For those who may not already have this event on their calenders, we issue this helpful reminder, via the WSU Signpost, regarding today's Godfrey v. Van Hooser mayoral debate:
On Oct. 12 [today], Mayor Matthew Godfrey and candidate Susan Van Hooser will participate in a debate co-sponsored by Pi Sigma Alpha, the policial science honors society, and the Student Economics Association.Additional information is available here.
The debate will be student-moderated and questions have been selected by students from both organizations.
The event is free and open to the public. It will be held at noon, Oct. 12, in the Wattis Business Building Smith Lecture Hall.
We also extend a cordial invitation to any gentle readers who attend this event to check back in here at Weber County Forum with their notes and comments. We hope this event will spark a robust election issues-oriented dialogue right here on this forum, and enable us lay aside certain unfortunate distractions which have have recently (and temporarily we hope), taken our main municipal election 2007 discussion off-track.
Update 10/12/07 5:33 p.m. MT: Gentle Reader TK has provided us a nice transcript-style summary of the candidates' questions and responses. We've reformatted and promoted this text from the lower comments section to the front page here.
Update 10/13/07 6:58 a.m. MT: Ace reporter Schwebke contributes his 2¢ to our ongoing mayoral debate discussion, with this morning's Standard-Examiner report. The Salt Lake Tribune's Kristen Moulton this morning also provides this excellent writeup.
Update 10/15/07 8:02 a.m. MT: WSU has posted podcast links to their website, containing an mp3 audio recording of the entire debate, together with an interesting debate analysis, conducted by a couple of WSU profs.
104 comments:
I've heard that Ogden City's Ch. 17 will be there. There is also the possibility that the debate will be recorded by WSU and then made available through a link on WSU's website. Plus, I also heard that a couple of WSU profs are going to do a post-debate analysis which will also be uploaded onto WSU's website.
It will be interesting to see if Channel 17 does carry the WSU mayoral debate. If it does, as it should, it will mark a dramatic change from the usual Mayor's Channel [which is how it has operated over the last few years] programing. There have been times over the past few years, particularly during the Lift Ogden push to ram through the sale of the Mt. Ogden parklands for a real estate development to raise money to pay part of the cost of the Mayor's gondola obsession, when it seemed that the Truth in Advertising laws would force a change in the channel's name to "The All Godfrey, All Geigers, All Gondolas, All The Time Channel."
If this does mark a new direction for Channel 17 --- public events programing --- it is long overdue and very welcome. Perhaps the members of the Council... continuing and those soon to be elected... can arrange to have Channel 17 air, on a tape delay basis, City Council meetings and School Board meetings, as is done in very nearly every other city with a public channel. Let's hope the airing of the WSU debate, if it happens, is a step in that direction.
As long as the mayor controls Channel 17, as he does, there's a serious problem with their carrying the debate: It will presumably be the mayor who decides, after the taping, when and how often the debate should be aired. If he thinks the debate went well, he can tell them to play it nonstop from now until November 6. If he thinks it went poorly, he can tell them not to air it at all, or to air it tonight at 3 am and then never again. He could even instruct them to air an abridged version that excises the parts he doesn't want viewers to see.
This debate at weber is nothing more than a farce, and if the mayor shows up, it would be a farce, and should Susie win, it will be a farce. So I will go and then that will be a farce. I wonder if any thing that the people want will be anything but a farce.
You got that right, Dan.
I guess if we don't see it on CH 17, it will mean that Mrs. VanHooser came out victorious.
Reading Scwebke's column this a.m. re: Williams remarks about Godfey's countersuit made me think that Ed Allen is the author.
The same whiny, finger pointing, "I'm a victim of baaaaad people" rhetoric.
I'm jest wonderin' if Godfey will whisper to the judge what he did with that $7500. from R & O Construction that he didn't report?
Or if Mansell and Williams will come up with clever excuses why they didn't do their jobs?
I'm jest wonderin' if working for a sociopath who beleives he never will be caught with his sticky fingers in the till, also emboldens his recorder and city atty to think that THEY are invincible and don't have to perform their duties as prescribed by law EITHER??
I'm jest wonderin' if there is enough cockroach spray to rout out these vermin?
If anyone out there takes shorthand, pls transcribe your notes and post on here.
That woul be a great service, and those of us who cannot attend this debate will actually "hear" Susie's and Godfrey's voices.
I can't understand why this debate is being held at noon! How inconvenient for those of us who have other appointments, or are at work, etc.
So, those of you who can do the shorthand honors, my thanks in advance to you!
I also put in a plug for this being carried on Ch 17.
Jest, they outlawed the good roach killer years ago. the only to possibly eliminate the stench emitting from the Municipal Building is to vote the Gals in, and then burn the place to the ground and rebuild.
Yes, there are plans to make a podcast of the debate available through WSU. Hopefully the recording will go well.
Dan S:
My assumption was --- possibly invalid --- that if Ch. 17 taped it, it would be run in its entirety, without editing. An edited version would be completely unacceptable.
I admit, I had not thought of the scheduling matter. Again, I'd assumed that when it would run [un-edited] would have been plain and agreed to beforehand. But you are right. Channel 17 is the Mayor's toy, its programmer dancing exclusively to his tune --- as became clear some years ago when the Mayor used Channel 17 to oppose the passage of a school bond, and refused supporters of the school bond time on what [falsely] claims to be Ogden's Community Channel to make their case.
Sharon:
I have notes (not shorthand, so not verbatim, but I think an accurate record of what was said), but I have a project that needs to be done today and no time to transcribe.
If no one steps up to the plate, as it were, by later tonight, I will type up and post them.
There are tape recordings and of course the podcast floating out there as well.
I think that the debate was won and lost by both candidates, Godfrey was cought in a lie, when he said that his admin. gives all the information to the council. then Susie replied why didn't we know who boot jack was then?
Susie said she would not have run if she knew the gondola was not an issue. the mayor then said it not to late to quit.
I think we are faces with now what do we do. come Nov.
I've never attended a mayoral debate before, so perhaps I'm not a good judge of these things, but in my opinion the diminutive mayor just pretty much wiped the floor with his opponent.
SVH kept saying, "I'm not very adept at this," when working the mic, knowing when it was her turn to talk, etc. Yeah, it showed. She said a couple really dumb things, like, "I think if I weren't running for mayor, I'd vote for him because he sounds so good."
One interesting exchange came on a question from the moderators about working with the city council. These are loose notes.
SVH: It's a relationship based on cooperation. But the system is broken. That's why I'm running. The council asks for information from the administration and we don't get it, or we get information that is wrong. We have to hire lawyers to try to obtain accurate information from this administration ...
G: I've never heard council members say we haven't provided accurate information ... (drowned out by laughter and groans from the audience)
Then he went on to say that if there was any info that his administration has provided that wasn't correct, it should be brought to his attention so it could be remedied. In her short rebuttal, SVH brought up the Bootjack deal and how the council didn't know who the principals behind Bootjack were.
The moderators moved on to the next question, about diversity in the community and what the candidates would do to embrace that diversity, etc. Godfrey, first up for the question, said, "I'm going to go back to that last question and explain a bit," and SVH popped up and asked, "Can he do that?"
The crowd started to get restless and heckled him a bit (someone yelled "Just put it on your website!") before the moderator said, "This is Mayor Godfrey's time and we ask the audience to be respectful of that. If he chooses not to answer the questions that the students prepared and are interested in hearing about, that's his prerogative." Godfrey then answered the diversity question.
