Nearly two weeks post election, the Standard-Examiner finally gets around to reporting to the general public this morning a piece of highly election-relevant information which, if it had been reported in a timely manner prior to the election, might arguably have tipped the mayoral race in favor of defeated mayoral challenger Susan Van Hooser. At the very least, failure to timely report the matter contained therein deprived the Std-Ex's readership of full knowlege of the facts and issues surrounding the November 6 general election. We incorporate below the opening paragraphs from today's Top of Utah section story:
OGDEN — A local organization says a declaration signed by Mayor Matthew Godfrey will not permanently protect Mount Ogden Golf Course and an adjoining city-owned park from development.
Smart Growth Ogden said in a prepared statement it appreciates Godfrey’s “good intentions” but contends the declaration doesn’t guarantee the property will remain as open space.
"I hope the mayor is going to stand by his intent to ensure that the entire park complex, including the golf course, the undeveloped park land and open space, will be protected from development and saved for perpetual use by the general population of Ogden,” said Sandy Crosland, a member of Smart Growth. “Many people in Ogden decided to vote to re-elect him based on that promise and commitment.” [Emphasis added.]
As our gentle readers will recall, on or about October 25, 2007, Mayor Godfrey executed and recorded (ostensibly) a document entitled "Declaration of Covenents, Conditions and Restrictions for Mt. Ogden Park and Golf Course" (the "declaration" mentioned in the preceding Std-Ex paragraphs.)
Shortly thereafter, on or about November 1, 2007, members of Smart Growth Ogden published and circulated a document entitled "Mayor's Declaration Does Not Protect Park In Perpetuity," (the "prepared statement" mentioned in the preceding Std-Ex paragraphs.) We are informed by reliable sources that the Std-Ex was in possession of this document no later than November 1, a full four days prior to the election. The gist of the SGO document, of course, is that Boss Godfrey's "Declaration," isn't worth the paper it's printed upon.
Although the Std-Ex was in possession of Smart Growth Ogden's (SGO's)"prepared statement" well in advance of the November 6 election, the Std-Ex publisher saw fit to conceal and suppress this information until this very morning. In the interim between actual receipt of this document and the November 6 election, the Standard Examiner apparently did nothing to verify the information or confirm or rebut the opinions set forth therein. Until this very morning, the Std-Ex did not so much as mention it at all. This information was highly material to the 2007 mayor election; yet the Std-Ex saw fit to keep a lid on it until this morning, at which point it now becomes a mere historical footnote.
As Emerald City's sole general circulation newspaper, the Standard-Examiner occupies a position of trust in our community, with a solemn obligation to neutrally report all news which materially effects our community. This obligation is all the more important with respect to issues effecting our municipal elections, of course.
We believe the Standard-Examiner has grossly breached this obligation in connection with this matter. In its failure and refusal to report on this matter in a timely fashion, and in its active concealment of the issues contained within SGO's prepared statement, the Standard-Examiner has let down our entire community, and revealed itself as a publication entirely unworthy of our trust.
The Std-Ex writes a new chapter on the topic of bad journalism this morning, with this self-revealed abuse of its journalistic privilege.
Shame on the Standard-Examiner.
Shame on the carpet-bagging "Suits from Sandusky."
50 comments:
Would you have considered anything less from the SE. It is just like all the lackeys that were so passionate about getting Godfrey re-elected - you all know who i'm talking about; the little man Geiger and his daddy and a select few real estate agents in town that are getting kick backs from "all" the businesses that Godfrey is supposedly bringing in by himself.
The SE is an embarrassment, just like how is put the swing votes in when it started to give out "supoort" in the editorials. All the people how have no clue in O-town about what is really going on in the government and just trust the SE took their word and ended up voting for who the SE endorsed. That is sad and it is a sad view of how any election can be turned just by the local news rag.
Of course all the Godfrey backers are saying "it is over, the numbers are in, our man has won, so stop whining".
