Universe City presents: Art as a Vehicle for Social Commentary
Starting tonight, Universe City will be holding a special exhibit, focusing on that part of the Basin and Range province that provides the beauty of our own backyard - or front yard, depending on which way your front door faces. The exhibit will include, among others: photography by Steph B. Parke, Dayle Record, Tom Szalay and Charles Trentleman; paintings by LeRoy Jennings and Roberta Glidden; ceramics by Suzanne Storer and poetry by Rob Carney and Ken Brewer.
Tonight's exhibit will also feature a special presentation by Sierra Club volunteer Dan Schroeder (also a WCF reader and frequent contributor), entitled “Ogden Wilderness: The Time is Now,” taking up the discussion of how much of our local mountains we want to preserve as wilderness.
Click this link for dates, times and other pertinent details.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
31 comments:
Well, after a day of no comments on this thread, I guess I'd better post something.
Here's a link to information about the Sierra Club's WIlderness proposal for Ogden. And on that page you'll find a link to a pdf of the slides from the presentation I gave last night.
Dan
No offense, but this kind of article on this kind of blog is sort of like throwing a head of lettuce into the lion cage. It is red meat they crave!
fred,
Yeah, I figured as much. But there is a bit of red meat, in the form of an old letter to the Forest Service from Stuart Reid, in the pdf slide presentation...
Fred and Dan:
Hey, not every main tread has to be be headlined Godfrey Screws Up Again! WCF also serves, now and again, as a means of notifying people of public events [past and forthcoming] that some might otherwise not be aware of. Seems a legitimate enough role for WCF to play now and then. And a valuable one.
Dan: why not post the Reid letter here?
Give me blood, or
give me death!
Curm:
The Reid letter (dated November 1, 2001) asks the Forest Service not to protect the Burch Creek roadless area (which lies south and east of the Malan's Basin property) in any way that would preclude putting a gondola across it. In my talk last night I speculated that this letter may be why the Forest Service did not recommend Wilderness status for the area when it completed its planning process in 2003.
I don't have the letter in a convenient electronic format. One of the slides from my talk includes a photograph of the first page of the letter. I also have a photo of the second page, if anyone is sufficiently interested.
The real question is whether the position of the Ogden City administration on this has changed since 2001. After all, the gondola is now supposed to be almost entirely on private land (right?). Our preliminary inquiries along these lines have so far been met with silence.
Can any one post the article in today's Standard about the RDA (RDA struggling with loans) on the blog here for us who live out of town and don't take the Standard?
Another intriguing headline that left me wondering was: "Wilderness link for recreational capital?"
Andy:
Been trying to get the link for a while now, but the SE's being persnickity about sending it to me this evening. Will try later and post it if I have better luck.
Mr. Schwebke's article is well worth reading.
Until the link comes up, here are the headlines and a few of the opening graphs:
RDA struggling with loans
Default likely to cost Ogden about $6.3 million, 2007 audit shows
BY SCOTT SCHWEBKE
Standard-Examiner staff
OGDEN — The Ogden Redevelopment Agency will likely be unable to repay the city about $6.3 million remaining from loans received in the 1970s and 1980s to form three business districts that underperformed, according to the city’s recently released 2007 financial audit.
The inability of the RDA, whose board is the city council, to repay the loans should serve as a wake-up call, said City Council Vice Chairwoman Amy Wicks.
“I hope we will be very conservative and cognizant in calculations to make sure that projects pay their own way so we don’t have this situation where we are covering shortfalls because we overestimated how much money may potentially come in,” Wicks said.
However, Richard McConkie, the city’s deputy director of community and economic development, said a 7 percent interest rate on two of the loans has made it impossible to repay the debt.
“Without the interest rates, the loans would have been retired by now,” he said, adding the city administration has repeatedly recommended to the city council that the interest rates be reduced to zero.
Still trying for the link to the full article.
We plan to fully address the above-referenced Ace Reporter Schwebke story in tomorrow's main article, Andy and Curm.
