And a few words about an ill-timed post council meeting event
Tonight's the night gentle readers. Tonight's 6:00 p.m. city council agenda includes approval of the long awaited Mt. Ogden Community Plan. This document, which will be incorporated into Ogden City's General Plan, marks an important milestone in planning for the future of this important Emerald City east bench neighborhood.
Among other things, this plan, which we assume will be adopted tonight, includes protection of our "crown jewel" Mt. Ogden Parklands, and will present in the future a legal deterrent to the efforts of ambitious developers, who would like nothing more than to pave over our open space in asphalt, and cover it with cookie-cutter McMansions.
Approval of this plan, which will be the culmination of thousands of hours of citizen involvement, is a cause for celebration in our community, We therefore hope all community-minded citizens will be in attendance, to pat each other on the back, and congratulate themselves for a job well done.
Unlike many meetings in the past, we won't be recommending the usual stage props of pitchforks and torches, but rather suggest bottles of sparking cider and party hats.
Unfortunately for at least one council member and the mayor, there won't be much time for post-meeting celebration, due to a potentially conflicting event. For reasons which are not entirely clear to us, several non-profit volunteer groups in Ogden have scheduled a 7:30 p.m. mayoral election oriented "meet the candidate’s night," at the Bertha Eccles Art Center, a mere 1-1/2 hours following council chairman Garcia's opening gavel.
Somewhere along the line this event has strangely morphed into a purported "debate," -- at least that was the terminology used in yesterday's Standard-Examiner announcement. And in that connection we link here the written rules and format of tonight's post council meeting event, which should make it clear that this will be conducted in the format of a "question and answer session," and not formal candidate debate.
Last night in the lower article comments section, one not-so-gentle reader (a Godfreyite, no doubt) breathlessly announced that mayoral candidate Van Hooser had "backed out of" tonight's "debate." This launched a short flurry of accusatory comments directed at Van Hooser.
Accordingly, we contacted the Van Hooser organization last night, and received assurances that candidate Van Hooser will indeed appear at the "meet the candidates" event as planned -- directly after the scheduled council meeting adjourns. According to Van Hooser campaign sources, this was the original agreement made with the event promoters.
What's important for our readers to understand regarding this latter event, gentle readers, is that Ms. Van Hooser, unlike her opponent the mayor, considers attendance at council meetings to be her primary obligation. Whereas Ms. Van Hooser's council attendance has been near perfect during the past two months, Boss Godfrey has reportedly attended a grand total of one council meeting during the same period, according to sources outside the Van Hooser organization. Our mayor, it would seem, has his priorities reversed, and shows no hesitation in "blowing off" his legally-mandatory attendance at council meetings, while he's pursuing what he seems to consider his primary obligation -- campaigning.
In saying this, we do hope that Mayor Godfrey will find the time this evening to attend the council meeting, even though he probably doesn't consider the adoption of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan to be "his" victory. Perhaps, though, he and Ms. Van Hooser can car-pool over to the Bertha Eccles Arts Center after the council meeting adjourns, yes?
And as an off-topic aside, we link to this brief Curmudgeon submission, which provides a light-hearted yet pithy discussion of today's excellent Std-Ex Op-ed piece.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
47 comments:
The Jim Hutchins column today that is mentioned in Curm's notes is a great one.
All readers be sure to click here.
Golly. Here's another case of all the data saying Godfrey is untruthful. And Dr. Hutchins is a very credible writer who has made his point well.
It is sad what Godfrey has become and what he does to serve his ends.
Thanks, Danny. We'd inadvertantly neglected posting the article link to the main page, an omission that we've now corrected.
Crime, debt, transportation, you name it, lying little matty truely lives up to his name. He must just be a bonafide pathelogical liar.
Thanks for the kind words (so far).
I am waiting for a response (and I use the term loosely) from the Godfrey Administration.
As you can see, I have tried everything I can to get them to take this discrepancy seriously, and the Op-Ed seemed to be the only way to get their attention.
I'm not planning on converting any dyed-in-the-wool gondolistas, because they don't much care about facts anyway.
I hope to sway a handful of undecided voters.
In that regard, our poster from this weekend, Ben Lomond, should perhaps weigh in with his thoughts on the article.
I'm interested in how the piece will play with the three undecided voters in the race.
Jim,
I very much doubt that your column will change the mind of Ben Lomond--not because BL is closed-minded, but because he(?) has already acknowledged the mayor's faults.
BL is looking for positive qualities in Van Hooser--especially an indication that she supports the outdoor industry and associated events and promotions. I think it's understandable that she hasn't made this a major campaign issue, because it isn't an issue that distinguishes her from the incumbent. Nevertheless, I think BL will find what he's looking for if he looks just a little harder.