Well, groups like Smart Growth Ogden - Good job!! We will need your watchful eye for 4 more years (sadly) Maybe by then, a couple of hundred more Ogdenites will see Godfrey for who he really is and skip reading the SE and find out the truth about how he "works"
I'm sure Godfrey will have some BS twist about this debacle on the MO land issue as well, and the SE will back him as they always do. Isn't it funny how everyone who was at least involve with keeping track of what is going on in our fine city knew it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, but of course with the SE, way back when it first came out, was making it sound like Godfrey was the savior of the park - pitiful.
Ogden, I'm sorry to say, it is too late to wake up. Thanks SE.
Rudi:
While I doubt the SE's covering this election story before the election would have much altered the results, you are of course right that it was an election story and it should have been covered before election day. I suspect the SE would reply with something about wanting to be "fair" and not wanting to do a late-breaking story with insufficient time for the other side to reply, etc. Which is nonsense. News is news when it happens, not two weeks later.
In addition to that, seems to me the SE reporters [or editors --- the story may have been copy edited in the newsroom] need a little refresher course in Newswriting 101 --- particularly in regards distinguishing fact from opinion and disputed contentions. Take a look at the very last paragraph:
Smart Growth also contends the legal description of the property in the declaration contains numerous errors and excludes an area south of Strong’s Canyon.
Now, whether the legal description of the property involved Mayor's "declaration" contains "numerous errors" is a matter of opinion. It is SGO's contention, and presumably the administration contends otherwise. Fair enough. But whether the Mayor's declaration "excludes an areas south of Strong's Canyon" is not a matter of opinion. Either the tracts listed in declaration include that land, or they do not. That is a question of fact, not opinion or contention. Straight fact. All the SE had to do was get the declaration, and look up the parcels included in it, and see if city owned-bench lands at the mouth of Strong's Canyon are excluded or not. There is no "contended" about it. Either they are included or they are not.
It's another example of the SE's He said/she said approach to reporting. One day, we are going to wake up to the SE telling us "Scientists Contend Sun Rises In East." Sigh....
But they did get the story in. Better late than never, I suppose. Funny, isn't it, they never do this kind of thing on the sports pages. We're not going to read about the results of the BYU/UU game two weeks after it happens. And there will be no headline saying "Officials Contend Utes Defeat BYU 24-17." Surely we can ask that the SE's political reporting be as timely... and as accurate and well-written... as its sports coverage. Can't we?
At least Schwebke, in his 'he said, she said' style included Deb Badger's quote "loopholes big enough to drive a gondola through".
OL:
That was the sound bite of the article, I agree. Grinned when I read it over breakfast, still grinning now.
Let's hope the Standard Examiner is sold, before the publisher destroys it completely.
There are two important facts that this article omits.
One is that the SGO press release came out 18 days ago, on November 1.
The other is that the points made in the SGO press release aren't just some amateur's opinion. SGO actually consulted with several attorneys, at least one of whom is an expert in land use and real estate law. This attorney (J. Craig Smith) is listed as a contact person on the press release. Why didn't Schwebke interview him, or at least name him as a source in the article? (I know, Badger is an attorney as well, but she doesn't have Smith's credentials, and she's not mentioned until near the end of the article.)
Rudi: The mayor's declaration was executed on October 25, not October 15. And do we know that it was recorded? I haven't heard one way or the other.
Curm: The statement about "numerous errors" is actually a fact as well, unless you want to quibble over what constitutes "numerous". The legal description was reviewed by a title company and the errors are documented.
Now that the S-E is catching up on its pre-election news, I wonder it it'll do articles on the Envision Ogden scandal and the Kent Jorgenson job threat scandal.
Curm:
Interestingly, the legal description contained in Godfrey's "Declaration" is strictly "metes & bounds,", which is tedious to decipher, even for folks with land survey tools and experience.
We wonder whether any of theose smart folks at Smart Growth Ogden may have done the essential footwork on this, and perhaps compiled a map, from which we "lay folke" might be able to determine, from a graphic display (such as a map), exactly which portions of the described parcels are excluded or included?
Is there a land surveyor or title company officer in the house who can help us out with this?
We'd be happy to upload and display such a map... if one is available.
Thanks for the correction on the date, Dan S. It appears Rudi needs new bifocals.
As for the recording aspect, our displayed document plainly DOESN'T bear the recorder's stamp. So whether this is a document of legal record remains anybody's guess.