It's a damn good thing that RDA debt isn't the responsibility of the City and its tax payers, isn't it Mr. Godfrey?
Ya gotta wonder what they were saying about this RDA loan repayment up until now. If I had to guess, I'd say they were promising that other RDA projects, like BDO, would make up the difference and pay off the loan. So while they may try to blame it all on those three particular projects, I suspect that the problems with the RDA are more widespread, or at least harder to pinpoint.
Schwebke's article was pretty good except for the one screaming omission: a nice juicy quote from one of Godfrey's campaign brochures or speeches, claiming that the taxpayers aren't responsible for RDA debt.
Let's see... how interesting! Godfrey's campaign web site has disappeared! Good thing I saved copies... Here we go, direct quote: "Are the taxpayers responsible to repay RDA dept? No. State law calls for RDAs to be a separate entity different from the city, thereby protecting the taxpayers from ever having to pay for any failed projects."
Since the Standard-Examiner is highly unlikely to ever print this quote on their own, I suggest that someone put it in a letter to the editor.
Curm, you got your wish for today,"godfrey screws up again". Funny how all these seperate independent entities rely so heavily on the general fund.
Just as a side note to today's article, over the past several weeks, some have posted here explaining that the SE is controlled by Godfrey and his allied business community, takes its orders from them, and that they would "never" permit the SE to publish anything about the accounting and six million dollar write off of RDA funds. That claim, seems to me, has now been thoroughly refuted. Not only did the SE report the write-off, it headlined the story on the front page. 'Nuff said.
Dan: nice lift of the Godfrey campaign quote. Be interesting to see if the SE takes an editorial stand on this.
Curm: What's the antecedent of "this"--the loan default or the campaign lie? I'll put the chance of an S-E editorial on the former at about 50%, and the chance of an editorial on the latter at about 0%.
In this case the RDA apparently borrowed $6.3 million from the city general fund (tax payers) and by the RDA defaulting on it the tax payers are taking it in the shorts.
It could get a little more complicated if the RDA borrowed the money on the open market and then defaulted. I rather suspect that the courts would find the city and it's tax payers liable in that scenario as well.
That scenario is rather academic however considering it is pretty unlikely that any conventional lending institution would lend any amount of money to Ogden's highly mismanaged RDA without plenty of hard and free collateral.
It is a bit curious that this subject is even coming up after 25 to 30 years of this bad debt being on the books. Are they trying to get this off the RDA books now so that they have more room to borrow even more? If the city forgives the debt, the RDA will instantly have a $6.3 million dollar increase in it's book value.
It is also pretty funny that this empty suit McKonkie claims that it is the interest rate of 7% that has caused the RDA to default on the loan. Does that mean that the City was being usurious in its financial dealings with the RDA? I would guess that in the history of the RDA and the City there have been other loans with higher interest rates than this.
Back in the early 80's when some of this debt was made conventional interest rates on the open market got as high as 15 to 20%. It is highly possible that when these loans were made the market rates were a lot higher than 7% and that this was a low sweet heart deal between city agencies. Do you suppose this McKonkie suit thinks it is OK to default on loans if you decide many years later that the interest rate is too high?
This is just one more little indication of the accuracy of my contention that Godfrey and his entire circle of empty suits couldn't even hold mid level management jobs at your average "C" store. They are all incompetent losers and if it were not for their unfettered access to the public treasury they couldn't put a ten buck deal together. About the only job out there that I think any of them could handle would be picking fly shit out of the pepper at McDonalds.
I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
And Curmudgeon, you are correctomundo about the Layton deal being funded after a county wide bond election wherein the tax payers approved the financing. This is in contrast to the sneaky, behind closed doors, and behind the tax payer's back, deal that Godfrey put together for PeeWee's playhouse. In fact Godfrey actively fought any suggestion that the stupid idea be put up for a vote. Of course he realized at the time that he only had about 15% support from the citizens for the deal, at least according to the several Standard Examiner poll that were conducted at that time.