Another interesting exchange came on a question about the city's trail system. Godfrey, first up, talked about what's been done since he's been in office and what's planned for the future. SVH then talked about how important the trail system is and said something along the lines of, "I hope you're sincere in your announcement that you don't plan to sell the golf course. If you had said that months ago, I wouldn't be running and you wouldn't have to be here debating."
Godfrey scored the biggest line of the whole debate when he stood back up and said, "Well, it's not too late to drop out!" HUGE laugh in the room that mostly drowned out SVH saying, "Not on your life!"
I have to wrap this up now, but again, I think Godfrey looked smart, played the room well and was informed about all the topics. SVH was fumbling and didn't know much about some issues. When she did make some good attacks, it was often with very specific points that most people probably didn't know what she was talking about, and she was using a lot of "council-speak" that people had to ask what terms meant (like RDA).
Not that debates make or break an election, but SVH better get her game together before the next one.
Susie ought to know that the gondola is still an issue.
What makes her think it isn't still an issue?
Don't forget that Godfrey has had 2 terms to get his presentations up to speed.....
Too bad he can't always tell it like it really is.
Oh, I'm not saying I believe everything he has to say by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that he always had something to say on each topic that at least sounded good.
JP:
He is slick. I will grant him that. But then, most hucksters are.
Boy, O boy, I saw Hansen siting in the audience and I wonder how he would have answered those questions.
I've seen him debate and I think he would have chewed them both up and spit them out. How I wish we had a better choice than what we have now.
You dumbasses backed the wrong horse. Hansen would have made a fine Mayor. Now you'll get Godfrey again.
What were you thinking?
It's easy to be glib when you don't have to worry about telling the truth. Seven thousand new jobs according to Godfrey. Most are supposed to be high-paying, average $69K/year, according to Matt. Where are all those people, then?
And don't forget the 43% reduction in violent crime!
yes and the earth is 6000 years old and global warming is a hoax and elvis is alive.
Back to CH 17 we're they even there?
tk,
Overall, not a bad review, though you do seem to come from a bias from the mayors point of view. Godfrey is pretty good at the podium and he should be since he seems to like the lime light and the speech making better than taking care of the mundane job of running the city. I too have been around Ogden for a while and Susie’s explanation for what happened to Ogden was bang on. Unfortunately for Ogden, the mayor tells you what he thinks you want to hear and not what he plans to do with the exception of a little window dressing here and there. This is what differentiates Godfrey from Van Hooser.
For example, if you listened to Godfrey talk about his vision for the downtown area he referred to the efforts to bring back the downtown area with small boutique shops, specialty retailers and high end restaurants (that what he thought you wanted to hear, you know college kids hanging around a high adventure center where things are happening). What he was telling a room of businessmen just last week was that he wanted to follow through on his original plans to put a WalMart in the downtown (for real). If you’ve look at or hear of other communities where WalMart were established, it has decimated the small retailers, i.e. specialty shops. So my question to you is what is it that Godfrey really plans to do, develop a coffee district with boutique shops or build big parking lots and a big box store. Since all his friend have recently come to own a lot of the land where the WalMart is proposed, I think I know the answer. Godfrey tells you what you want to hear not what he intends to do, that is just one reason why there is so much distrust for this man.
Second, you can’t trust the facts and figures that he throws out, almost ever. Today he said that there have been 7,000 new jobs created in this city by new businesses that have come to town. A year ago he was touting 1,000 and that wasn’t accurate either (but the numbers sure sound good and if you can say them with a sincere look on your face, some people actually believe you).
This is the issue, he sounds good but it’s all for the audience. He selling something and today it was himself so he could get another four years to line the pockets of his friends. Friends that I’m sure he’s counting on to someday return the favor.
If you elect people by their speaking ability in front of an audience with no regard for the truthfulness of what they are saying and that’s your criteria, then Godfrey’s your man. But if your selection is based on someone that will follow through on their word and that has a good solid ideas as to how to help this community, then you should take a little closer look at Van Hooser.
Thanx to all who have posted about the debate.
Spectator...your assessment is spot on. Of course, Godfrey only says what a particular audience wnts to hear.
Think what he's telling his tablemates at those creamed chicken Rotary lunches!
I'm sorry Susie goofed with that remark about the gondola off the table and her not running. (groan).
I'm sure Mary Hall and others can take her thru her paces and get her ready for the next debate. Did anyone say why the debate was held at NOON on a weekday?
Was there a huge crowd?
From your observations it doesn't sound like the audience was too receptive to Godfrey. True?
Susie needs some good talking points and stop the council speak that most people have no or little understanding of...TIF, RDA, etc.
Just tell it so everyone understands how we taxpayers are being bilked, with a good f'r instance! (There are so many to choose from!)
An effective speaker never apologizes...or admits ineptitude. Get a little help with the mike and then don't mention it again.
Everyone follows the confident leader.
I'll see if I can get it off the WSU website.
Thanx again for your observations.
PS: Was the intrepid Schwebke there?
Talk is cheap, but what I see in Ogden is action and to Godfreys credit things are on the up. I saw the debate and Susie was hostile and would roll her eyes like children do when asked what she would of done for the past 8 years - she took up all her time attacking Godfrey. She never answered the question.
It appears that SVH needs a remedial course in public speaking and demeanor.
A good coach would be very helpful to her.
It's too bad when a debater gets caught up being on the defensive replying to what the other guy just said. Come out with the points you want to make and hit them hard.
To Anon,
Facts don't lie. Unfortunately Godfrey does. I was rolling my eyes in the audience too when Godfrey made some of his comments, knowing that they were pure fabrications.
Your right talk is cheap and that's all Godfry is doing other than doubling the city debt and lining the pockets of his friends.
Anon, are you one of them?
To Spectator,
And you know the things he says are fabrications how? And you know he is lining his friends pockets how?
As someone who is clearly against fabrications you sure know how to make them based upon assumptions and stupidity. So good for you, pretend like you know everything about everything. But until you provide actual facts you just sound stubborn and idiotic.
Ow Wow:
You wrote: "How I wish we had a better choice than what we have now."
Yeah, sure. And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. The voters put Godfrey and Van Hooser on the ballot. That's the campaign, that's the contest. At this point, your choices are three: Van Hooser or Godfrey or not voting. Wishing won't change the options.
I worked for NH in the primary. My candidate lost. At which point, I moved on, looked at the choices that were on the ballot, put there by the voters, and began supporting VH. Whining about campaigns lost is remarkably unproductive in politics. At any level.
Interesting:
You wrote: And you know the things he says are fabrications how?
OK, fair question. How about this: the FBI and Utah State Police numbers for crime in Ogden for years the Mayor touts as evidence of how he's handled crime do not match the Mayor's. His figures were substantially lower than both the State Police and FBI numbers. How's that for openers.
Then there was the discrepancy between Chief Greiner and the Mayor at the Ogden High community meeting about how many police are on duty in Ogden. The Mayor's top number was 160. Greiner said 140. So apparently the Mayor thinks there are 20 more policemen patrolling Ogden's streets than the Police Chief does. Maybe the Mayor should call up Greiner now and then for something other than trying to trace the license plate of a policeman's wife. Then there's the Mayor insisting Ogden is not $93,000,000 in debt when the financial report, filed by his own administration in June says we are. That enough for openers?