We've accordingly corrected the verbiage in our main article.
Rudi:
The metes & bounds description has been reviewed and traced on plat maps by a title company. I don't have the maps but I've seen them. If we ignore the many small errors, it appears that the description is intended to take in all the city's property except at the south end. There they drew a new boundary that partially follows Strong's Canyon, excluding the area around the water tanks to the south.
The metes & bounds description becomes very complex along the southern portion of the Pineview Canal, going north from the 36th Street trailhead. The guy at the title company gave up on tracing that portion, and this unfortunately creates some additional uncertainty over exactly what property is excluded from the declaration in that area.
It's my understanding that the city didn't do any new surveying to create this description. Sounds like the mayor drew a line on an aerial photo, and the city's surveyor wrote the description based on that.
I just bought a new gallon of vasoline for when the lift it in comes knocking at my door, I will be ready for the potato's nose.
Declarations and resolution are only good for a year at a time, just ask Lard Ass Gary Williams, that’s how the city A-Team porked the city employees a couple of years back.
Do we really expect any more from the Standard Examiner? They are still doing the same old half-assed reporting they have always done.
Apparently, the Associated Press picked up the story, but what appears in today's SL Trib is sadly lacking in detail.
Well, not to be too contrarian about the Mayor's declaration, I'm not sure wrangling over "was it recorded" or "was it not" or "was due notice given the public" or "was it not" matters much, particularly since it seems the City [mayor] could reverse his declaration by fiat [the same process by which he issued it in the first place]. As SGA's legal consultants have pointed out.
During the campaign, Hizzonah promised he would not sell the golf course and surrounding park lands for private development. He also rapidly came to understand that there was much skepticism out there, particularly east of Harrison [his "base" as it turned out in the election] about whether his word on this was good. To deal with that, he added a promise to issue a "restrictive covenant" covering those lands which would protect them in perpetuity, which was a promise impossible to keep as he must have known.
The whole point was to issue something that looked like a binding restriction on his ability to sell of the lands --- emphasis on looked like. That it turned out not to be that is hardly surprising. It was merely intended to make more credible for potential voters his promise not to sell the city's park lands for development.
It would be very difficult for him, politically, now to back off from that promise, or such of it as is covered by his non-enforceable and reversible "declaration." But the votes have been counted... or as many of them as are going to be. And now it no longer matters, really, whether the declaration was or was not recorded, was or was not issued with due public notice, etc. It was a political document from its inception, not a legal one. Still is, and as the SGO legal people pointed out, he can reverse it as he pleases by the same process by which he executed it.
It was campaign propaganda, start to finish, and was never intended to be anything else. What SGO has done in examining the proclamation in detail is illustrate that beyond serious question. Which is of course what the SE should have done with the Mayor issued his "proclamation" in the first place. But didn't.
So just where the hell was this so called political machine that ran VanHooser's campaign with this information.
Were they sitting back waiting for the Standard to publish this SGO info? Why didn't they do something to educate the public about this Mount Ogden deception being played out by Godfrey? In fact why were they so lame in letting the people know about the true nature of Mayor Godfrey? In my opinion their lameness cost this election and sentenced the people of Ogden to four more years of lies and deceit.
Thanks a lot Suzi, Mary, Mitch, Moe and Curly.
marv-
I don't think it would've made a hill of beans difference. Those who voted for Godfrey would've voted for him regardless. Face it, Godfrey can do no wrong in many people's eyes.
I think you are wrong, Curm.
I think that if the SE had done it's journalistic duty to it's readership and published the SGO press release, it would have made a huge difference in the election results.
The SE knew that and that is exactly why they sat on the news.
They are duplicitous to the max. They engineered the result of the election as shamefully as Godfrey and his groupies subverted it.
If you divide the number of ballots tossed by 3....SVH probably won!
I agree that she and her campaign people should have been more aggressive and proactive. However, Utahns who never want to look 'nasty' don't know how to campaign on issues. SVH is from IL, she should know how to take off the gloves....and stick to issues that would have decked the little despot.
Does anyone have an old mimeograph machine? Maybe we could start our own paper! Vive La France!!!