Dan:
Both but mostly the honesty matter. The SE Ed Board endorsed Hizonnah, and so it seems to me it is more or less obligated to deal with the story and its relation to his campaign claims. He's their boy.... Seems to me they ought to confront, editorially, his campaign dishonesty, or explain why it was not dishonesty [and that will be an interesting bit of editorial tap dancing to watch].
Oz:
Thanks for the explanation about the kind of RDA the story was talking about. Now Mr. McKonkie's comment about reducing the interest rate to zero makes sense. [If this debt consisted of bonds sold by the RDA to private investors, his remarks make no sense at all.] Glad to have it explained. Thanks again.
It's the Councils fault, they have known about this for years.
Lying Little:
Sarcasm aside, much of the RDA debt now being written off was incurred under previous administrations and Councils. I liked Councilwoman Wicks take on the matter: that the Council [and Mayor] should take what is happening as a warning, a caution, not to over-estimate the benefits of RDA loans and tax-increment funding. The temptation will always be there to over-estimate benefits and under-estimate risk in order to sell an RDA loan or city bond guarantee to the Council or the public. The lesson Councilwoman Wicks suggested the Council and administration should draw from the current write-off of RDA debt is precisely the right one.
Curm, I believe you missed my intentions when I blamed the Council.
I have known that the money would have to come from the general fund for some time, yet I continued to lie to my constituents that the tax payer’s dollars are not at risk for RDA debt.
I just can’t help myself, I would rather lie than tell the truth, I would rather blame someone else than to take the blame when I am ultimately responsible, and I have more integrity than anyone else on this blog.
Looking back, I should have been up front with my stupid blind followers, and let them in on my little secret that the RDA debt is the responsibility of the taxpayers.
Now my plans are to raise fees, cut back services such as plowing snow, and keeping the sewers from backing up.
I'll recommend that we eliminate a few more firefighter and police positions, and sell Mt Ogden Park again.
The citizens of Ogden will pay for my lies and mistakes.
it is the councils fault and the mayors fault. council gives the final vote for what ever the mayor wants to do with rda. all they have to do is vote no yet they dont.
neither in the past nor presently are they doing the required due diligence needed to accertain the financial viability of any project before them prior to their allocating of funds to that project.
do your homework council members before you spend our money.
procedure should be that the city business development department tell you what they want to chase why they want to chase it what the numbers look like and then get your permission to chase a deal before they go chase it. they must answer all your questions before you let them chase it not after they have put the deal together.
then they bring it back to you to see if what they actually negotiated meets with what you allowed them to chase and your acceptance.
only then do you vote to fund it if you still feel that its in the best interest of the city.
We should contract all services out to private businesses. The police could be covered by Brinks security, the Fire Department could be converted to full volunteer. We could pass an ordinance requiring that all home owners are responsible to remove snow from the street in front of their homes.If they dont comply, we will fine them in our cash cow court.
The only city service we need is the Economic development department. We could get a bigger bang for our general fund dollars by investing them in the community with looser developers and my criminal friends.
Yea, thats the ticket!
Curmudgeon
You wrote above:
"Just as a side note to today's article, over the past several weeks, some have posted here explaining that the SE is controlled by Godfrey and his allied business community, takes its orders from them, and that they would "never" permit the SE to publish anything about the accounting and six million dollar write off of RDA funds. That claim, seems to me, has now been thoroughly refuted. Not only did the SE report the write-off, it headlined the story on the front page. 'Nuff said."
Well now, I must take a little exception on that one. (Always a semi dangerous tack with you!)
After all, even the most greedy carnival barker, running the most crooked shell game, lets the suckers win every once in awhile. When they do, it is not proof that the game ain't rigged! Nuff said?
Oz:
Well, except that the posters I was commenting on said "never." Good example of why using categorical statements in argument is... I almost said never... usually not a good idea.
