses confidence in "a project priority ranking system spelled out in state statute." This morning's Salt Lake Tribune has a fascinating article reporting on how this prioritization process has already been bungled (they're blaming it on a calculation error) in Salt Lake County, with potential repercussions for all members of the Wasatch Front Regional Council , of which the Weber County Council of Governments is a member. For a real earful, tune in to the audio minutes of the State Legislature's Audit Sub-committee meeting of yesterday afternoon, where accusations amongst committee members re this blunder fly freely. (Requires RealPlayer - relevant discussion starts @ 24:13).
Update 10/17/07 11:14 a.m. MT: We have within the last half-hour been in contact with Emerald City Councilwoman Amy Wicks, who informs us that Mr. Schwebke's above linked Standard-Examiner article was not only "fuzzy," as we had suggested in our above sub-headline, but wildly inaccurate. In short, Ms. Wicks advises, "[t]he resolution passed by the Council last night does not specifically ask the public to vote in favor (or not in favor) of the quarter-cent transportation tax on this November's ballot."
We include here for our readers' inspection the operative text of last night's resolution:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OGDEN CITY COUNCIL, that if the Opinion Question #1 ballot measure is approved by County residents the Council hereby formally encourages the Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) to distribute the funds from the tax increase so that at least 40% of the funds are used for transit projects. Further, the Council encourages the voters of Ogden City and Weber County to voice their opinions regarding the question on November 6th."
Not only that, Ms. Wicks also informs us that Dave Hardman DID NOT address or attend last night's session, as Ace Reporter Schwebke said. It would thus appear that Mr. Hardman's quotes were pulled out of Ace Reporter Schwebke's... hat.
Ms. Wicks has also submitted some brief explanatory notes, which clarify some of the background which Mr. Schwebke did not report, and also incorporate the full text (including prefacatory language) of last night's council resolution.
We thank Ms. Wicks for this important supplementary material.
It looks to us like Mr. Schwebke and the Std-Ex editors have some 'splain' to do.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
39 comments:
If you really want to see Utah government in action try sitting in on a few Committee meetings like the Audit Committee meeting yesterday at the state Capitol.
We heard audit reports on the Weber Foundation theft with responses from the people now in charge.
And the audit of the Davis County school fraud that went on for years was a good one.
We heard responses from Davis County school people about safeguards that have finally been put in place.
But the real winner was the audit about the UTA funding for mass transit and commuter rail which came right out and said that the legislation was slanted toward mass transit with very little funds for roads and none for corridor preservation.
The bill passed by the Utah Legislature 10 months ago was interpreted by UTA to mean that they would have funds for operation and maintenance for 50 years.
The catch in the interpretation is that by statute no bonds can be used to fund operation and maintenance expenses.
From the exchange between Speaker of the House Greg Curtis and the lawyer for UTA, Bruce Jones, the message came through loud and clear that everyone got in such a hurry to pass legislation that no one looked at the final product.
So guess what - the figures were multiplied instead of being divided and the results will cause a $540 million deficit if we don't keep going with what was passed instead of what they thought they had passed.
Sounds like Utah legislators watch Washington politics too much.
I heard the Speaker of the House Curtis say emphatically that all legislation passed for sales taxes to fund mass transit should be taken off the table.
That oughta shoot the Weber County proposal from the agenda for voters on November 6.
Thank you, Curm, for a good reporting job on such nebulous facts. Such as they were. Poor Schwebke, a most incurious person.
I don't know why the SE doesn't hire you!
Can you believe the bungling down at the Capitol?
Multiplying instead of dividing?
Didn't we learn that stuff in 3rd grade?
Well, now that what the Council actually did has been made clear for WCF readers by Councilwoman Wicks [for which thanks] --- though not for SE readers --- I need to make some corrections of comments above that were based on the SE's erroneous report of what the Council did:
First, my apologies to Mayor Godfrey for wondering if he was keeping his views on this matter hidden. It is now clear what the source of his objection to the Council resolution was --- that the resolution did not support passage of the tax. He favors passage of the tax, and the Council resolution did not call for its passage. Clear enough, once readers have the facts the SE story got wrong.
