"Joint venture project" could make MOGC profitable, Kent Petersen says
Oddball story on the front page of the Standard-Examiner this morning, reporting a new wrinkle in Boss Godfrey's plan to bulldoze, flatten and widen the Mt. Ogden Golf Course. Unfortunately, the Std-Ex's digital site seems to be on the blink this morning; and we're therefore unable to provide a link. We'll thus provide a short synopsis instead:
Ace Reporter Schwebke reports that the Golf Course Citizens Committee Chair Kent Petersen and wannabe course re-designer Jon Garner have cooked up a scheme to approach Weber State University to acquire four acres of WSU land at the south end of the course, via what is vaguely referred to as a "community joint venture." The object, Mr. Schwebke reports, would be the establishment of "two premier, picturesque holes [which] could help make Mount Ogden Golf Course unique and possibly profitable." To our considerable shock, Mr., Schwebke reports that WSU officials haven't heard a word about this development. Surprise of surprises.
We've had a few reader comments on this story under the lower article already this morning; and we believe this story is unique enough to deserve it's own thread. We're therefore moving our earlier reader comments to this article, and invite our readers to further comment on this discrete topic here.
We'll post a proper link to this morning's story if and when the Std-Ex site comes back up again.
In the meantime, have at it. We're scratching our heads wondering about the meaning of this new plot twist; and we're absolutely certain our ever-intuitive and gentle readers can figure it all out forthwith.
Update 9/12/08 10:48 a.m. MT: The Std-Ex digital edition site is back up and running. You can read this morning's above-referenced Scott Schwebke story here.
29 comments:
It's all starting to come together. Have some of the Godfrey minions write editorials attacking Weber State President, and staff. Then ask them to seel or provide 4 acres to improve the golf course in a joint partnership.
Thats a great way to do business.
Unbelievable,
you knew something like this was coming. They weren't writing these editorials for no reason, so long after the fact. They were designed to build public opinion against the University, so that WSU might feel that it HAS to sell land to save the golf course and help Ogden City, since it wouldn't do it before. Todday's article merely confirms that they knew they were going to ask WSU to sell some land at least a month ago. never do anything up front, though, always operate in secret. As the wise old man once said on this forum - but if we release the details of our plans, you'll just rip them a part. Truer words have rarely been spoken.
Why won't the city administration show the residents a copy of the proposed new golf course?
Let the residents, the people that are being asked to pay for it, have a look at it.
what a joke. like two signature holes are going to make the whole course profitable. the idea that the view from those holes will be so great that people will flock to the course. that the picture of those two holes on a post card will make people cross the oceans to play the course. give me a break.
the real reason godfrey wants the 4 acres of land from the university is so he can build a parking lot for his club house. the city owned land that he has available up there now is too steep to build a parking lot on. go take a look for yourself its pretty obvious. this has nothing to do with adding two signature holes. the views from the existing holes are stunning and we currently have several holes that qualify as signature holes. in fact the lift ogden literature uses one of the holes to advertise their concept.
also the city owned land where he would build his club house would wipe out some of the most beautiful portions of the trail network. portions where the city currently takes pictures to advertise our beautiful trail networks.
Re: today's S-E story on WSU selling 4 acres to the city.
Oh, so that's what the twin Geiger/Hitzig editorials were about.
Mono:
Exactly. They were softening up salvos before the main assault.
And did you notice that the name suggested for the new redesigned Nicklaus course? "Malan Mountain Golf Course." Hmmmmm... you don't suppose by any chance the proposed Peterson Malan's Basin resort complex might be named something like Malin Mountain Four Season's Resort, do you?
And with a brand new paid for by the public clubhouse located just steps away from the presumptive base of his up mountain gondola to the basin. What a coincidence....
Just curious. How many of our local Lift-Ogden Babbitts and rabid WSU critics -- that would be the Geigers, Hitzig, the Allens, et al. -- ACTUALLY WENT TO WSU?
Or better yet: how many of them have ever attended WSU home games or supported WSU financially in any way?
I didn't think so. By what right do they go about dictating WSU policy?
Moroni,
Well, Godfrey himself went to WSU.
Don't know about Geigers and Allens (except for one of Bob Geiger's brothers whom I remember from years ago).
Hitzig, of course, went to Harvard.
City employees who lie, cheat or steal are subject to disciplinary actions up to and including termination.
Is Godfrey exempt?
Two Dan S. comments consolidated into new main article
And now it becomes more clear:
1) Declare war on the university to put pressure on it to sell land (which, of course, is not up to President Millner or the WSU Board of Trustees).
2) Ram an expensive redesign down taxpayer throats in the interest of "saving the golf course."
3) In another few years, when the whole idea fails, suddenly the only way for the city to come out on top in the deal will be to sell the golf course to a private developer, who will build a gated community along the base of the mountain.
4) Profit! For a select few, that is.
Well, the only reasonable thing for the Little Lord to do would be to send Bobby G - with club in hand - on up to the College for a little sit down chat with President Milner.
This approach would fit right in with the normal ham handed MO of the Godfreyites.
The idea of using some WSU land for golf isn't so outrageous. I would assume that we're talking about the northwest corner of the WSU foothill property, behind the facilities management building, where they've recently flattened the site of the two small abandoned reservoirs. This area is full of fault lines so it's probably not feasible to build on it. An outdoor recreation field of some sort would therefore be a reasonable use.
The real problem is that stretching the golf course southward would cut off the 36th Street trailhead from Strong's Canyon and the upper part of the Mt. Ogden Park exercise trail. Is it worth destroying a popular trail for the benefit of the golf course?