To Interesting,
How about 6,000 jobs
How about getting along with and communicating with the city council
How about the reduction in crime figures
How about bootjack llc
How about the bus money going to a gondola study
No assumptions above
Want me to keep going or are you just going to get vulgar now or change your blog identity?
Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey loves gondolas, as do many other retarded idiots who love gondolas. Vote for the ladies or vote for gondolas! Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
Oh, and dont forget the way that Matt has divided the community, let alone the fact that he is the laughing stock to every other municipality in Utah.
Gondolas every time all the time.
Besides if people trusted him and his track record, why would he have to have a resolution of perpituity dranw up stating he wont sell the park?
Usually when most people say that they wont do something people can take their word, not Matt.
Spectator, I am very much NOT in the Godfrey camp. What I typed here were the notes I took from the debate as I was trying to get as many of the statements from the candidates down as possible. I made no attempt in the notes I posted here to comment on what was said. As I indicated there were more questions and closing comments. I stopped transcribing my notes in my last post since I ran out of time. But here are my notes from the closing comments - this time with one editorial comment.
VH: Not a politician. Did not run for council. Talked about process of applying and interviewing for seat. Says something about my character that I was the unanimous choice of the council - hard to get this council to vote unanimously on much of anything. Ogden needs Sensible government. Ogden needs Open government. And Ogden needs a United government.
G: Ran for Mayor 8 years ago because friends and family weren't staying in Ogden. Couldn't find good jobs. We need a city where people can stay and prosper. While mayor, brought in 7000 jobs {ok, my editorial comment - please note that earlier in the debate the mayor cited 2000 new jobs - something VH did pick up on in responding to audience questions. now back to Godfrey} These new jobs are above average income wise. Cleaning up downtown. Plan to develop east side of Washington. Bring in retailers. There was a $2bill tax base in 2000. Added $1.2 bill to tax base - or it will be $1.2 bill soon. Created a new image for Ogden. Quoted National Geographic and Wall Street Journal to that effect.
OK, that's it.
How did Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey recruit these high-paying jobs? Because he said we would have GONDOLAS! Where are these GONDOLAS? We need GONDOLAS to survive, said Lying Little Matty. Now, we're going to stop the momentum without GONDOLAS? Where are the GONDOLAS? GONDOLAS, GONDOLAS! Fing, we need GONDOLAS!
The Council could pass a ordinance to boot lyiong little Matty from RDA Director. But Jesse doesnt have the balls to do it.
The little piss ant also said something about if the Council would co-operate with him on the elimination of the Civil Service Commission he could hire more officers.
What a Crock of shit, there is not one good reason why the Civil Service hampers the hiring of Officers, he just wants to make all employees at-will so he can have them fired for any reason he can dream up, say for example, having a spouse drive around town expressing her freedom of speach.
Divide and Conquer, thats Matts new campaign slogan.
I will move my entire Churro stand operation (78K employees) to Ogden's High-adventure recreation mecca if we build A GONDOLA. Listen to Geiger. Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger
Sincerely,
Curt Geiger
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Jason, Lying little Matty transfered jobs from 12th street IRS to Wall ave IRS.
Thus creating 2000 new jobs, he just moved them.
Kind of like taking away movie goers from the Newgate mall to see a flick at the Junction, only the people who see movies at the Junction are not spending money a mall, just popcorn and rotten mexican food at Costa Vida.
Suzie looked amazingly unprepared, nervous, and admitted she wasn't good at debating. How does she expect to run the city? Oh, I know... She plans to balance the city's budget because she can budget her personal check book and has taught elementary math for years (her words). It's amazing to see the posters here try and take away from the debate as a whole and spin it. But they can't. There is no way around the fact that she looked amazingly bad. She seems like a very nice lady, just not somebody who should be running one of the largest cities in the state. I liked the post above that talked about the fact that a student asked a question and she didn't bother to respond to the question in any way- she just spewed something about the rec. center having to succeed or we're in trouble. The question was about what she would have done differently since she thought the mayor was wrong in going after economic development instead of focusing all of his attention on infrastructure, sidewalks, and adding to the police force. A reasonable question, if you ask me, because you have to have tax revenue to do what she criticized the mayor for not doing... but she displayed complete ineptitude and actually some disrespect by just blowing off the question.
It was interesting that Matt had his cronies there. Baby Geiger, Patterson, Hardman from the Chamber of Commerce, and let's not forget Dustin Chapman who managed to ask a question as a WSU student.
I'm sure they all were there to see what the two candidates had to say before making up their minds.
To the question someone asked before, yes, Schwebke was there as well as Don Porter from the SE.
I think we will be seeing a lot of this debate on Ch 17 being that Godfrey cleaned Van Hoosers clock. The guy is definitely very good in that medium and he really showed her up in all categories that matter (except of course for the truth department).
It is too bad that this debate took place in a University setting yet there was no fact verification capability, a truth meter of some sort. If that magic had been available and applied today, Godfrey would have lost hands down. He told an untold number of lies. Boy O boy do they just simply roll off the little turkey's tongue and issue forth from his pursed little lips. Smooth as silk I tell you.
Some of my favorite Godfreyisms from today:
At one point Little Lyin Matt says that he has brought 2000 jobs to Ogden. A little while latter he had inflated it to 7000 jobs. Most in the $65,000 per year range. What he doesn't say is that what ever number is true the overwhelming number of them were IRS jobs that were already in Ogden on 12th Street and were simply moved to Wall. He claims these as jobs that he created, in fact has been spinning this story for several years now! Incidentally this same lie was exposed on the Utah Senate site about a year ago when that big dumb ass Safsten tried to propagate it and got it jammed down his throat and was told he ought to take some anger management courses by the site moderator.
Another big whopper from the little liar is that RDA bonds are really paid off by the developers! This is absolutely not true as proven by his own words which are a perversion in themselves: "RDA funding is merely the Developers borrowing their own future property taxes" Makes it sound like they are borrowing from themselves. This would be the same as one of us borrowing money to buy a house and then paying the loan off with our property taxes instead of giving them to the county. Nice scam if you can get it. If you really think about it what happens is that the developer floats the bonds and takes millions right now. The bonds are then paid off by the future property taxes he is bound to pay anyway, moneys that would normally go into the treasury for all the citizens but now is used exclusively to pay the developers loans off with. This really means that the citizens who should have received the benefit from those property taxes are the ones that are paying off the developers debt and the developers own the fruits of those taxes. This scheme is just cleaver and bassackwards enough that it can confuse a lot of people into believing Godfrey's perversion of how it really works.
I think the very biggest lie he told is when he said that Ogden enticed Soloman and AmerSport to Ogden because we gave them the naming rights to the Rec Center and because of his charm and hustle. He went on to say that there was absolutely no monetary considerations at all involved in them coming here and that Ogden was too poor to pay them any money and we beat out Portland, San Diego and Salt Lake city strictly on his wizardry. He reiterated that absolutely no money was involved in Saloman's decision. This of course is an absolute lie that totally ignores the fact that there was at least an $11 million dollar bribe that was paid to them at the expense of the citizens of Utah and Ogden.
There was just too many lies, damn lies and statistics that he spewed to even keep up with. He delivered them all with considerable skill and showman ship. Unfortunately there will be thousands of people in Ogden who will believe all this shit and shinola.