Sun Rises In East, Scientists Say
There is an astonishing headline, and story, in today's NY Times. Here is the headline:
Study Links Drop in Test Scores to A Decline in Time Spent Reading.
And the key graph:
That is the message of a new report being released today by the National Endowment for the Arts, based on an analysis of data from about two dozen studies from the federal Education and Labor Departments and the Census Bureau as well as other academic, foundation and business surveys.
Several federally-funded studies to reveal the stunning conclusion that students who read more tend to do better on exams than students who read less.
What's next? Federally funded reports with headlines like "Not Eating Significant Cause of Starvation Study Says".
Talk about re-inventing the wheel.... AAARRRGGHHHH! [primal scream].
Look at it this way Marv, if Van Hooser and her circle of advisers had not been so incompetent this blog would most likely have gone out of business! Without this blog there would be precious little opportunity for the truth to get out to the public about what is going on in city government.
If they were so amateurish as to not define and capitalize on the main issue in the whole campaign - Godfrey's lack of integrity - then they surely would not have been able to run the city.
Godfrey used his sleazy ways of doing business to beat them in the campaign because they were to incompetent (or polite?) to point out to the public that he was sleazy!
Readers of the forum have continually pointed out this problem with Schwebke's reporting. Rather than checking on claims to fact to see which side is actually correct, he just presents competing claims as differing opinions. This in itself is a major problem. But even more troubling is his tendency to take what the mayor's office says as true - until someone else shows him it's not, and then he just goes back to problem #1. I know Curm has argued before on this site that we shouldn't expect the "local paper" to do investigative work, to check out whether the mayor's claims are accurate in the first place. But if the SE can't/won't do this, then it's local news division becomes just a branch of the mayor's office, reporting to its readers whatever info the mayor releases to them. My biggest complaint with the SE on the whole Mayor's declaration story is not that they published today's article after the election, but that they published the earlier one about Godfrey "declaring" Mt. Ogden golf course and park off limits without providing any details of what was in the declaration and without bothering to ask themselves if what the Mayor was proposing was enforceable. By not doing so, again, they turned their local news division into a fifty cent version of what the mayor sends out with our water/sewer/trash bill each month.
cato,
Agreed. And what's more, when the mayor's press release on the restrictive covenants came out on September 24, I quickly drafted a list of the obvious questions that the media should be asking, and I sent it directly to Scott Schwebke. Nevertheless, when his article came out the next day, it was clear that he either never saw my list of questions or that he chose to ignore it. And when the declaration was actually signed a month later, Schwebke again made no attempt to ask whether the document actually accomplished what it purported to.
The one question I didn't think of was whether the document was even legally executed. Congratulations to Smart Growth's attorneys for looking into that. I've since checked the city's code and it's quite clear that the mayor cannot encumber a significant piece of property without 14 days notice and a public hearing.
marv,
If you think it's so easy to "let the people know about the true nature of Mayor Godfrey", why didn't you just do it yourself?
One thing I learned in the political arena, is that it is extremely difficult to educate people with a flyer or brochure. Most people look at a political piece for 5 seconds then throw it away.
Godfrey lied more time during debates, but people still believed him, he even attacked Susie about her information.
Education is not the key, it's who people believe and trust.
cato:
You wrote: I know Curm has argued before on this site that we shouldn't expect the "local paper" to do investigative work, to check out whether the mayor's claims are accurate in the first place. But if the SE can't/won't do this, then it's local news division becomes just a branch of the mayor's office, reporting to its readers whatever info the mayor releases to them.
Well, not quite, with respect to what I've argued. I've said the SE does not do investigative reporting. Their explanation is they don't have the resources to allow reporters the time to dig deep over time on one story. Former employees of the SE have concurred, saying that the owners will not invest enough back into the paper to allow it to permit its very limited news staff to do investigative stories. That seems to be the rap on the SE among others in journalism around the state as well.
However, that's not the same thing as not checking facts... or alleged facts... in government handouts and press releases. That's not investigative journalism. That just good straight reporting, checking claims in press releases, etc. And there is no excuse for the SE's news staff not doing that. None. Nor have I ever suggested otherwise.