Jim,
Well done, neighbor! A sometimes baffling train of thot to fathom for the casual reader, but you have presented the facts so succintly that anyone can realize how disengenuous Godfrey is!
Thank you.
Dan, I hope we can all attend the Council meeting tonite and then go the "Meet the Candidates" also. Perhaps with the right questions lobbed at SVH, she will be prepared to lay it on the line and tell us her platform.
Curm...you'll be on the SE's editorial board in no time. Kudos.
Sharon:
Your wrote: "You'll be on the SE's editorial board in no time. Kudos."
I wouldn't bet the money for the baby's new shoes on that one, Sharon. But thanks for the compliment. [grin]
News flash! In an apparent reaction to today's commentary by Hutchins, the Gondfrey campai.. uh, administration has posted a new document at the very top of the Ogden City home page. This document gives much more detail on the suspect Godfrey crime statistics than has been released previously.
For example, the new document gives the following breakdown of violent crime incidents in 2006: 2 murders, 30 rapes, 55 robberies, and 203 aggravated assaults.
For comparison, the FBI says there were 2 murders, 37 rapes, 123 robberies, and 253 aggravated assaults in Ogden in 2006.
And the Utah BCI has still higher numbers: 2 murders, 42 rapes, 132 robberies, and 298 aggravated assaults.
The statistics for robbery are especially dramatic. According to this new document, there about a hundred (between 93 and 138) robberies in Ogden every year from 1992 through 2004. Then, in 2005, the number suddenly plummeted to only 35. One has to wonder about the cause of this phenomenal decrease. What changed in Ogden between 2004 and 2005? Could it be that robbers are especially deterred by rumors of gondolas? And if so, why is there no similar effect on murderers or rapists?
Statistics aside, who in Ogden feels safer now than they did before Godfrey became Mayor? I know that I don't. How ironic was it that the Mayor was going around town touting the fact that he had reduced crime when Ogden was in the midst of shootings and killings. What has he done in regards to public safety besides sit around and spun some numbers?
Thanks for the update, Dan.
So Godfrey is now using city resources to promote his own re-election campaign.
This data belongs on his campaign website, and NOT one a taxpayer funded site.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?
Althepal:
You wrote: "So Godfrey is now using city resources to promote his own re-election campaign. This data belongs on his campaign website, and NOT one a taxpayer funded site."
Exactly right. When I occasionally note, as I have, that the Mayor has a weak grasp of what ethical conduct requires of a public official, this is precisely the kind of thing I mean. No honorable Mayor would do this. It belongs, as you note, on his campaign website, not on the city's home page.
The mayor is running scared, Althepal. Very scared. What he's just done is still more evidence of how scared he is. He should be. When last he asked the voters for another term, in the primary, sixty percent of them said "No!"
Al,
Just wait a few days and the new Godfrey crime numbers will miraculously appear in the Standard Examiner's City happenings page. Paid for with OUR tax dollars, no less.
Seems to me that this is NOT one of the privileges of an incumbent and one with ethics wouldn't be doing it. If the page is provided as a public service by the SE, they should have the right to monitor its content and refuse to accept such blatant electioneering.
While I agree that sparkling cider and party hats are appropriate tonight, my pitchfork and torch are kept at the ready for future use.
althepal,
Godfrey has been using city resources for his campaign for months. Just look at the bragging he does in the city's utility bill inserts and monthly newspaper ads, not to mention the web site. I've also heard from multiple sources that John Patterson is doing a lot of campaigning for Godfrey--though I don't know whether he does it from home or his office.
Curmudgeon would probably say that all this is within the bounds of incumbent privileges. (Oops! Hi Curm! I see that you didn't.) I'm much more bothered by it, but I haven't thought carefully about exactly where the line should be drawn.
Obviously Godfrey isn't scoring enough traffic on his own website, so now he's pulling out all the stops.
Godfrey's in house motto: "Do it. We'll worry about the legalities later."
And consider the timing. The newly revised home page was altered within hours of the publication of today's Dr. Hutchins' politically devastating article.
These data might be appropriately posted to the Ogden Police Department pages, assuming they might be subject to appropriate citizen critique, but posting this jury-rigged information at the top of the city's home page is W-A-A-A-Y over the top.
This misconduct is over the line. It's not even near the "gray" area. It's not even in the ethical ballpark.
I truly hope Van Hooser's campaign has the wisdom to "make hay" with this.
Godfrey's ethical principles are truly reptilian.