Man, Dustin Chapman and Short-deck Geiger, captain of Wayne Peterson's famed Squirrel Patrol, are brilliant! They boggle the mind! They love THE GONDOLA! Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
I respectfully disagree, Heehaw, I don't think there's 1,000s who buy Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey's lies; I think they think he's a gondola freak and will vote him out. But maybe I'm wrong: "You and me's just a fool's paradise, High."
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger
First impressions are tough to overcome, but, if you score this debate fairly, you'll find it not what folks here were thinking as they walked out.
First, if a candidate creates or responds with an out right falsehood,(LIE) he loses the question. On the crime question, clearly anyone knows lying little matty is a clear loser. His first boast was how he's reduced crime 23%. For all you score keepers I have one simple question. If this 23% number has been touted since this spring, what about the 150 shots fired calls to police since Jan.2007 and the deadly shootings we've had since July? Corect me if I'm wrong but I have three dead since July. Thats probably at least a 500% increase in violent crime since July. Mono can correct me if I'm wrong but this 23% figure does not include 2006 either.
Lying little matty also spat out the funny one he told at Ogden High as well," I've increased the force 20% since I took office." This time he refrained from stating the size of the force,(due to being caught lying at OHS) but this begs the question. If
he doesn't even know how many officers are on the force, how can he possibly know if it's increased or decreased?
Mrs. Van Hooser on the other hand stated a well known fact,(consistant with chief greiner) that the force is currently 14 officers short, and her real answer to the crime situation should resonate with every one in the city. If our people don't feel safe, in their homes or on the sidewalks, we have a problem, we not doing enough.(not an exact quote, but you get the message)
As for Dustin Chapmans post about his own stupid hypothetical question, Mrs. Van Hooser answered it quite succinctly, unfortunately it went right over his head. $93,000,0000.00 in debt, there is a better way.
All in all, it was all right. With this experience behind her, I'm quite confident she'll do just fine in the next one.
She got him to lie repeatedly, ain't that what this really all about?
Curmudgeon
You wrote: "OK, fair question. How about this: the FBI and Utah State Police numbers for crime in Ogden for years the Mayor touts as evidence of how he's handled crime do not match the Mayor's. His figures were substantially lower than both the State Police and FBI numbers. How's that for openers."
Well today in the debate the little feller restated that lie only this time he said these bogus figures were not done by the city but they were the federal numbers! As far as I figure that looks an awful lot like a bald faced lie.
Maybe Ozboy could tutor SVH?
If she learns to rattle off his points, she will do very well.
Susie: Just learn facts, and give them to the audience every time you speak! Humor helps too...makes the humorless little runt look even smaller.
And onother thought about lying little matty G-MAN crime fighter.(G still stands for gondola, lying little matty is far too young to know ELLIOT NESS).
It occurs to me, the latest shooter in this very deadly violent summer, was just a 15 year old kid. He would have been 7 or 8 when lying little matty first came in to office.
You will recall that lying little matty eliminated all the city programs at the Marshall White center when he first came in. He subcontracted out to the Big Brothers and Sisters, and has cut the funding every year since.
Who's to say that adquate funding and programs at the Marshall White Center over the last 7+ years might have been able to have touched that kids life, and possibly prevented the tragedy that occured recently.
I guess an overpriced wind tunnel, glow in the dark bowling alley and archade makes alot more sense than providing something constructive with possitive role models for our more disadvantaged youth. Which by the way, could never afford to participate in the activities at Neilson's corporate welfare emporium.
Cripes, Jason W
Are you enrolled in an anger management course yet? Ask Safsten where one meets.
Also, for a lesson in erudtion....ask Curmudgeon for help. Only keep the brevity you usually incorporate into your rants.
Under the Bridge:
You wrote that Ms. Van Hooser admitted she wasn't good at debating. How does she expect to run the city?
Well, the obvious answer to that is, running the city does not necessarily require good public debating skills. What it does require is good judgment, good staff, a commitment to open government, and a firm grasp on what ethical conduct requires of a public official.
But you have one good point: during elections, good debating skills are a definite advantage on the stump, and Mr. Godfrey, with eight years of public appearances under his belt, is far more experienced, and skillful at that than is Ms. Van Hooser. This definitely works to his advantage on the campaign trail.
But I'm hard put to see how good stump debating skills come into play when, say, the Council asks for information about a pending action and the Mayor replies "I don't have to tell you and I won't."
Simply put, good debating skills are not necessary for good government. I remind you that carny hucksters posses excellent skill at working crowds and dazzling people. I would not want one running my city, however.... for a third term, that is.
Bill C. and Viktor:
Thanks for the questions regarding crime statistics. I guess I've made myself the local expert on such things.
The 2006 FBI statistics were released about two weeks ago, and they don't agree with the 2006 Utah BCI statistics (p. 6) published previously or with the Godfrey stats he's touting.
(Rudi, I lost the image of the ad from several weeks ago, so if you want to link that here, you should.)
For example, 18 arson cases in 2006, reported to the Utah BCI, have mysteriously vanished: the FBI stats say zero.
In all, 59 violent crimes (474 vs. 415) and 505 total crimes (5534 vs. 5029) have mysteriously vanished between the Utah BCI report and the FBI report. Same crimes, same reporting entity, same reporting methodology.
These "lost" crimes are a new twist in this story. I thought I had seen it all, but this takes the cake.
You don't have to check Mayor Godfrey's webpage. You can go directly to the sources, as I did.
Bottom line is, until Mayor Godfrey started reporting statistics, there was near-perfect agreement between the the city's reckoning (pp. 17, 27), the FBI report, and the Utah BCI. Once I corrected for varying population numbers, the graphs overlie each other. The only oddball numbers are the ones Mayor Godfrey is reporting.
He can protest and huff and puff but the fact of the matter is, he's lying and he knows it.
Another bald-faced and notable lie which has been briefly mentioned was, "I'm not aware of any instance where the City Council felt they didn't get complete information from me." That was a howler, akin to "there are no homosexuals in Iran".
I've been spending this evening re-plotting the crime report data and will get it published in poster form for use at future debates.
I'll send Mayor Godfrey a copy of the graphs if he wants to post them, with the appropriate citations, to his campaign webpage. That's where you'll find the most accurate crime statistical information, I'm told.
Mono:
Excellent work on the crime stats. Such a poster would be a boon for Mrs. VanHooser...and any other fact filled info she can rattle off.
Curm...you're getting to be quite a wit! Keep it up!
Do we know when the next debate is scheduled?
Dustin Chapman will only attend the next debate if Zingers are made available.
I'm pretty sure that this was VH's first official debate in her entire life. Considering that fact I think she held it together pretty well. I can tell that her style is to sit down, talk to, and listen to people - a far cry from the mayor's "I'll argue with you until you give up and agree with my point of view" approach to governement.
The questions is what kind of leader do you want? Well I'd personally rather have one that actually cares about what I have to say as opposed to some small-minded blowhard that thinks he has to be right 100% of the time!
After reading TK's post that Rudi archived, I'd say that Susan did pretty well.
If she smiled when she made that remark abut voting for Godfrey, then it was humorous. At least that's how it reads. Did the audiance laugh?
