Just like clockwork, the Standard-Examiner comes out, endorsing another knuckleheaded Boss Godfrey project, with this morning's editorial, urging the expenditure of the hard-earned money of Ogden City taxpayers for the Ice Tower project. In a nutshell, we'll briefly sumarize the Std-Ex editors' rationale, and throw in a few of our own editorial comments as we move along:
The project isn't "bizarre;" it's merely "unique;" and at least loosely fits Ogden's recreational mecca marketing plan. Remember, unique is good. The key to success is building attractions goofy enough that we won't attract copycats. Godfrey represents that certain (un-named) private donors wait in the wings to pony up a cool $1 million. They're laying low, however, until they see taxpayer dollars thrown into the pot. $200 thousand in other taxpayer dollars (RAMP Funds) also hang in the balance. These taxpayer funds will be lost, the Std-Ex editors hint, unless Ogden City becomes involved as a cash-on-the-barrel-head stakeholder. Godfrey promises (scout's honor) that whatever contribution the city makes, it will be a one-time donation. The taxpayers will never be on the hook in the future. (Where, we ask, have we heard that promise before?) Jeff Lowe has even promised to set aside funds to dismantle and store the danged thing even if (or when) it flops.
And here's the kicker:
To hear Godfrey tell it, Lowe’s business plan is not dependent on making money from experienced climbers. Lowe will market his facility primarily as a datenight activity, schedule ice-climbing festivals, competitions and clinics, and attract a steady stream of people who will only do this periodically.Hey waitaminute! There's an actual business plan floating around somewhere in the Godfrey ozone? If so, we lumpencitizens have yet to lay eyes on it. And it's the same for the city counsel, we understand. Despite repeated and serial requests on the council's part, Godfrey hasn't furnished a copy of it to them, either.
Just off the top of our head, we believe there are at least a few preliminary matters to be considered before the council even contemplates committing one dime to this project. Here are a few necessary prerequisites, among others:
1) These mysterious private donors need to step up identify themselves, both as to their identities and the amounts they're willing to cough up toward this project. 8-1/2 years into Godfrey governance, it doesn't seem reasonable to take Godfrey's word for anything.
2) If there is truly a formally proper business plan, it should be revealed for public inspection. So far all we've seen are a brief grant application and sales brochure, which business plan-wise, doesn't really cut it.
3) And what about the idea of a feasibility study? Doesn't anybody do independent analyses anymore?
The above preliminary matters certainly aren't exhaustive of the subject. Perhaps out gentle readers can supply a few more ideas.
And one other thing. Ask yourselves folks, who among you would be inclined to take investment advice from the likes of the editors at the Standard-Examiner? According to our recollection, the last knucklehead Godfrey project for which the Std-Ex editors fell madly head-over-heels was the "Peterson Proposal" (so called), which Don Porter and crew at one time labeled "impressive." As far as we can recall... that's a proposal that never actually materialized, (notwithstanding the Std-Ex endorsement,) and the rest is history, of course.
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