God only knows what this ethically challenged man will pull within the next 13 days, to claw his way into another four-year run at the taxpayers' pocketbooks
Was the hearing before Judge West today on Dorothy Littrell's suit? What were the results???
Godfrey doesn't have to worry about the legality of it. the judge ruled that the Dorothy law suit is a no go and I wonder what law book he was looking at. I guess that the system is broke and all the kings horses and all the kings men will not put the egg back together again.
Jim and Dan,
I think my stand is pretty clear. I'm mocked here because my of enthusiasm for the pursuit of the outdoor industry. My stand is dismissed as being trivial. I'm "taught" by name-calling posters that there are more important things than outdoor sports...implying that "fun" is more important to me than honesty, ethics, crime reduction, infrastructure, etc.
I'm deeply disturbed by crime in this city. I was a victim of it last night. Police have been called and still haven't shown up.
This forum debates whether CCTV cameras or more officers are the best solution, and seem stunned that a politician twists numbers to support his position on an issue...haven't you read Bush and the neo-cons in this state? We're winning in Iraq and taking money from public schools for vouchers actually puts money into school. [sarcasm]. Is Godfrey really the first politician that has lied to readers of this forum? Do they really expect different from political figures? If so, they're in for a long road of disappointment. Not justifying lying politicians, just calling a spade a spade. Again, "don't hate the player...hate the game."
While those debates rage here, I hold on to my vision of what the outdoor industry can do for virtually all of the issues that face Ogden. While you debate cameras versus cops, I push for the infusion of a better class of people. More good guys means fewer bad guys. That's my proposal to reduce crime.
As I've said in other posts, give me outdoor junkies over gang bangers any day.
No one seems to ever address my fundamental argument...that outdoor industry employees and enthusiasts are very vocal advocates for so many of the issues at play here...sustainability, safe and walkable communities, etc. The more we have here, the better it will be for Ogden. They are voters who give a damn about good water systems, good schools, etc. As opposed to non-voters who are more concerned with cheap rent.
The reason I give Godfrey a little slack is that the boy has a tiger by the tail with the outdoor industry. He just doesn't know it. The outdoor industry is NOT Curt Geiger. Godfrey's aggressivness in courting the outdoor industry is only filling the town with people who will crush things like Wal-Mart, golf course sales, poorly conceived transit, dishonest government, etc. The tactics he's used that we all oppose won't fly with that crowd.
I'm still looking for Van Hooser to tell me what relevance she gives the outdoor crowd. Call my idea a utopian fantasy, but it's no moreso than believing in a world where politicians don't twist numbers or take credit that doesn't belong to them or make shady deals.
Ben:
You wrote: No one seems to ever address my fundamental argument...that outdoor industry employees and enthusiasts are very vocal advocates for so many of the issues at play here...sustainability, safe and walkable communities, etc. The more we have here, the better it will be for Ogden. They are voters who give a damn about good water systems, good schools, etc.
Not sure what you expect by way of refutation, since what you've written seems sensible, straight forward and I'm hard put to see why anyone would argue with it. The points of contention are not over what you've written above, but over whether the outdoors industries are enough, by themselves, to drive in Ogden the kind of changes you, me, all of us --- well, most of us --- would like to see here, under the continuing practices of the Godfrey Administration. I think not, but then, I'm a VH supporter. That's partly why.
As for the outdoors industries being a solution to the crime problem: well, that seems a reach. I can think of much "greener" towns than Ogden [culturally speaking] with a much higher average income than exists here [Boulder, for example, since it seems to be the poster-boy town for green-growth] and it has crime and drug problems too. Not sure there is a one-size-fits-all panacea. Nor will we, or any town, reach the golden shore on this issue, so long as we remain embedded in the larger American culture with its crime and drug problems. [SL Trib reports crack cocaine is re-emerging as a common street drug in downtown SL after an absence of nearly a decade.] We're all swimming in the same sea on this, I'm afraid, Ben.
As for Ms. Van H. on the outdoors industries, you ask for reassurances. Let me turn that around on you. Do you know of any reason to doubt? I don't, but then, I've talked to her across a table, maybe, more than you have. But it'd be interesting to know if you have some reason to think she'd somehow oppose or fail to pursue more such firms for Ogden when she wins, or if you just are looking for some positive assurance? Which is it?
Ben,
I too am optimistic that the outdoor types coming into town will improve our quality of life and push the mayor (whether Godfrey or Van Hooser) to do a lot of good things. But if Godfrey is reelected, there's gonna be a race between the good guys and the bad guys to get control over Ogden's assets (urban properties, revenue streams, wilderness). The results will inevitably be mixed. I'm convinced that if Van Hooser is reelected, the results will be better.