To all those above repeating the "lying little Matty" mantra and recounting the times he told what Mark Twain called "stretchers" during the debate: you can chant it 'til the cows come home; you can "score" the match as you please, docking the mayor a point for everything he said that you know to be false. It matters not if the undecided in attendance did not recognize them as stretchers, and Ms. Van Hooser did not succeed in revealing them as stretchers. As [from the accounts I've heard] she often did not.
Intoning to the already converted the "lying little Matty" mantra won't accomplish anything. Once again, the only votes in play are the undecideds and the soft leanings. Messers Chapman and Geiger and such like are going to vote for their man unless he's revealed to have a close personal relationship with a dead gay underaged Fundamentalist LDS communist goat. And probably even then. And Van Hooser red-hots would probably vote Van Hooser under similar circumstances in reverse. Only the undecideds and soft leanings matter in the campaign now. And if Ms. Van Hooser cannot convince them that she is the better choice, that the Mayor's statements are false, his judgment flawed, his ethics iffy, his administration devoted to the profit of cronies and insiders and not the population in genera, that his interest in gang violence is born of the approaching vote and will die soon after it, then repeating "lying little Matty" on WCF over and over isn't going to do the job.
Van Hooser is the candidate. Revealing the disembling in the Mayor's numbers, his repeated lack of judgment, his irresponsibility with the city's anticipated tax revenues and debt, his ignoring gang violence until the election came on, his pathological committment to secrecy in dealing with the Council and public, his questionable ethics, particularly in regards arranging deals for his cronies and associates... all of that is Van Hooser's job as a candidate and challenger of an incumbent. If she fails to do that sufficiently well, all the mewling and typing of "lying little Matty" and "geiger geiger geiger" and "potato nose" and "the sky is beautiful" and "the squirrel patrol" and so on here won't matter a damn. It will move no votes from the "leaning Godfrey" to the "leaning Van Hooser" column, and no votes from the "undecideds" to her column either. It amounts, in the end, to a kind of rhetorical masturbation. Nothing more.
One public debate isn't going to decide the campaign. But when there are such limited opportunities available to reach those not already following the Administration's antics and the campaign closely, debates [or more accurately, Q and As] like today's matter. And there is no point in pretending they don't.
To Under the Bridge,
You commented that, "Suzie looked amazingly unprepared, nervous, and admitted she wasn't good at debating. How does she expect to run the city?"
My question to you is what do debating skills have to do with running a city? One is a marketing skill and the other is a management skill. Ogden doesn't need a promoter it needs a manager.
Ogden is growing at about the same rate as the rest of the cities along the Wasatch Front, not because of Godfrey but because its part of a bigger market movement (I don’t care what Godfrey says, do your research).
The difference is that where other cities are seeing the growth in development funded by private enterprise and the city is managing the city business; Ogden is funding the spending of development (and not particularly wise development) and not managing the city business.
In the long run we loose, as we will still need to fix our streets, sewer and water systems and we will also be carrying the additional debt of these business development costs.
Other city will only be carrying the infrastructure costs, thus Ogden will find itself at a disadvantage to other cities in the future and the residents will ultimately be paying higher taxes.
He is diverting three times as much money out of the Ogden City budget (and putting it into business development) as other surrounding cities. This, at the cost of reducing services to Ogden residents, services that include the fire and police departments. If you feel under served, it’s because you are.
As for spending money for business development as opposed to infrastructure, Godfrey is wrong and history will prove it. Godfrey is indebting the city with RDA debt (if you don't understand this debt see Ozboys post above at 9:36 PM or go to the Utah Taxpayer Association web page and learn up) which means that the city will see very little benefit if any from these projects in the way of property tax revenues. Property tax revenues are the major source of funding to the city regardless of what Godfrey stated about the trickle down theory (look at the source of city revenues in the city financials). Thus the city is now more indebt than ever with limited to no upside in tax revenue increases from these businesses that have been given RDA loans from the city. This means that the city will ultimately have to turn to the residents to make up the shortfall as the cost of living kicks in on all services provided by the city to the residents. Godfrey only wants to continue to issue more of this debt, debt that will strangle the city over time.
Susie Van Hooser understands this and that’s why she stepped in. I know she didn’t want to throw her hat in the ring but she felt that she needed to for the people of Ogden and I personally am very thankful. She is prepared to manage the city and I’m confident that she will do a wonderful job (and don’t be surprised if the city keeps growing as this is a bigger market movement along the Wasatch Front and not Godfrey). Go listen to Warren Buffet speak some time if you think you have to be a good speaker to know how to manage a business. We don’t need a good speaker we need a good manager, we need Susie Van Hooser.
I will put HONESTY, OPENESS, FAIRNESS, and DECENTNESS ahead of debating and orating skills ANY DAY!!!!!!
Saw the debate or should I say side show….
What a choice? Incompetence vs Crook!!!
"You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria."
"Another bald-faced and notable lie which has been briefly mentioned was, "I'm not aware of any instance where the City Council felt they didn't get complete information from me." That was a howler, akin to "there are no homosexuals in Iran".
Good one, Mono.
If you like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you'l LOVE Matt Godfrey.
Why is it that the Standard decided to place a special box, next to their artical detailing the debate, titled "Where Godfrey stands" but there is no such box for Ms. Van Hooser? Is this an example of how pro-Godfrey this paper is?
What The Said:
Good point. If the SE was going to box and summarize "Where Godfrey Stands" it should have done the same for Van Hooser.
Worse than that was Mr. Schwebke's treating Van Hooser's sarcastic "I'd vote for him, he sounds so good" as her "seeming to endorse" a Godfrey third term. That's nonsense. If Mr. Schwebke truly thought that comment was even a semi-serious endorsement of Godfrey's re-election, he should not be doing political reporting for the SE, or anyone else.
That said, Ms. Van Hooser needs to remember that tone of voice and expression that give sarcastic and satirical comments context [and therefor their meaning] on a stage often do not come across when reduced to flat print on a page. Which is why such comments needs to include context within them so that if the comment appears in the morning paper, the meaning will be clear. Ms. Van Hooser's comment didn't. And so when the tin-eared Schwebke printed the satirical comment as straight text, Van Hooser's meaning nearly disappeared. [I note Ms. Moultrie of the SL Trib was perceptive enough not to report a satirical comment as a straight one.]
Fuller Report in SL Trib now up:
The link Rudi has to the SL Trib coverage above is to the first quick and brief report Ms. Moulton did. The Trib now has up a much longer and more informative story on the debate. Link to the fuller story is here.
Just another tidbit. Word on the running total, not included in the $93,000,000.00 is the rec center( R&O) number is at $53,000,000.00 and rising.
What's more , lying little matty has now promised,(during the debate) that in his next term he'll start on the East side of Washington. Rda debt on the east side given the age of many of those buildings could sky-rocket.
And to counter lying little matty's claims that the developers pay off the bonds, not in the case of the rec center. Ogden owns it, our BDO revenues are what is paying off almost 75% of this deal.
The lease is only $ 57,900.00 per month.
Thanks, Curm.
We've just now added the expanded article link to the front page.
Perhaps some of you should put a flyer together of all of the G-man's lies and bring multiple copies to the next debate - I think it's planned for the 24th? - and pass them out.
Curm, you sneaky devil. I meant to comment last night on your clandestine, well disguised self enjoyment.
You managed to type "lying little matty" four times, and also managed a "potato nose", "geiger geiger geiger" and "squirrel patrol", however I must correct your quote of the famous potato nose attempt at cute blogging, it's " the ski is beautiful blue".