My biggest complaint with the SE on the whole Mayor's declaration story is not that they published today's article after the election, but that they published the earlier one about Godfrey "declaring" Mt. Ogden golf course and park off limits without providing any details of what was in the declaration and without bothering to ask themselves if what the Mayor was proposing was enforceable.
Yup. The SE did it again "announcing" --- and that's what it amounted to --- the Mayor's "plan" to get the city out of debt. The story [politely so called] was a thin re-write of the Mayor's press release. It did not even recognize that there was a significant disagreement about the size of the city's debt [23 million or 90 plus million]. It simply reported the Mayor's figure as fact. It asked no questions about whether the plan was feasible or not, whether the numbers added up or not. It consulted no accountants or others expert in the field of municipal finance to see if it all added up or what assumptions the plan was based on or if those assumptions were plausible. That was as inexcusable as its printing the Mayor's "declaration" that the park lands were now safe without checking it out. This is press release journalism which is just plain bad journalism when applied to self-serving campaign statements and similar from elected officials.
Speaking of Ogden's debt, shouldn't the city's FY 2007 financial report be released pretty soon? Then we'll find out how much the debt grew during July '06 through June '07. Godfrey's campaign materials cited the FY '07 report for statistics in a couple of places, but of course, he would have access to it before us lumpencitizens.
Curm, sorry that I misrepresented/overstated your position. Thanks for the clarification.
On the SVH Campaign:
Don't know what campaign Marv and some others were watching. I think SVH and her people ran one hell of a campaign. In closing in on four decades of political campaigning and campaign analysis now, I've rarely seen the like.
Look what they accomplished: a neophyte candidate, making her first run for public office, declaring on the final day possible, cobbling together an all volunteer staff, and working with, at most, one-seventh of the funds her opponent had, went up against a two term well-funded incumbent who had the editorial and [sadly] news columns support of the city's only newspaper, plus the support of the chamber of commerce, and professional campaign management, and they missed beating him by only 450 votes... while forcing him to abandon very publicly the lynch pin of his "progress" policy for the previous two years [park sale/Peterson proposal]. Hell of a job they did. As I said, I've rarely seen the like.
Not to mention that I think it doubtful that the Godfrey campaign would have seen two of its candidates of three defeated for the Council absent the SVH's remarkably effective campaigning.
If the SVH campaign tried to run one that would have pleased some of the more animated posters here at WCF, I suspect she would have done not better, but not nearly as well. Overall, I'd suggest her campaign be studied as an example of how to mount and run an insurgency campaign for mayor against entrenched and powerful interests, not as an example of how not to.
Mudslinging has always been an integral part of Ogden City politics, Curmudgeon.
So observed WCF Regular Moroni McConkie on September 1, 2005. It's actually something of a local "family tradition", in fact:
"Moroni McConkie said...
So Rudi's a great-great-grandson of Lorin Farr! It so happens that the powers behind Lift Ogden [Ed Allen] are great-great-great-nephews of Franklin D. Richards. Farr and Richards ran Ogden City in their day, and how fitting it is that their progeny are still stirring up the animals.
The Salt Lake Tribune of Feb. 1, 1879, laughed until its sides ached as the Farr and Richards factions competed in an approaching mayoral race. The nominating convention quickly deteriorated into mudslinging "until the singular spectacle was presented of brethren ... charging each other with crimes and offenses which constitute the real bond of their union."
Nothing has changed much in Ogden politics.
Except this year.
Moroni McConkie 1:48 p.m. comment
Actually, Curm you give the SVH campaign too much credit. It did not force Godfrey to abandon his park sale/gondola project. He abandoned it (if we can believe him) back in Jul (August?) long before the SVH campaign was put together. Godfrey reached this decision all on his own (with the help of his pollsters - not that he would admit it).
curm and cato:
That's right: Godfrey gave up on selling the park in early July, shortly after announcing his own candidacy and before Van Hooser announced hers. It's possible, of course, that the rumor that Van Hooser would run had reached Godfrey by that time. But you can hardly give any credit to her campaign, which hadn't begun.
It's quite likely that the Van Hooser campaign, and especially the primary election, prodded Godfrey to take the further step of drawing up the restrictive covenants document. This got his promise into the news at least three more times before the election, which undoubtedly helped him.