I've been critical of the SE's news judgment in re: the Godfrey administration pretty often. But they've covered stories that did not reflect well on the Administration. They've even written editorials criticizing his more egregious actions [e.g. penchant for secrecy in matters like the now infamous Bootjack affair]. I don't think, on the record, the argument that the SE is a wholly owned and operated subsidy of Matt Godfrey & Friends Ltd can be sustained.
That said, the SE's greatest failing, IMHO, is that it clearly does not see its role to be the traditional role of crusading papers, forged in the Progressive Era. That it does not, as a matter of core policy, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" [H.L. Mencken's view of the proper role of the public prints]. That it does not see it as its public service obligation to fact-check every statement, press release and claim coming from anyone holding elected or appointed public office, or actively seeking to. It is way too often content to merely report what the powerful and privileged in office say, period. [Example: the SE has repeatedly reported a mayoral plan to eliminate Ogden City debt in the next decade; it has, so far as I know, never asked whether the plan is feasible; it has never, for example, asked its own house accountants or some other non-involved competent source for an evaluation of the plan. And so on.]
I was probably spoiled by having as a home town paper [Madison, WI] all through grad school an LaFollete-established progressive daily. My view is that any newspaper worth the price of an issue ought to be a crusading newspaper in the Progressive Era Muck-Raking sense of that term. Manifestly, the SE is not but it should be.
Still, falling short... and too often way short... of that standard does not make it, necessarily, a docile and obedient Godfreyite tool, nor does the record sustain such a claim.
Curmudgeon
Two extracts from your above post:
"the posters I was commenting on said "never." Good example of why using categorical statements in argument is... I almost said never... usually not a good idea."
and
"it has never, for example, asked its own house accountants or some other non-involved competent source for an evaluation of the plan."
Hmmmm
fern:
There's a difference [though nice catch on your part]. The comment about the SE never asking its in-house accountant to evaluate the the mayor's purported plan is a verifiable statement of fact. [Either they did or they didn't.] The "never" I was commenting on was a prediction of future action, i.e. that the SE would never report the RDA bond money write off.
Risky to say something will never happen. It only has to happen once to disprove your claim. But you can say of events already past that something never happened --- if it didn't --- because that statement is subject to being verified. E.g. "Chris Peterson said he would present a fully-developed proposal for developing the golf course to the council, but he never did."
But, as I said, nice catch on your part. You got me violating my own advice. Fern 1, Curmudgeon 0.
Curm
How do you know that the Standard has "never asked it's house accountants or some other non-involved competent source for an evaluation of the plan."
Maybe they did and just didn't report on it?
jolene:
That's possible. In which case I'd have made a statement that might be proven by fact to be false. But the point of asking... for a newspaper, seems to me, the only point of asking... would be to report on the answer [plan feasible or not?]. So it seems unlikely.
Still, as you I hope you noted in my reply to Fern [Fern 1, Curmudgeon 0], I shouldn't have said "never" in this instance. It was the sort of thing I normally catch in editing, but I don't edit blog posts, as a rule. They're straight off the top, and so some carelessness creeps in. I'm just a wild and crazy guy on blogs, I guess.... [grin]
Boy o Boy Mr. Curmudgeon, you're about as slippery as an old greased hog! A body's got to get up awfully early to catch you asleep at the keyboard.
Lou:
Slippery? Hardly. Fern caught my contradiction, fair and square, and I said so. "Slippery as an old greased hog" would be the Godfrey Sock Puppets who can argue --- with straight faces --- that the RDA both is and is not a public entity, and that RDA debt is and is not Ogden public debt. Man, I couldn't come within shouting distance of that kind of slippery if I tried for a month of Sundays....
Curm, you are terrified that all of Godfrey's projects will succeed tremendously. Not only that, if and when they do, you will NEVER be able to admit it. There, I used the word NEVER, and I believe it is an appropriate use of the word. When anyone is as one-sided as you are, no one should listen to what that person has to say. You couldn't possibly see anything good with anything that has been done. By the way...how much have your city taxes gone up? Ooops...that would be a good thing!
Post a Comment