Fun wasn't it? And, just like lying little matty's crime whoppers, if you repeat it often enough, it catches on.
Word is lying little matty's mom now refers to him as "lying little matty"." bless his lying little pointy nose".
As for your own imagination," dead gay underage fundamentalist LDS communist goat". Do you know some guy named Cavendish?
Thank goodness for Moulton. (Tho I'm disappointed that Godfrey "got the last word" in both her articles...Surely Kristen could've found a worthy quote from Susan too?)
Schwebke's article is awful! Awfuller than most of his!
That inset with only Godfrey's comments and 'visions" is such a slap in the face to the SE's readership!
Howell had the guts to come on here to defend himself?
And then he and Don Porter, another arrogant 'thumb his nose' editor who was present at the debate, actually think that Schwebke's 7th grade school newspaper write-up serves the voters?
Did Don write that claptrap with or for Scott?
Reading all the lies from Godfrey makes me wonder when he'll be accepting an invitation from Ahmadinejad hosting his next seminar on
"How to Lead with Intimidation, Fear, and Lies". Followed by "Learn How to Expound for Hours and Never Answer a Question Truthfully".
"These Techniques Worked at Columbia and Will Guarantee a Return Invitation to WSU".
Graduation and certificates on Ch 17 running ad infinitum.
I suggest that Neil Hansen go in and file as a write in candidate and then be part of the debates. This will really bring out all the knowledge of and the history of what little matty has been up to. What do the rest of you think, is this a good idea?
Thanks to The Great Bill C for pointing out that we will all be squeezed until we're blue once the final tally for Sal's Place (the rec center) comes in (after the election.)
What was supposed to be $16 million is now at $53 million and ticking, and with a national recession in the offing.
We will be hurting. Godfrey has left a horrendous legacy.
I actually thought the SE article wasn't bad, as far as VH is concerned. Yes the insert about Godfrey's positions - particularly the item on parking at WSU, as though the Mayor has any say on that given that he wanted WSU to sell what little land it has to Peterson - was ridiculous, particularly given that no corresponding insert for VH's positions is present. But as for the article itself, it provided VH's explanation for the Godfrey sounds so good quote - his flip-flopping - which wasn't clear at all at the debate. The article also highlighted the exchange over Godfrey not providing correct info (or any at all) to Council, including the fact that Godfrey's lame excuse drew boos from the audience, and even re-told the Bootjack fiasco. All of this looks good for VH. in fact, for someone who attended the debate, the article makes VH look better. Yes, there is lots more that could've been mentioned, but from what was printed I thought VH came out looking pretty good.
Hey! My friend just called and said she wtched the debate on CH 17 this morning!
I don't know how often it'll run, but I'm gonna check it out!
aThe Castro wannabe must be pleased with himself if it's not running only at 3 am as Curm postulated.
Cato:
Glad the explanation of what she meant made the paper. But when a candidate has to rely on post-debate explanations of what he or she said in the debate, it's not good.
Why isn't it a good idea for Hansen to file as a write in candidate?
What is the final date for doing that?
I am asking this because from where I see all this I am not sure that I want to vote for either of the two mayoral candidates.
I don't think I am alone in that sentiment.
Trust us "just being honest..."
Godfrey is a Political Dead Man Walking.
His latest "Dog and Pony show @ WSU won't save him.
What's important at this time is that we lumpencitizens stick to the point re his multiple lies and transgressions.
When Godfrey hit is wife, did he not break these laws, and it is a class a misdemeanor if she was pregnant.
This is the law.
"Domestic violence" means any criminal offense involving violence or physical harm or threat of violence or physical harm, or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit a criminal offense involving violence or physical harm, when committed by one cohabitant against another and includes commission or attempt to commit, any of the following offenses by one cohabitant against another:
(a) aggravated assault, as described in Section 76-5-103;
(b) assault, as described in Section 76-5-102;
76-5-102. Assault.
(1) Assault is:
(a) an attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another;
(b) a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or
(c) an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another.
(2) Assault is a class B misdemeanor.
(3) Assault is a class A misdemeanor if:
(a) the person causes substantial bodily injury to another; or
(b) the victim is pregnant and the person has knowledge of the pregnancy.
(4) It is not a defense against assault, that the accused caused serious bodily injury to another.
Just:
Then don't vote. Neil trying to be a write-in candidate is a bad idea because the voters had the opportunity to advance him to the final ballot during the primary, and chose not to. He was my candidate in the primary. I worked for him. We lost. The decision of the voters is something that we need to respect. Always. Even when it doesn't go the way we hoped it would.
Then there is another point: when you take part in an election, you agree to abide by the results of that election. Rep. Hansen stood for election in the primary, as he should have. Doing that, he agreed to abide by the results, as he would have expected the other candidates to abide by the results if he had made the November ballot.
It's really a pretty basic and fundamental principle of democracy: when you take part in an election, you by that act agree to be bound by the results of that election.
That's why continuing on as a write in candidate would not be a good idea for Rep. Hansen. It would not be an honorable thing for him to do.
Someone in the next debate must bring up the issue of Godfrey's having arranged and allowed Peterson and Lesham to buy up or option enough of City land so that the City can use eminent domain to seize whatever is needed for those two developers.
Remember the formula re property owners and size of land holdings that Senator Bramble got passed in the last session re the eminent domain law.
Based on that formula and what Godfrey has helped come to pass Ogden City will be trying to use eminent domain to seize property for a Wal-mart again and also to force Mike Moyal out of his property by the bridge on Washington.
Godfrey is actually telling developers that it will happen if he is Mayor and that it won't happen if he isn't re-elected.
If Susie wants a campaign issue she should seize on that issue immediately.
Godfrey should not be allowed to use eminent domain but he has been smart enough to allow Lesham and Peterson to control ownership of enough property in the areas he wants seized for them that it can happen.
Did you catch the letter in the SE this morning?
Still harping on the timing of Godfrey's father's unfortunate death and the filing/serving of the lawsuit. Dorothy has many exeptional qualities, but being clairvoyant and/or mean are not among them.
To the disengenuous "just being honest. I can only offer you one clue. Hansen got in the race because of his anger toward and dissatifaction with everything godfrey. Whether you choose to recognize, or your just trying to help the struggling lying little matty campain by suggesting the opposition splits their vote, take this as gospel. Hansen will be casting his vote for Susan Van Hooser, no doubt about that.
Is this Zingerboy trying his best to help lying little matty?
L Know"
This is a must for Susie to bring to the public's attention.
It's also something for you to write to the SE citing Bramble's eminent domain grab by consensus.
Porter won't print anything that isn't 'verifiable'.
Susie just needs cards with her talking points on them to counter all the lies and braggacio from this little unpleasant person.
Mernie:
You may be aware that a woman living with or associated with an abuser is always in greatest danger when pregnant.
I know:
This is all rumor. If you can find businessmen who heard the mayor say that and are willing to go on the record with it, if you have some documentation of the option transfers, etc. But absent businessmen who heard him say it willing to say so, and absent documentation of the transfers, it's all just rumor for campaign purposes.
Some of the residents in the area that Ogden wanted to use eminent domain to seize for a Wal-mart in 2004 are girding up for another battle because rumors are that the Mayor is talking about a Wal-mart again.
He has a one track mind about a Wal-mart just like he had about bringing Ernest Health to town.