Dan,
the mayor would never do that, right? Remember, his whole reason for not pursuing the sale of the golf course was the concern voiced by many Ogdenites of the impact it would have on the hiking trails up there. Surely the mayor would not change his position on this, would he?
Dan:
In re: the sale of the four acres for golf course usage. I see another problem. It is as you say not, on its face, necessarily a bad idea. A disinterested and dispassionate look at the idea by fair-minded independent folks would be justified.
The problem is that the Godfrey administration has made it painfully clear that when it considers matters related in any way to Mr. Peterson's so far un-proposed Malan's Mountain resort proposal and its allied gondola/gondola scheme, he and his appointees will approach the matter in anything but a disinterested, dispassionate and fair-minded way. We... or at least I... have reached the point where I'm forced [truly reluctantly] to assume that any recommendation relating to the Peterson non-proposal coming from this Administration involves special pleading, dissembling, half truths, hidden motives or flat dishonesty. The Mayor's now documented lies delivered to, and through, the SE in re: the so-called "independent citizens MOGC review committee" leaves me no wiggle room on the point.
I don't believe any administration review of the feasibility or advisability of the idea and sale will be an honest and fair one, and there's not much point in pretending otherwise. Any review of the suggestion that does not take place entirely independently of the Administration, its appointees, hirelings, cronies and sycophants, would be suspect beyond saving before it began.
"I don't believe any administration review of the feasibility or advisability of the idea and sale will be an honest and fair one, and there's not much point in pretending otherwise. Any review of the suggestion that does not take place entirely independently of the Administration, its appointees, hirelings, cronies and sycophants, would be suspect beyond saving before it began."
Oh really curm. Ya think?
Remember what happens every time the little shit's lips are moving.
Glad to see you've finally rejoined the savvy human race.
Some of us grow weary of your compliments to Godfrey, when the little blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
I'm going to copy that last post of yours to notepad, to taunt you, the next time you backslide on the little lyin' shit.
Curm,
I completely agree that we should not trust any recommendations that come from the Godfrey administration or from this committee--or from the Ogden Trails Network Committee which the mayor has also stacked with his supporters.
And although I think it's reasonable to consider using a bit of WSU land for golf, I still wouldn't favor an outright sale of the land. Perhaps a lease would be worth considering, if the issues of trails and overall layout could be resolved--which I suspect they can't.
dan s.;
good luck closing that door once it is opened.
if the university did sell godfrey 4 acrea godfrey would have the developer clear off 8 or 12 acres and then beg for forgiveness.
university should keep their land for the future growth of the university.
Screw Godfrey
I swear that when I attended WSU, there was way more pride in it by the attendees than what feels to be the case here. I certainly hope WSU will NOT give in to the pressure of the Fry.
Also, I suppose I might add, if the board of reg is stacked with Fry supporters, then there may be nothing WSU can do about Fry stealing their land.
Good luck, Weber.
Go Wildcats!!! Bleed Purple!
wsu alum:
You wrote: I certainly hope WSU will NOT give in to the pressure of the Fry.
Well, what if the U, upon examining the matter, decides selling the four acres is in the best interests of the University? That wouldn't be giving in to pressure.
What I want from the U on this an all similar proposals is exactly what the U. did in re: the original proposal to sell many acres of its bench lands to Mr. Peterson: a careful, objective review of the proposal, a careful weighing of pros and cons, and a conclusion reached on the basis of what the responsible for making the decision think would be in the best interests of the University. That happened with the first proposal. That's what should happen with this one as well... that is, if any proposal to buy the four acres ever actually appears. None has yet.
You go, curm. You are right on target. I'm sure none of the people on the board or reg in the mayor's pocket will have any influence over all that yip-yap you just stated.
seemed to me from the last go around with the regs that fry did not have any regs in his pocket.
the regs could see a bigger picture than the mayor and made the logical decision to protect the future of the campus. that i hope happens again.
as an alumni myself i love wsu and want to see it continue to grow and grow at its current location not spread all over the city because the campus runs out of space. if the utah population grows as projected our universities will need to grow as well. those acres up there are weber state universitys growth.
WSU:
Well, it seems to have worked well the last time round. I've got no reason to think it won't again. Do you?
curm,
Guess we'll just have to see how it goes....
Here's another big egg laid by the Godfrey administration! More behind the scenes maneuvering by our devious little lying mayor! A couple of weeks ago, a council member asked the council staff about an unheard of campground being built on the south side of Park Blvd. near the stadium. Mr. Cook reported that he had been unable to find anything about it and suggested Mr. Patterson be asked if he knew anything about it. He did! Surprise! Surprise! It will be a campground for kayakers, bicyclists and other sport enthusiasts. When asked how it was being paid for, the council was told that it wouldn’t cost much and was being done “in-house.” When asked if it shouldn’t have been placed on the capital improvement improvement plan, the reply was, “Oh No. It won‘t cost very much.” Chair Wicks asked who would use it and was told “kayakers, hikers and sport enthusisasts hopefully. We don’t want any transients.”
Then today Scott Schwebke lets the cat out of the bag in his article, “New campground taking shape in downtown Ogden.”. No wonder there haven’t been any fees decided upon – it’s never been discussed because it’s never been presented to the council!
Is this a foreshadow of what we can expect in the future of how Godfrey will get other projects done? Does anyone know if this kind of devious, underhanded way of doing city business borders on mismanagement and/or malfeasance?
Post a Comment