For example, suppose that Godfrey is reelected and the transportation sales tax increase passes. What transit project will Ogden put forward to receive a portion of that tax? The transit experts have recommended a streetcar to WSU and McKay-Dee Hospital. This is where the money will go farthest because we can get federal matching funds. Godfrey has made it clear he won't let that project be built, so we'd end up spending the money on a gondola, or on a little streetcar circulating around downtown, or maybe on nothing at all (letting all the money be spent on highways). And once we've committed to one of these options, it'll be too late to change our minds for many, many years. That scares me.
You may be right about how people will beat Godfrey down when he proposes bad things. But he can also stand in the way of good things happening. He's been blocking progress on the streetcar for well over two years now.
Van Hooser hasn't committed herself to the streetcar the way Godfrey has committed to the gondola. But she does think we should do some more studies to resolve the unanswered questions about costs and right-of-way impacts. Then, if it still looks like a good thing for Ogden, I'm sure she'll be for it. She's rational and she listens. Godfrey doesn't listen because he thinks he already has all the answers.
How do you define a "better class of people", Ben? Because they wear Descente, are they above breaking the law? That label hasn't helped Bobby and sign stealing, has it?
Curm,
I realize that the complex challenges of a community like Ogden will never be solved by a single industry any more than than they will by a single politician. I put my emphasis on what I think an industry can contribute. Many readers here here put their emphasis what they think a single mayor can contribute.
I realize that crime is going to exist in Ogden regardless of how many outdoor industry companies move here. But I also realize that the theft that occurred in my driveway last night has absolutely nothing to do with Godfrey (this is where the flamers jump in and say they're fairly certain they saw Godfrey and Geiger riding down the road on a Segway with a portable DVD player and my wife's purse), and there isn't a single thing Van Hooser could have done differently to stop it aside from sleeping in my car every night as my own personal security guard. The tone of many on this forum is that crime in Ogden is the fault of one man. Why is my suggestion that the people attracted by one industry could affect crime levels any more ridiculous than the suggestion that a Van Hooser mayorship could do the same?
I'm not accusing Ms. Van Hooser of anything but a lack of readily accessible information on what her stand is on "my" issue. My reasons for doubting have been ridiculed here as well. Her mispronunciation of "Goodie" for Goode during the WSU debate made me sit up. I allowed that it could have been the stress of the debate environment that caused a simple mispronunciation, but I also put forth the concern that it was indicative of a fundamental disconnect between a would-be mayor and an industry that has already begun to contribute positively to Ogden.
Van Hooser supporters lining up in her defense calling Mike Dowse a "butt kissing S.O.B." and dismissing Goode as a rinky-dink company despite their being the world's largest manufacturer of composite ski poles and the dominant force in professional waterskiing doesn't help. I know the nature of internet forums, but this place gets a bit out of hand at times, I'm sure you'll admit.
I'm sure Susie is a bright woman and can learn the players in the outdoor industry, but will momentum be lost while she gets up to speed and will she ever have a real passion for it anyway? And, yes, I am looking for some positive assurance that she sees relevance in the efforts of what Godfrey has begun in this area. So much of her campaign seems to center on "I'm not Matt" that I fear her first 90 days may be an effort to galvanize her supporters by doing everything the opposite of Godfrey. In some cases, she'd have my support. Just not on this issue, because as I've said, I believe it reaches beyond a race, rail jam or a trail.
I'll be in attendance at tonight's "Meet the Candidate" event (all of you identity guessers can show up and scan the crowd to figure out who Ben Lomond really is), and I'll see how Ms. Van Hooser comes down on the issues that are designated as the categories for questioning. I'll let you know if she assures me or not.
Let's see, more ski bums equals fewer gang bangers? Is that the basic equation being put forth by Ben? I don't see how that makes any sense at all. It is not like we will lose one gangster for every new ski employee that moves to town, is it? I don't think that any one is seriously promoting that idea, are they? Are the Godfrey gang (a virtual crime wave themselves) promoting some sort of exchange program here? OK Portland, you give me one skier and I will give you one dope dealer!
I like most of what you are writing about Ben, but common man, are you really serious when you propose that filling up the town with ski employees will some how reduce the number of gangs? It will probably have just the opposite effect as there will be a more available victims - and customers for the drug peddlers.
Curm,
I realize that the complex challenges of a community like Ogden will never be solved by a single industry any more than than they will by a single politician. I put my emphasis on what I think an industry can contribute. Many readers here here put their emphasis what they think a single mayor can contribute.