Ernest Health is one issue Susie could latch onto if she dug into old Council meeting files and records to get to know the true facts on that Godfrey scheme.
Why is Ernest Health going to pay the price for their acreage that it was originally offered for in 2004 when the 2007 value has increased tremendously?
The Ogden City Council was sure asleep on letting that one slide through with their approval.
curmudgeon -
you don't know much about the law.
If a businessman has a court case in the offing he can't make speeches to help any candidate because he jeopardizes his own case.
A City Council person is the obvious person to ask for and get copies of the land deal options.
And if she is refused that information that gives her that much more ammo for her campaign.
I don't think you have ever played the Practical Politics game.
It is very obvious to me that certain persons that have served on the Council for years - like Jesse Garcia - are a gold mine of information for Susie.
In fact, Jesse took on Godfrey in a run for Mayor if I remember correctly.
Susie, you have to come up with your own facts.
DO NOT TAKE THEM FROM ARTICLES IN THE STANDARD EXAMINER. UNLESS IT WAS AN ARTICLE DONE BY CATHY MCKITTRICK WHEN SHE WAS THE REPORTER FOR OGDEN CITY HALL.
For all those on the blog, I know Neil Hansen very well and he will not do anything that will up set what is going on in the balloting process.
He is of the highest morals and Bill when he ran he did not do it out of anger but out of what is the best for the community. This is his motivation and always will be his motivation.
So those of you that want him on your side what is your plan to help him in his motivation. Which is what will you do to make this a better community?
This is why I like Neil Hansen and is a good friend of mine.
Liz:
Oh, I've played the game a time or two. "I Know" posted this:
Ogden City will be trying to use eminent domain to seize property for a Wal-mart again... Godfrey is actually telling developers that it will happen if he is Mayor and that it won't happen if he isn't re-elected.
If no one is willing to stand up and say "Yes, Mayor Godfrey said, in a room full of people, that he intends to use eminent domain to sieze enough private property to in downtown Ogden to build a Wal Mart if he's re-elected," then it's just rumor. Unless and until somebody stands up and goes on the record. No way round that, really.
As for the options rumors, again, unless someone comes up with some documentation, it too is all just rumor. Lots of theories about who should know, who should ask, who should tell, etc. Theories don't matter much three weeks out from an election. For the issue to resonate with undecideds, somebody has to provide some evidence. Not "I talked to somebody who said they knew somebody who thinks that...." Evidence. Documentation. Then maybe we'll have a issue on the table someplace other than the blog. Not until then.
Follow the example, I should have elaborated a little more. Yes, Neil was doing what he thought was best for the community, and continues to do so. But don't kid yourself, lying little matty has done so much for all of Ogden to be angry about, and this communal anger was at it height at the time Neil put in.
If you need a recap of things to be angry over search these archives to refresh your memory.
Again, I concur, Neil is a good honorable man, he has the best interest of the community at heart, which can only lead one to anger at lying little matty. His dishonestey alone is an embarrasment to eveybody living in Ogden.
I too am proud to state that Neil is a freind of mine.
Rudi sez:
Godfrey is a Political Dead Man Walking.
I want to lend further support to this view.
I was out to dinner with a friend (on Historic 25th Street, natch) when this friend got a phone call.
First, a Godfrey supporter called to ask whether my friend would support the Mayor in the upcoming election.
When the friend made some pointed remarks about the administration, she said, "I'll have the mayor call you."
He thought, "yeah, right" but sure enough, about a half-hour later, the mayor did call.
They talked for some time.
Would the mayor waste his time doing this if he were confident about the outcome? I think not.
Good Old (?) Curmudgeon:
Yeah, I know typing Zinger-loving Chapman, Jay Cavendish, THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE, and Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, and Potato Nose and onion-reeking won't help anything. But neither will your laborious, passive, haughty lectures; get over yourself! Your screeds of fairness do nothing either, and at least I can make myself and maybe one of my miscreant friends laugh. God, you are insufferable in your self-importance!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
Way up above in this thread, before the debate, I posted something about how the mayor controls Channel 17.
Well, today when I heard the debate was airing on Channel 17, I called up the fellow in charge of the programming. We had a nice conversation and I learned a lot.
This guy is an independent contractor for the city and has lost a lot of money on the Channel 17 programming so far. He said that he's the one who went to the administration back in July and told them that with the campaign season on, he wasn't going to air any programming from the administration that was even remotely political in nature. However, they did agree, at that time, that he could air any debates that were held. He said that's the last time he communicated with the administration about the debates. When he heard about the WSU debate a few days ago he decided to go ahead and tape it. (So the mayor knew in advance that the debate would probably be taped and aired on Channel 17; I've heard that Van Hooser had no advance knowledge of this.) The programming guy is the one who now decides when the debate airs. He says he absolutely wouldn't do any editing, and there has been no attempt by the administration to control when, or how often, he shows it.
So I pressed him a bit, and asked what would happen, hypothetically, if the mayor was unhappy with the way the debate went and decided he wanted it pulled from Channel 17. He (the contractor) didn't seem to have thought that through, and eventually admitted that the mayor could probably have it pulled if he wanted, but he thought that was very unlikely to happen. Personally, I think the mayor could find a way to make it happen if he wanted. He would probably get the city attorney to take the blame, with some story about how the debate is political programming which isn't allowed. Hypothetically.
I also asked the guy about all the pro-gondola programming that I've heard about. (I've never actually watched Channel 17 myself since I don't even own a television, much less subscribe to cable.) He defended that by saying it was all "positive" about Ogden. Apparently he believes that as long as a legislative lobbying effort has a sufficiently positive tone, it's ok. I got the impression that he hadn't thought this through either. He also claimed that he once offered the "other side" a chance to discuss the gondola issue on Channel 17, and they refused. When I asked whom he was talking about, he named a particular city council member. I pointed out to him that this councilmember was in no way a spokesperson for the "other side" and he should instead have contacted someone from Smart Growth Ogden (for example). He then offered the excuse that he doesn't have the resources to go around town searching for people to appear on the programs.
(Incidentally, the mayor told me personally, in May 2006, that it would not be possible for the "other side" of the gondola debate, or of any other issue, to appear on Channel 17 because the station could only be used to present the city's viewpoint. He did, however, challenge me to a debate on Channel 17. I agreed in principle but asked him to provide me with some factual information about the gondola first. I'm still waiting for him to provide this information.)
Finally, we discussed the possibility of airing city council meetings on Channel 17. The contractor said he's not interested in doing that routinely, because it would use up a lot of his time and be boring to watch and he's trying to attract more viewers and even sponsors so he won't lose so much money on the venture. But he said if there was a particularly important council meeting he would be happy to show it on a one-time basis.
So, there you have it: Channel 17 explained by the guy who knows it best. Makes me wonder why I don't pick up the phone more often and just call the people who know about things, rather than speculating on and on...
Ok, I've watched a bit of the debate and I caught one thing that nobody seems to have mentioned above: The mayor is definitely leaving open the possibility that WSU might sell its land to Peterson. So that part of the deal is most certainly NOT off the table. Expect the pressure on WSU to come back, in full force, if Godfrey wins on November 6.