Second: It seems Mr. Hardman was not present at the meeting, though the SE story gave the impression that he was. His statements reported, however, are completely consistent with his and the Chamber's position on the tax. The confusion resulted from a little careless composition in the SE story which could have been read, easily, to mean Hardman delivered his remarks to the Council last night. But the story did accurately reflect Hardman's and the Chamber's position on the tax.
The story was not the SE's best work, even with due allowance for hasty composition and filing to beat a deadline. Even so....
Sharon:
Thanks for the compliment, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a journalist. I'm a historian. I know journalists are sometimes described as writing "the first draft of history," but still, its a profession that requires a great deal of expertise to do well. Best leave it to the pros.
It's not called the Substandard-Exaggerator for nothin'.
It's great to get this information from Councilwomman Wicks.
Where, I ask, is her knuckleheaded opponent Royal Eccles on this?
Amy Wicks steps out and communicates with Ogden city citizens in all venues, including Weber County Forum.
Meanwhile her dippy opponent remains in hiding.
It is of importance that Amy Wicks continues her seat on the council, a reliable source of honesty and truth.
How can Greiling and Howell defend themselves and that sloppy paper?
How can Schwebke keep his job?
The readership just muddle around in a fog. So uninformed on matters of real importance.
Is the SE carrying the audio of yesterdays's meeting at the Capitol? THAT would be a service, wouldn't it?
Curm, you done good, kid, with what you had!
But, Rudi, don't you see how thrifty he is?
Sheesh! He's just showing the folks that he's not a spendthrift.
Here's a picture of Royal "regal" Eccles's "corporate headquarters":
Rumor has it he has 1 (one) paid employee.
This is corporate headquarters of the business genius who's going to supplant Councilwoman Wicks.
Somewhere within that small "trailor trash" mobile building is purportedly an airplane. We don't know whether it's airworthy of not.
This is the business home-base for the ridiculously unqualified Royal Eccles, who's no doubt situated at the shallow end of the "Eccles" gene pool.
Sad, VERY sad.
Amy,
Thanx for the clarifications. I hope you'll send your comments to the paper. It's their duty (what's that, you ask?) to set the record straight with facts.
IN Re: Mr. Eccles:
I don't think it matters a hill of beans who his family is. That is neither a reason to vote for him, or against him. Nor is his business, whether he employs one person, ten, or a hundred [unless the business is going under or engaged in questionable activities, which no one has alleged.]
What matters is Mr. Eccles' stand on issues, and his behavior has a candidate. I notice he declined to return a Sierra Club questionnaire on which he could have spelled out his views on a variety of environmental issues, and made them available to voters at no cost to him. [The Sierra Club promised to post all replies verbatim and without comment, so voters could read the candidates' own statements and draw their own conclusions from them. And it kept that promise for all the Council candidates who replied to the questionnaire... as most did.]
And I understand at a recent candidate forum, he denied he had signed a Lift Ogden ad, supporting the sale of the Mt. Ogden Parklands for a real estate development --- the same project the Mayor now says he opposes because it was never feasible in the first place. And when confronted with his signature on the ad, he stalked off in a huff.
Neither his refusal to make his environmental views public [in his own words, unedited and without commentary] nor is denial and harumpfing off when called on it, speak well of his probable performance in office.
Those are things that matter to me as a voter. Not his last name, whatever it might be, or the size of the business he runs, however large or small it might be.
Nice post, Curmudgeon, but you're missing some local socio/cultural issues in Ogden. That's understandable because you're not a native.
Mr. Eccles is trying to play to his local "Aristocracy Status" such as it is.
It's "nuanced;" and you've no doubt missed it.
There are undercurrents that you have plainly missed. Perhaps you need to talk to your colleagues in the WSU "Sociology Department" about this.
Rudi
Being an old "airplane guy" myself, I don't agree with the dig on Royal's digs. If I had to have an office again, I would prefer to have one in a hanger on an airport.
It has been several years ago now, but I went to an air show out at Wendover and saw his airplane. As I recall it was a pretty nifty bird.
So cut the guy some slack. He may be a real turkey but he flies a nice bird!
"Being an old "airplane guy" myself..."
Well we've hung around a few city airports ourself, and never in our life have we witnessed a more uniform collection of creaky old bastards... all of whom thought they shoulda been Ace Fighter Pilots.
Municipal airport types are a special breed of Walter Mitty charactors, shall we say.