I realize that crime is going to exist in Ogden regardless of how many outdoor industry companies move here. But I also realize that the theft that occurred in my driveway last night has absolutely nothing to do with Godfrey (this is where the flamers jump in and say they're fairly certain they saw Godfrey and Geiger riding down the road on a Segway with a portable DVD player and my wife's purse), and there isn't a single thing Van Hooser could have done differently to stop it aside from sleeping in my car every night as my own personal security guard. The tone of many on this forum is that crime in Ogden is the fault of one man. Why is my suggestion that the people attracted by one industry could affect crime levels any more ridiculous than the suggestion that a Van Hooser mayorship could do the same?
I'm not accusing Ms. Van Hooser of anything but a lack of readily accessible information on what her stand is on "my" issue. My reasons for doubting have been ridiculed here as well. Her mispronunciation of "Goodie" for Goode during the WSU debate made me sit up. I allowed that it could have been the stress of the debate environment that caused a simple mispronunciation, but I also put forth the concern that it was indicative of a fundamental disconnect between a would-be mayor and an industry that has already begun to contribute positively to Ogden.
Van Hooser supporters lining up in her defense calling Mike Dowse a "butt kissing S.O.B." and dismissing Goode as a rinky-dink company despite their being the world's largest manufacturer of composite ski poles and the dominant force in professional waterskiing doesn't help. I know the nature of internet forums, but this place gets a bit out of hand at times, I'm sure you'll admit.
I'm sure Susie is a bright woman and can learn the players in the outdoor industry, but will momentum be lost while she gets up to speed and will she ever have a real passion for it anyway? And, yes, I am looking for some positive assurance that she sees relevance in the efforts of what Godfrey has begun in this area. So much of her campaign seems to center on "I'm not Matt" that I fear her first 90 days may be an effort to galvanize her supporters by doing everything the opposite of Godfrey. In some cases, she'd have my support. Just not on this issue, because as I've said, I believe it reaches beyond a race, rail jam or a trail.
I'll be in attendance at tonight's "Meet the Candidate" event (all of you identity guessers can show up and scan the crowd to figure out who Ben Lomond really is), and I'll see how Ms. Van Hooser comes down on the issues that are designated as the categories for questioning. I'll let you know if she assures me or not.
Ben:
I was away for the weekend and therefore unable to participate in any bashing. So, I'm coming at this fresh.
I appreciate what you are saying, but given my innate cynicism, I find it odd that I'm more hopeful than you.
I know that politicians lie. But I think there are different kinds of lies. We tell ourselves lies all the time, and often, we come to believe them. That's just being human.
But when you make stuff up to gain some sort of advantage, when you lie deliberately and with intent in order to gain some sort of advantage -- that's different, in my view. I don't think very many people -- politicians or not -- engage in that kind of lying.
It's the difference between getting confused on your expense account and embezzling millions from a foundation you're in control of.
I have spoken, on a number of occasions, with Godfrey Administration officials. Mayor Godfrey has made this 43% reduction in violent crime and a 21% reduction in total crime the centerpiece of his campaign. Yet, no one has bothered to check whether these numbers pass a smell test (see Dan's post above).
This cavalier disregard for data is a common feature of the Godfrey Administration. For example, in a letter to the editor several weeks ago, I pointed out that their gondola ridership figures were completely made up, inflated almost three times from the numbers in the Baker Study.
No one has been able to explain to me where these bad numbers come from. Over and over again, the Godfrey Administration uses bad data, or completely fabricated data, to make complex and critical policy decisions with far-reaching implications for the city.
Let's say you run a restaurant (just guessing, since I have no idea what kind of business person you are). You find an employee is tapping the till and juggling the evening receipts to cover their crime. Do you just say, "hey, food service workers are a bunch of liars," and let it go?
I think not.
I can't let this go because I see a pattern here. What many of us on WCF are insisting on is that data be used to drive policy decisions. In the Godfrey Administration, that concept has been turned on its head, and the policy decision is made, and the data fabricated to justify it.
I feel that's a recipe for disaster.
Ben:
Three points: first, no, having Ms. Van Hooser in office yesterday would not have prevented you from being robbed. Nor did Mayor Godfrey being in office prevent it. But one way to measure effectiveness of a mayoral administration vis-a-vis crime is overall statistics over time, compared to those of there comparable cities in the state. If your town is significantly above the state average for medium sized cities, your guy is not doing a particularly effective job. If it's below that average, he is. Not a perfect measure, I agree, but the best one we have overall. Which is why the Godfrey administration's oddly reporting better numbers than either the FBI or the BCI report for Ogden matters.