On the other hand, Godfrey did not give up and has not given up on the urban gondola.
Hey guys, seems Porter Schwebke Carter Grieling and all the rest of the SE lying little matty cabal are giving it to us big time.
They're purposely rubbing our noses in their arrogant power of the press moment.
Sure they could have run this piece, and it would have been appropriate, prior to the election. They also could have acknowleged the credibility of the lawyers consulted, they choose not to. There is so much they could have done differently, they didn't. Faulty reporting? Are they really that stupid? No, they are as crooked and mean spirited as the lying little vindictive sucker they backed. The guy in charge of their rent, and their largest advertizer.
This latest dig, is a warning shot fired over the bow of all of Ogden. This guy has no intention of backing off anything he started 2-3 years ago. That includes selling all the real property originally intended. Gondola's, Wallmart, cheap apartment buildings all through the riverfront.(gadi)
Not only are they telling us this, they're 100% endorsing it.
Cato:
You're right. I telescoped the time frame on his taking the park sale off the table. My mistake.
To the extent, though, that his "proclamation" will make it more difficult to reneg, I'd grant them a little credit. But the original taking off the table happened way too early to be attributed specifically to the SVH campaign. Thanks for straightening me out on the time frame, guys.
Cato:
You're right. I telescoped the time frame on his taking the park sale off the table. My mistake.
To the extent, though, that his "proclamation" will make it more difficult to reneg, I'd grant them a little credit. But the original taking off the table happened way too early to be attributed specifically to the SVH campaign. Thanks for straightening me out on the time frame, guys.
"Telescoped the time frame?"
LOL. Think before you post, for chrissake.
HTA:
All this post moaning about wrong candidates, etc. serves little purpose and, seems to me, constitutes nothing but idle speculation.
You wrote: The other thing that you should know is that Neil was born and raised here in Ogden and knew of all the history and would have brought allot to the table. I'm sorry Neil that you could not have been in this race in the end because you would have done our town proud. It was you that would have brought every one together.
HTA, Neil was my preferred candidate and I worked for him in the primary. But he lost. So your assumption that he could have or would have "brought everyone together" in the final election is wildly speculative, at best.
Secondly, being a born and raised Ogdenite is not, nor should it be, a qualification for the office of Mayor. We want, seems to me, the best man or woman for the job each time, and it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot, or shouldn't, if they were born in Ogden, or Harrisville or Grand Forks, Nebraska or Brooklyn, NY or you name it. Neil would I think have brought a lot to the table, as you say, but not because he was born in Ogden.
Curmudgeon, are we to believe that you have now expanded on the old saying: "Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and Ogden Mayoral races"? Second place in a two man race still means LOSER!
Bottom line is that we came out of the primary with 60 % of the voters saying replace Godfrey. You have pointed this out repeatedly yourself. Van Hooser started with a large theoretical lead. The election was her's to lose. She defied odds and logic and she lost. I have participated in and observed many elections, and quite frankly this Van Hooser effort was as poorly thought out and run as any I have been aware of. The closeness of the race was due only to the large built in resentment toward mayor Godfrey, not to any brilliance on the part of the Van Hooser campaign. That and to the very well run and financed Godfrey efforts. He did everything right considering where he was, and she did everything wrong considering where she was.
Do you give your "loser" students "A's" for effort?
I take a little different tack.
I feel the mayor did about all he could, given the time available, to "safeguard" the public land. I thought his document looked pretty good.
I would suggest, rather than saying the mayor didn't promise anything, to emphasize that he DID promise, with a signed document. That document is far more than what we had before, which was only some quotes in the newspaper.
His document, plus the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, should make it clear to the Planning Commission and the Council that the land will not be sold or developed.
Since the voters opted to stay with divided government, we should hold high the idea that everyone wants to save the public land, including the mayor. Hold him to what he has said.
And I don't feel inclined to knock VanHooser but to thank her. She worked very hard, and I hope persons such as her will always feel our gratitude for running.
The mistake many made was in assuming Hansen's votes were all anti Godfrey and automatically VanHooser. I didn't make that assumption. VanHooser won only two districts in the primary. She almost won the general election. That was coming a long way in a short time. Thank you Susie.