NOT YOU, of course.
Rudi
If you checked on hanger rent at almost any airport you might have phrased it "wealthy Walter Mitty types"!
Just a few of the "Municipal airport types" I have run across: Burt Rutan, Baron Hilton, Kelly Johnson, Fish Salmlon, John Denver, John Thorp, Clyde Cessna, Jay Call (flying "J"), and many many more seriously bucks up people who are definitely not "Walter Mitty" types. Flying and owning airplanes is a very expensive past time.
By the way, I am not necessarily putting this Eccles guy in that elite company. Like I said before, I think the dude is a real turkey in spite of his nice bird and fancy rich man's name. As far as I can tell, he is from the shallow end of the Eccles money pool, but hey - you just never do know.
Given his political posturing so far, I think he is a dyed in the wool Godfreyite, one more of which could be very bad for the Emerald City.
"I think the dude is a real turkey in spite of his nice bird and fancy rich man's name. As far as I can tell, he is from the shallow end of the Eccles money pool, but hey - you just never do know. "
The truth... at last!
We're planning to do an expose on Royal Eccles and his so-called business acumen one day soon.
Stay tuned.
;-)
Just three days ago the Standard-Examiner's Managing editor Andy Howell was snarkily griping thusly:
"Every story we do on Ogden politics and government is dissected and criticized..."
Today's mangled Schwebke story illustrates why we do this Andy.
Can the Std-Ex editors comprehend why this is so?
Or are they too dull to understand the obvious Std-Ex credibility problem?
Well, that's it. I've seen enough. I'm calling PETA to report all y'all for standing around and senselessly beating a poor dead horse to pulp. You should be reprimanded and shamed.
Schwebke is a bad reporter. The Ogden Standard Examiner is a bad paper. Why is it that you continue your fruitless attempts to glean information from this rag? When do you give up? How much oxy have you smashed?
Rudi:
Every story during a campaign, and many stories at other times of the year, get dissected. Mr. Howell was right about that. Not every story gets criticized, though. He was wrong about that. But it's certainly true that perusal of stories during election campaigns is closer that it is at other times. And should be.
But what also gets perused, and often criticized, is what's not in the SE. For example, the City permitted Envision Ogden to use the Junction [city property] for a fund raiser. Envision Ogden is a lobbying group reported to have offered campaign funds to candidates in the current municipal race. The SE seemed not to find that involvement of the city with campaigning newsworthy. But Ms. Van Hooser's campaign emails the Chamber of Commerce email list, some go to city employees at their work addresses, and the SE thinks that a big story. So some of the criticism, Mr. Howell, concerns the SE's coverage [what it includes and what it doesn't], and not just savaging "every" story line by line. It's just not that simple.
Here's an example of what the emails story did not ask and should have. Ms. Van Hooser's campaign email went out about a week before the Administration, via the City Attorney [leaked to the SE] demanded she stop and change her mail list. The Administration, in other words, held off going public with its complaints about the emails until the statutorily permitted delay for replying to GRAMA requests extended just beyond election day. Meaning no one could GRAMA work-place emails from, say, the Godfrey crowd at city hall to see if they were receiving political mail they did want, and replying to it, from their offices. How convenient. Did the SE inquire about the delay in William's complaining or why the delay just happened to be late enough so any ensuing GRAMA requests could be stonewalled until after election day? I suspect not.
As for the City Council story, hey, the SE muffed it. Flat got a major fact wrong. I imagine they're embarrassed. Feeling a little red-faced I bet. I expect they'll correct it. Everybody drops the ball now and then, and there was no discernible campaign bias in this dropped ball. It happens. What sets a good paper apart from a not so good one is how it deals with a muff, how it corrects it. [Omitting the Van Hooser key points box from the debate story and allegedly "fixing it" by running the points the next day, isolated from any campaign coverage in the corrections box, was not a classy move, guys.]But I wouldn't make too big a deal out of today's error. Everyone drops the ball now and then. Even all-stars. Even me. [No, really, I have. Truly. Many times. Honest.]
Let's just hope tomorrow's paper does have another Godfrey Press Release lightly disguised as a "story" running in some prominent place. One puffing up of trivia into "news" via campaign committee leak is a mistake. Two in close succession during the end-game of a campaign starts to look suspiciously like a policy.