Second: you made a great deal about Ms. Van Hooser mispronouncing the name of one of the ski companies which has moved to Ogden. Since she has not dealt in an official capacity with the company as yet, seems not that significant to me. But if it bothers you, fair enough.
What bothers me more is the fact that at the recent Mt. Ogden High School community meeting on crime, the Mayor told the crowd Ogden had 160 police officers at work, and he bragged on his increasing the force while in office. Police Chief Greiner had to correct him the same night at the same meeting, pointing out there are in fact only 140 police employed. Much has been made of the fact that the Mayor thought there were 20 more police on the force than the Chief does. Normally, few would have made a whole lot of that kind of verbal gaffe but it's political season. Still, if were getting huffy about Ms. Van H. mispronouncing the name of a ski company, I guess we can get huffy about the Mayor over-stating the number of police on the streets of Ogden.
And if, this being political season, we're going to get all starchy about that kind of spoken muff from the podiums, I know which one would have me more concerned. It's not "Goodie."
And third. So, with all that pushed aside, for me on crime and particularly gang violence, it comes down to this: Mrs. Van Hooser on the Council has supported taking a broader approach to controlling gang violence than has the Mayor. The entire Council in fact has. The Mayor's recently announced initiative consists, it seems, of bringing the hammer down, zero tolerance, more than two gang members on the streets constitute criminal conduct, etc. The same approach that has been tried in Los Angeles and elsewhere for some years now and has not worked. The Council... with little cooperation from the Mayor council members tell me is contacting agencies and bringing in a broader range of countermeasures that looks to me more likely to have an impact, as the broader measures seem to have had elsewhere --- at least they've had better results than bring the hammer down zero tolerance policies. It's what one police chief called "getting smart on gangs instead of just getting tough on gangs."
Maybe, Ben, its a question of style. The Mayor's, on a variety of issues, has been "I have the light, the truth, and the way, and opposition to my ideas is illegitimate and not to be taken seriously." Think the sale of the parklands as an example. Or the stadium seating for the amphitheater. Similarly, the Council, knowing we have a massive federally imposed repair of water and sewer lines coming, opted... over the Mayor's objections... to get professionals in to study the water matter, and make recommendations, particularly about how to structure paying for it, and how to incorporate public input into the whole thing. The mayor said it was a waste of money, that he knew how it should all be done and didn't need any consultants or experts providing facts and research first. [An image of the final scenes of "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" just popped into mind: "Research? Research? We don' need no stinkin' research!"]
The Van Hooser style, displayed on the Council and at Council work sessions, seems to be "research and fact-gathering first, then conclusions and policy decisions." Godfrey seems more often to shoot from the hip, jump to conclusions without bothering to collect the facts first. Given the two styles, I think Ms. Van Hoosers is likelier to result in sound judgment and sound policy across the board, police and crime matters included, than is the Mayors.
In case anyone's interested, the SE has some detail on the Court's ruling today dismissing Ms. Littrell's lawsuit seeking to have the Mayor removed from the ballot. It's on the paper's free website, the Mid-Day Update, and can be found here.
There were a very large number of lies told by the Godfrey administration over the several years they pushed for the High Tech Rec Center. There were some outrageous numbers used to justify the $20 plus million dollar expenditure of public money to build it. The "study" used to justify the whole project was done by the Fat Cats and Golds people along with the Mayor's input. It was simply an exercise in fantasy. The mayor shot down and insulted every one who challenged the numbers and he and the council of the time steamrollered all opposition and built it anyway. Now the people of town are saddled with it and if you go down there and look it over you will see that it is failing. The opposition were right and the mayor was wrong. Unfortunately that does not matter because we will be paying for it anyway for the next forty years.
This is an extreme example of how the public can get into a very bad situation because of a politician's lies. I think what Mayor Godfrey has done to Ogden in the case is simply criminal.
I just got back from the Meet the Candidate forum for the Non-Prof's. And, I'm glad to say that Susie did fantastic.
I don't know if she re-assured Ben or not. But I can definitely say that Susie will be able to build on the momentum that currently exists within the city! Did you know that she has a degree in Outdoor Recreation! Where was that earlier in the campaign! Seems to me like not only does she understand the outdoor assests that this community has, but that she also understands the other issues that shape the long-term success of a community.
On another note, the question of the sale of any part of Mt. Ogden Park came up, and I was very disturbed by the Mayor's answer. Apparently it is not completely off the table.
Finially, where was chanel 17 tonight?????????? The mayor doesn't think a forum for our public non-prof's is worthy of public air-time?