Marv:
We disagree. You've also heard me say here, often, that I respect the power of money in campaigns. It is never wise to underestimate it. I'd add that the SE in the primary had not weighed in editorially or as freely provided its news columns to run lightly edited and unexamined Godfrey campaign press releases. So we'll have to disagree on this. Starting from where she did, with the resources she had available, against what was arrayed against her, I think the SVH campaign was an excellent one. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Three Things from today's Papers:
1. Mrs. Curmudgeon just gave me to read a very good interview and article in today's SE , from the weekly "Hers" women's supplement. The article is by Becky Cairns, and it's an interview with Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, a Mormon feminist Harvard historian, Pulitizer prize winner who coined the phrase "Well behaved women seldom make history," and who has just published a new book with that title. [Yes, you read that right: Mormon feminist historian.]
It's a very well done piece, and why the SE buried it in the "Hers" supplement instead of where it usually runs stories about authors and book reviews, escapes me. I imagine lots of people will miss it hidden away among pieces on how fashionable boots are this season and how to keep peace among the in laws at Thanksgiving dinner. So I thought I'd post a heads up here.
2. An appalling item from today's SL Trib. It includes an article about students at Riverton High School lobbying the legislature to give them a day off on Veterans' Day to "honor the veterans." In a boxed inset, the quote one of the students as follows: Utah is Republican, so we're for war. So it's kind of weird we don't take a day off to respect that." Utah is conservative so we're for war. Sigh.... In two years, that student will be voting. Or, if we're lucky, will choose not to.
3. Interesting editorial in the SL Trib today about another law rammed through by Utah's Republican majority that is having unintended consequences... or maybe not. Here's the opening:
Developers' dream: State laws roll out the red carpet
Dean Sellers didn't lobby for Utah House Bill 466, the Let-Developers-Do-As-they-Darn-Well-Please Act of 2007. He says he was just "in the right place at the right time." Sellers is a real estate developer. For 30-odd years he facilitated the development of the Arizona desert. Now he's moved to the Wasatch Back and amassed 5,700 ripe-for-plunder acres of aspen forest and pasture near the mouth of Daniels Canyon in Wasatch County. "A big, magnificent piece of raw beauty," he calls it. Ski slopes. Hotels. Luxury homes. Shopping. A golf course. Sellers, if he can acquire enough water, has big plans for his land.
Before HB466 became law, Sellers would have had to deal with various local ordinances and regulations, and the boards and commissions that have a say in who builds what where when and how - local officials who are elected and appointed to balance the rights of landowners with the interests of the public at-large.
But the Legislature tipped the balance, and gave Sellers, and the rash of developers sure to come, control of their own destiny. HB466 changed the rules for forming towns. Previously, county governments had the right to reject incorporation petitions for contiguous tracts with 100 to 1,000 year-round residents. But now, if the signers of the incorporation petition own land amounting to more than one-third of the tract's property value, the county's
hands are tied....
Lawmakers say the "property rights" legislation was not intended to create company towns. If that's the case, it's a law of unintended consequences. Unless the law is changed, it will perpetuate, and accelerate, the rape of the Wasatch Mountains and other pristine places and open spaces in Utah.
Sorry -
VanHooser won 5 districts in the primary vs Godfrey's 7 districts.
But the gist of my post is still the same.
As far as Curm's post above, yeah, that's how Phoenix became LA - how another paradise became another hell. Developers come in and carve out a city, complete with stores and schools, and nobody can say anything about it.
The barbarians are now at our gates.
Somebody tell me the Democrats are any better at stopping that, and they've got my vote.
Before you go claiming that Van Hooser squandered what appeared to be a 60-40 split, maybe you need to check the number of voters.A little over 5000 showed for the primary, over 14000 cast votes in the general election.
Susie did a great job, under tough circumstances. She cannot be blamed for how stupid, immoral and ignorrant 7000 of our Ogden City population are. The Standard carries a great deal of the blame for not informing them properly,but I don't know if even that could have done the trick.