We shall see.
Anyone know the outcome of the Mayor's motion to dismiss, to be heard Tuesday?
Anyone notice that there is a vote Godfrey sign on the southeast corner of 22nd and Grant, right on the fence surrounding the Junction construction. Is this city property? Is this proper?
Also I have noticed at least two solid visible Godfrey supporters bail out recently. One is a house on E. 29th st. owned and occupied by a Salomon exec that quite noticably removed the Godfrey sign and Eccles signs from his lawn the other day. Another is a unique home on Fillmore that proudly displayed the LiftOgden signs for months now sports a nice array of women candidate signage. Good for you folks for waking up. Tell your neighbors.
Ahem.
The penultimate line in my post above should be "Let's just hope tomorrow's paper does NOT have another Godfrey Press Release lightly disguised as a story...."
I omitted the "not." If you're going to omit a word, not is not a good word to omit.
See? Told you I dropped the ball myself now and then.
The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for NEXT Tuesday,the 23d, Mono.
Tec:
Well, if I were a company whose management had made a big deal of my cosyness with the incumbent Mayor, and I noticed that in a five person primary, sixty percent of the voters told the Mayor they did not want him in for another term, I might begin to think about perhaps, maybe, just a little around the edges, softening the public perception of my company and its management being joined to him at the hip. So to speak. In short, I'd want to start covering my bets. In a manner of speaking. As it were.
Don't know if that's what's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Proctor and Gamble comes to Utah. The biggest company and the biggest deal to ever hit the beehive state. So where do they go? Not Ogden, but Brigham City. The immediate question I have is where the hell was Godfrey and his circle of empty suits when the biggest deal in Utah history happens? How do they let Brigham city beat out Ogden in this huge prize? Were they out schlepping around looking for another 6 man ski company to add to their collection of other small potato ski deals so they can brag about being the ski industry hub? Did they just simply not give a rat's ass because P&G isn't a ski company?
These dick heads are strictly bush league when it comes to getting major league deals. The whole lot of this sorry assed Godfrey team aint worth a bucket of warm spit! (thank you John Nance Garner)
Brigham City beat Emerald City! Jeeze, how embarrassing!
Is it true as reported by someone on here that several Godfrey signs are in yards of people who will NOT vote for Godfrey?
They are too intimidated to remove them?
Oh, for guts that don't have to be held in with a girdle.
Ozboy,
Brigham got the P & G deal because they're getting a gondola from Maddox down to the fruit stands.
Oz, Ogden is the high adventure outdoor recreation capitol of the world. Don't you get it. It's been declared by lying little matty, potato nose, short deck, cavendish and the idiot ex tie salesman that used to be seen at the Tiffin Room.
Forget the fact that we have no skiing in Ogden, we have some ski wharehouses. Forget the fact that we built a kayak park that is more fun and challenging on an inner tube, and the city sponsers a paddlefest in Huntsville, at the dam. Forget the fact that we have rocks and cliffs just luring the climber, all around us for free. We have spent upwards of 50 million so fools and phonys can climb a gym wall and if their not too tired throw on a jump suit, helmet and goggles and get blown around a giant wind tunnel,$75.00 bucks, down the drain in less time than it takes a transcient to water a bush at the munincipal building.
Face it man, we're on the ups, we don't need no stinking manufacturing jobs. We're the new found city of bling, look at that silly new theatre. Besides,P&G will be followed by those evil union types, can't have them getting a foothold in Weber County.
Lying little matty is affraid they'll unionize all those gondola jobs, make it too damned expensive on his buddy the squirrel phobic thorazine sedated invisible man.
Hardman,fluffboy stephanson and the criminally mischievious geiger boys have been telling all their supporters," just wait till these stupid suckers re-elect lying little matty,we'll be back in the saddle again".
One other thing, the Gov all ready gave Amersports 8 million, reward for lying little matty's visionary groveling.
Could be Brigham City has just a little smarter vision.
Oh, and Ogden still has one legitamate claim to high adventure outdoor recreation, unsurpassed nation wide, walk along Monroe or Adams from 20th st. to 36th st after 10 pm, especially during the warmer months.
help
Will someone please help me? I am not computer bright. I do NOT want
to be "anonymous" - I want a real name. How can I get a blogger name? (I used to have one but it no longer workds.