Urbanite:
Were you perchance at the Council meeting beforehand? Do you know of the Mt. Ogden Community plan was adopted at tonight's meeting?
And was the press at tonights "meet the candidates" event?
Ditto on Susie..
Susie complimented the non profits on the contributions to the community in her opening speech, and Godfrey didnt give an ounce of recognition to them, it was it normal canned campaign speec, we, we, we,we,did all this and we are going to do all that.
I wanted to yak a couple of times.
But in all honesty, Susie out shined the Mayor.
Thanks for the brief report, Urbanite. If you or anyone else has the inclination to furnish us a writeup, pertaining either to the "candidates' night" event, or tonight's council session, we'll gladly upload it to our archive site and link it from today's article.
Sorry, I had a prior commitment that caused me to miss the council meeting. And no I didn't see any press there at all tonight!
Unfortunately my notes on the event are difficult to interperate and incomplete. But I know that the campaign was videotaping the event. We'll have to see if they will post it to the website.
I think the opening remarks spoke a great deal about each candidate. Susie talked about all of her involvement over the years in working with the Ogden Nature Center and the Weber Heritage Foundation. She also spoke about how much she and her family value all of Ogden's natural resources, and the combination of our unique setting with a great community of people that are dedicated to volunteering their time to alot of really important causes.
The Mayor opened up the same canned speech he gave at Weber State: Economic development, economic development, economic development. I think he forgot that the Chamber debate is tomorrow night. He didn't even say one word about non-profits in his entire itroduction.
It appears that Dorothy got her head handed to her by judge Baldwin today. It is really unfortunate that she filed this suit to begin with. It did nothing to further the campaign, and in fact became a distraction and made the legitimate opposition to Mayor Godfrey look foolish and petty. The over whelming majority of that opposition was opposed to this law suit, but was blamed for it anyway. I guess it is the "guilt by associations" thing at play.
I understand there were a number of people in the Godfrey opposition, and on this blog, that tried to talk her out of the suit before she filed. It was of course to no avail. Too bad that Dorothy is unable to take any advice, even from her own circle of friends and supporters.
I still admire Dorothy very much for her public stance against corruption in city government. I hope she learned something from this experience and will keep fighting for the little people.
If Judge Baldwin had correctly interpreted the ordinances, he would have censured Mansell and Williams...and Godfrey!
No mention of the 9 complaints Dorothy filed with Mansell seeking public information!
The little guy thinks he's invincible...a trait of a true sociopath. Baldwin just shored up Godfrey's inflated ego. Can it go any higher?
"Can it go any higher?"
By that do you mean can Dorothy appeal the judges decision? If that is the question, the answer if yes, of course she can appeal. That is a long and expensive process however, and the second question then becomes will Dorothy have the drive and desire to spend the money to do so?
I was surprised at the judge's ruling and attitude. Although I didn't think the courts would take the mayor off the ballot, I did not think the judge would be so militant against her for bringing the action. Judge Baldwin treated her and her co-plaintiffs with a lot of hostility. His accusing them of acting in bad faith seems like and act of judicial bad faith itself. I believe the judges actions brought discredit and shame to the court.
If the suit was so out of line as to deserve that kind of judicial rebuke, it seems it should be directed to the plaintiff's lawyer, not the plaintiffs. It also should be that lawyer who bears the costs of any appeals or sanctions that the judge threatened. That off course will never happen given the prevailing lack of integrity in the legal community.
If this case is appealed, I do hope that they wait until after the election so that it will not further detract from what is important in this contest.
Melvin:
And, sadly, the court ruling will be the big story tomorrow. Not Council action on the Coummunity plan, whatever it was. Not the meet the candidates forum. Several on the WCF and Ms. Van Hooser herself suggested right after the suit filed that it was ill-advised, ill-timed and not likely to prevail in court. Turns out, the judge decreed it ill-timed, ill-advised, and ruled that it would not prevail in court. Just as predicted.
Ms. Littrell has done some good work in the past, especially on government abuse of eminent domain, but in this instance, she and her co-plaintiffs would have been well advised to take the advice Susan Van Hooser offered them right at the start... the advice to withdraw the suit.
Now with this is finally resolved, [after it sucks the air out of the next two news cycles, that is] perhaps we can all get back to the campaign and the issues that ought to decide it.
How about that Law Suit? If the Republicans had it their way? The Republicans that sue the Republicans,would have to pay the loosing Republicans attorney fees.
Curm:
Great point above, on how we get all starchy about spoken muff from the podiums.