Dan:
I personally spoke with a member of the state Board of Regents, and Wayne Peterson and his famed Squirrel Patrol have no chance -- and never had a chance -- of getting that land. Godfrey is posturing to save face among his THE GONDOLA freak constituency (read: onoin-reeking Geigers) that makes phone calls for him. In effect, the conversation turned to: "Godfrey's Gondola is the state's laughingstock; he is without a doubt the only mayor of that size of a city with the least clout. He couldn't get a gnat to move off a [legislator's] shoulder."
Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey has no muscle to flex, litterally or figuratively.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Dan said:
I caught one thing that nobody seems to have mentioned above: The mayor is definitely leaving open the possibility that WSU might sell its land to Peterson.
The other thing I thought was strange was that first he said he doesn't tell WSU what to do, then he said (near the end, in response to a student question) that he would force WSU to build more parking lots. This comment met with thunderous applause, because he was really playing to the crowd.
The verb was not "force", as I recall, but it was something almost as strong. Maybe someone can find it and remind me what the exact quote was.
For a man who claims to have a warm, fuzzy relationship with WSU (heck, he sits on committees! You can't get any warmer and fuzzier than that!) he sure has a strange way of showing it.
Good editorial in today's SL Trib. Here's the closing graph:
Folks, if you want your government back - if you want your lawmakers to do your bidding instead of catering to the companies and organizations that hire lobbyists - you'd better start lobbying for a law that makes it illegal for legislators to accept gifts. Because next year, the NCSL summit is slated for Louisiana, where the shrimp is spicy, the Cajuns are cooking, and the lobbyists are ready and willing to pick up the tab. Lobbyists put bibs on lawmakers as a way to gain access. They're buying influence and face-time, and legislators are selling.
Lobbyists tying bibs on Utah legislators. Calls up a whole new image of the Wingnut Troika [Bramble, Curtis and Buttars]. High-chairs and all. Seems fitting....
This is a plea for help! I am nto computer smart....I want to dump this anonymour name and give myself a real name BUT....I can not figure out hwo to do it. I used to have a name but it won't work anymore.......
There is a culture of corruption sweeping across America with our elected officials and lobbyists here in Weber County.
On Jan. 31, 2006 the Weber County Commission voted to merge the recorder’s office with the surveyor’s office. The Commission was elected to protect our constitution and bill of rights, our democracy. This is why our country and our soldiers are fighting and dying?
The office of County Recorder and County Surveyor serve as a check and balance to hold each other accountable to protect our rights and property.
The commission has been quoted as saying that this merge would save the county $150 thousand to $200 thousand a year. Not long ago our taxes were raised by nearly 30%, and now lobbyists are hired by the republican commissioners at $ 600 thousand for a 5 year budget; to do a job that is the elected official’s responsibility.
We elect state legislators and U.S. representatives to petition the state and federal government in our behalf. By using those resources and not paying lobbyist we could have kept the County Recorder and County Surveyor office’s separate.
The commission was also quoted as saying there are 10 counties in Utah that have these positions combined, but those are the 10 smallest counties and Weber County is one of the largest of 29 counties.
The whole conceived idea of merging these offices together is to cover up alleged illegal activities in the Recorder’s office? Where is the investigation to resolve the land dispute?
Now that these offices have merged, it lessens transparency, and opens up the door wide open, for corruption in government….
$429 million over the next thirteen years?
Ok. Anybody who is against higher taxes ought to really seriously consider how they vote on the voucher issue on November 6.
The voucher program, if passed, is expected to cost Utah Taxpayers $429 million over the next thirteen years. And yes, pro-voucher people, you are correct when you say that this money is not coming from the Education fund... it is coming from the General fund.. the very fund which pays for things like my husband's salary and our family's health insurance and other important things like road maintenance and prisons. It makes my hair stand on end when I see Utah Lawmakers willing to pour $429 million dollars into a secondary education system when many of Utah's state employees and teachers are making lower wages than their counterparts in other states. But I digress.
Utah has been forunate to be in a "time of plenty" the past few years, with unforseen budget surplusses that have given our lawmakers opportunities to really do the right thing for a lot of Utah public services. Utah's economy has been *booming* and our population is growing, which has contributed to Utah's coffers being brimming with bucks. We can only hope this trend continues for many years to come.
But what if it doesn't? What happens if the recent downturn in the real estate market and the mortgage lending industry starts to affect our economy here in Utah? What happens if in places like Iron County, wages don't keep up with national trends and people decide to leave Utah instead of come here?
Heaven forbid such a thing... but what if does? What happens to all of the families in Utah who use a voucher to pay for their kids private schools? If indeed this government program is supposed to help them, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the state of Utah to discontinue a voucher program, no matter how tight things get. In such a scenario, the only answers would be to raise taxes or watch our lawmakers make major cuts to other vital programs in our state so that the voucher program could be sustained.
And to those who think they are getting some "Credit" in their taxes by sending their kids to a private school with the use of a voucher also need to take a look at what it really means -- they won't see any decrease in their income taxes or their property taxes, which all goes to support public education. So your income taxes will remain the same, your property taxes will continue to rise, and you will be forced to pay for vouchers through the other taxes that you pay just because you live in the state. And those of us in rural Utah will continue paying for other people's kids to go to private schools and we'll never have the benefit of doing the same.
So think very carefully. Do the taxpayers really want to sustain a two-tiered education program? Are we willing to do the hard thing if times get tough?
I think Utah ought to do the conservative thing and be leary of paying for a government-sponsored, tax-payer funded private education system that may not be able to sustain itself through the long haul.
Dem:
Oh, the ironies of the Republicans having foisted a "businessman" [if you can call someone who has Daddy's millionaire friends bail him out of his repeated business failures a "businessman"] as president on us just keep getting better and better. Remember how we heard that having the Country run by a CEO would generate all kinds of efficiency and end years of Democratic "government waste." Uh huh.
This from Time Magazine:
American troops in Iraq have become masters of improvisation, like bolting jury-rigged armor to humvees to shield themselves from sniper fire and shrapnel. Lately, an even more novel item has joined their battle kits. Stratford, N.J., mom Marcelle Shriver recently got a call from her son Todd requesting ... Silly String. Marines working with his unit in Iraq had shown the Army combat engineer how it can be used to detect trip wires. Before searching buildings, for example, personnel spray doorways from at least 10 ft. away with streams of foam--and see if they're snagged by barely visible wires, which are often affixed to bombs. The Army acknowledges the off-label use, and Marine spokesman Captain Jay Delarosa says, "We force Marine trainees to improvise."
Two points to note: (a) five years into this war, and the Bush administration still has not been able to deliver the number of up-armored Humvees American troops need to the battle zone.
And(b)the troops themselves, not the DOD, discovered Silly String as a counter-measure against booby traps. The CEO Republican President's solution would have been something like this: a federally-funded research design project entitled "Portable Pedal-Triggered Improvised Explosive Device Pre-Ignition Interdiction System Design Initiative." Thirty, forty million should do it. Awarded on a non-competitive basis, of course, to Halliburton Corp. Which, in two or three years [with supplemental grants to cover cost overruns] will come up with something that won't work as well as Silly String, but will cost the DOD $3456.72 a can.
The final irony? The GI's mom got cartons of Silly String, but could not afford to send it to her son's unit. [Aerosol cans are technically "haz mat" products and are costly to ship.] The DOD wouldn't do it. News today is that finally, after weeks of delay, she's found a shipper willing to do it.
Sure are glad we have a Republican CEO as President. Much more efficient that way.
Tis enough to gag a maggot....
Post a Comment