"Less Government."
Republicans again full of krap.
Republican's use that term to get elected.
Just like the term "GANG UNIT"
Term used, but not a reality!!!!!
Ernie: Thanks. My mistake.
Anonymous: Click on "Other". A box will appear to type in your name (can be anything you want) and a web address (which you can leave blank).
I wondered where I got the idea that the motion to dismiss was scheduled for Tuesday, October 16. Then I went back and found the original article by Scott Schwebke which says, in part:
Judge Parley R. Baldwin is slated to hold a hearing Tuesday to hear the complaint and the dismissal motions from Godfrey, Williams and Mansell. Godfrey said Thursday he’s looking forward to having the complaint resolved in court.
Seeing as how this was published on Friday, October 12, I think you can see how I would misunderstand.
The Standard's official correction appears on page 2B of today's paper.
Shouldn't newspapers do more than this to correct a major error that may affect an upcoming election?
Oz and Bill:
On P&G locating its new plant in Brigham City: Guys, every time a business locates in Utah somewhere other than Ogden, it does not mean Ogden, or Godfrey dropped the ball or screwed up. P&G was looking for a 500 acre "greenfields" site on which to build. That means undeveloped land. Easy to find in Brigham City, not so easy in Ogden. Given what P&G were looking for, it doesn't seem Ogden was in the running at all.
And the plant will, I think, have a lot of truck traffic going in and out more or less constantly. Companies with that kind of transport traffic often find it better to locate out of urban areas. Many fewer problems. [Note the Wal-Mart distribution center out in the boonies up there by Brigham City/Corine. Same idea.]
Not every company looking to locate in Utah is going to end up here, and it doesn't mean Ogden screwed up. Where they do locate may make no sense to you or to me --- I'm reliably informed that some companies have chosen to locate in Provo! [No, really. It's true. You could look it up.]
When Mayor Van Hooser takes office in January, it's a dead certainty that over the first four years of her term, some out of state companies will move to Utah and not to Ogden. It won't mean she screwed up anymore than P&G wanting a 500 acre greenfields site and finding it in Brigham City means Godfrey screwed up.
Dan:
You wrote: Shouldn't newspapers do more than this to correct a major error that may affect an upcoming election?
Of course it should. But it won't. Leaving thousands of SE readers who don't happen to stumble across the out of the way correction notice, with the impression that the Ogden City Council has urged passage of the transportation tax, when it hasn't. Be interesting to know how the editors think this either serves their readers, who have an interest in being accurately informed of what their Council recommended in re: the coming vote, or how it fulfills the paper's responsibility --- vital responsibility --- to keep the public informed, particularly during an election cycle.
Doubtless they'll tell you "we ran a correction" and that that took care of the matter. It didn't.
Mr. Curmudgeon
Sometimes you are so terminally anal it makes me laugh! You will argue any point that comes up no matter how silly. You must have been the debate coach's favorite!
For Ogden to lose out on the biggest corporate move to Utah in history is very sad indeed. Did the Mayor and his "A" team even compete for this one?
My guess is that if they had put in even a fraction of the effort they have with these small ski companies we might have been in the running.
Your attempt to excuse the Mayor for his lameness on this one by bringing up the 500 acre requirement is laughable. Everything is negotiable and I am sure that had a good effort been made on Ogden's behalf, that this requirement could have been dealt with. Where did you get that 500 acre number from anyway?
B Bernanke:
The "500 acre greenfields" criterion came from this morning's front page story in the Standard Examiner. The SL Trib also has a major story on the move.
I've seen no evidence that what P&G' was looking for by way of a plant site could have easily been found in Ogden. Again, not every company is going to think what Ogden has to offer fits its business and design plans.
To assume, as you seem to, that every time a company locates somewhere other than Ogden in Utah it represents the Godfrey administration screwing up seems to me a wholly unreasonable assumption. He has not been a good Mayor over all. His re-election would be, in my view, a bad thing for Ogden's future. But that does not mean we have to treat any company locating anywhere other than Ogden as a Godfrey screw up.
You may think pointing out that P&G's requirements may have taken Ogden out of the running from the start is "silly." I don't at all.
Post a Comment