Many in Utah have a reputation for being similar to sheep. Quite a few of these fluffy idiots would likely not vote for anyone percieved as outside their flock." he may be a lying little crook, but he's one of ours". Very sad, but all to true.
Danny:
I wouldn't make any promises regarding the Congressional Democrats and their invertebrate leaders. But I'd say pretty certainly that a Democratic majority in either of Utah's legislative houses would have stopped a great deal of the loonier legislation we've seen coming out of there of late. Like the bill discussed in the editorial. Like the vouchers bill. And so on.
That doesn't mean they'd necessarily actually pass better legislation, but at this point, I think simply stopping much of what the Wingnut Troika [Buttars, Curtis and Bramble] usher through "without fear and without research" would be a definite benefit for the state. I don't think a Democratic majority on joint committees, for example, would listen to Sen. Buttars explain that legislators have often voted on things they didn't understand, and so should do so again on the bill under consideration, and pass the bill out of committee overwhelmingly... as a joint house/senate committee did to a pension "reform" bill last week.
But on the national level... no promises.
I still wonder if Susie would have won if so many ballots hadn't been tossed?
This scandal bears close scrutiny. There hasn't been anything this egregious in Weber County or the State! Of course, Ogden would have this black eye thought up and carried out by Godfry's orders. This guy is always in control...so he cannot lay the blame at anyone else's feet. Especially when his hack letter writers castigated Susie for not "being in control of her campaign".
I hope the State Elections Board and the Legislature makes a full investigation of this. I know the Legislature is in possession of complaints and is looking for ways to tighten the election laws so that a crook like Godfrey can't manipulate an election his way again.
Of course, the SE will remain unscathed and so much of this raping of voters' rights and right to information lay at the SE's dirty feet.
Susie had the little charlatan afraid...that's a good thing. It's too bad that some who hate this little crook still voted for him believing the lie that he is the savior of Ogden.
The people are the saviors of Ogden and if we had a responsible newspaper and journalistic integrity on its staff, the people would rise up and take back their city.
Thank God for people like Dan and the SGO folks who have taken the lead in protecting our lands.
We must remain vigilant...as Bill said....the shots have been fired over the bow....Once a liar always a liar. Mayor Liar...something to be proud of, isn't it, I'm jest wonderin'.
Can't ya just let me and S E be.
Were trying to do the bathroom toe tap.
Us republicans are for less government. We don't need jobs, because we live on welfare and beides I got my A K assault rifle to protect me. Beside someday I'll win the lottery.
The Legislature has been given a mandate by the People to fix the public school system rather than create a private one. Clearly Utahns want to stick with public education, so lets sit down at the drawing board and come up with a master plan that includes benchmarks and deadlines for implementation. The University of Utah’s Center for Public Policy and Administration would be a great candidate to prepare such a report and can be entrusted to provide a robust, objective report similar to the one produced on the voucher issue.
The way I see it, we can and should do better for public education. Hiding behind the “we have too many children and not enough tax base” simply doesn’t cut it anymore. For years, Republican administrations have given back big tax surpluses that add up to mere dollars when refunded to individual taxpayers, but in aggregate could have made a significant impact on class size, for example.
To Marv and anyone else who wonders why Godfrey got 40% of the primary vote but 51% of the general election vote:
Bill C doesn't quite get the numbers right but his basic point is valid. There were about 7000 voters in the primary and 14,000 in the general election. I would add that the 7000 who voted in the primary were probably much better informed on local politics and Godfrey's shortcomings. Most of the other 7000 probably decided on much more superficial grounds such as whether the economy is generally good or whether there are now buildings on the mall site or which candidate the newspaper endorsed or the governor apparently likes.
It would be interesting to know how many of the 14,000 voters received campaign mail from Godfrey, and how many received campaign mail from Van Hooser. Godfrey, who had more money, may have sent mail to people who never got anything from Van Hooser. And some voters may not have been on either candidate's mailing list, so they had to rely on the newspaper or, worse, television and radio. Given its limited budget, I suspect that the Van Hooser campaign had no good way to get information to many of the voters.
Marv, did you volunteer to walk door to door for the Van Hooser campaign? Did you contribute financially? Again, I'm wondering exactly what you would do differently.
Post a Comment