Here's one from last night's candidate forum: The mayor said the city has acquired 30 acres of open space around a new trail that connects neighborhoods to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The only new trail that fits his description is the Birdsong Trail between the end of Fillmore and Rainbow Gardens. The city has indeed acquired open space around this trail, but the amount is less than 8 acres, not 30 acres.
I knew this because when the Sierra Club criticized the mayor on the open space issue back in July, the paper quoted him saying that the city has acquired 60 acres of open space since he was first elected. I sent two emails asking where these 60 acres are located and received no reply. So I spent an hour or so clicking around the interactive maps on the county's web site, trying to find parcels of newly acquired city-owned open space. What I found didn't come anywhere close to 60 acres, but I did find the 8 acres around the Birdsong Trail. In recognition of this, the Sierra Club raised the mayor's grade on open space from an F to a D.
Susie did do better at the Non-profit discussion, but she also demonstrated no ideas with the exception of using channel 17 to promote the city, which she said repeatedly. Also, many times she failed to address the question aked of her.
Godfrey did seem to ingore the venue, stuck to his stump speech and continued to bank on his successes.
Will any attorneys on this list please comment on whether the East Bench parks and golf course are now truly safe from greedy hands?
OL:
Not an atty, but from a historical POV, it's pretty clearly established that no legislature can bind future legislatures. Any law passed can be repealed or amended. Ditto constitutional provisions. So it would seem impossible for the Mayor to place the land "forever" beyond the reach of development by some kind of restrictive covenant with himself. Any subsequent Mayor could change it. If it was done via ordinance, any subsequent Council could amend or repeal it.
As others have pointed out, about the best you can do is make the process a little longer and more difficult, requiring amended or repealed ordinances, amended city plans, etc. before anything can happen. And at each step, of course, opposition would have an opportunity to make itself felt. But I don't think anything can be so bound up by a government that it would bind all future governments from undoing it.
A private body donating lands to a public one might include some restrictions, saying for example, that if the city ever used the land for any purpose other than that for which it was being donated, title would return to the doners or their heirs. But even there, if the land would revert to being the private property of the heirs, who could then sell it or do whatever else they wished with it.
Nothing, I think, can be bound up in perpetuity by any public body.
Curm
In other words none of us, or anything we hold sacred, will ever truly be safe from the arrogant little bastard!
bonnie:
Or any other mayor or council disposed to sell it to developer cronies. The key to good government, as always, is to elect good ethical people, with sound ideas and a proper respect for the separation of powers and open government, so their ideas can be vetted, examined, and good decisions made. There is no substitute for that. We really do get the government we deserve, depressing as that is to realize.
"We" collectively, as a "free" society, do perhaps get the government we deserve. We, as individuals do not necessarily. People throughout history have been subjugated by governments they did not deserve. It is also debatable that we deserve a government made up of office holders that achieved their positions through disingenuous means, especially when there are no provisions to remove them from office other than the normal election cycle. Four years is a long time to endure under a politician that doesn't turn out to be what they advertised during the campaign.
Dr D:
I meant "we" in the sense of "We, the People..." as in the opening of the Constitution. I personally never get the government I deserve when Republicans are in the governor's seat, the White House, or a majority in any house of the Utah Legislature of the U.S. Congress. And I certainly deserve better.
But we do elect our governments, most of the time. Those of us who bother to show up and vote. And the still smaller number [yes, even where Democrats win] who not only show up to vote, but who have taken the time and trouble over the previous several years, to read up on, stay up on, current events and the issues.
But collectively, as a nation, the "we" of "we, the people" get what we put in office. God help us.
Curmudgeon
You obviously have a great handle on history, so maybe you can educate us on one point from your last post where you said "We, the People..." as in the opening of the Constitution".
In that context didn't "We, the people" mean us rich white guys that own land?
Ozboy:
Not quite. It meant in practical terms "adult white property owning males." That included many dirt farmers who were not rich at one end up to plantation lords, who were, at the other, plus some artisans and professionals in towns who owned city homes and shops. So while it was a very restrictive definition of who constituted "we the people" by modern standards, it was not quite as restrictive as your post suggested.
And there were minor exceptions here and there. Sometimes, in some northern states, blacks occasionally voted under the practice of "militia suffrage" [if you fought in the Revolution, you might be permitted to vote].
And in the election of 1800, the in-trouble Federalists discovered that the NJ constitution did not specifically forbid women from voting. So the Adams Federalists turned up on election day with their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and aunts in tow, and voted them all Federalist [over the outraged objection of the Jeffersonians]. Then of course, post election, they promptly changed the NJ Constitution to make sure such an appalling thing as women voting could never, ever happen in New Jersey again.
Post a Comment