Ski haberdashers, real estate flippers and various other Godfreyite twits and hangers-on threaten to smear our city council - UPDATED
There's seldom a dull moment behind the scenes in Emerald City, even on a slow news day like today. We received a short series of forwarded emails from a trusted source close to city hall yesterday, indicating that certain members of Ogden City's "shadow government" of ski haberdashers, real estate flippers and various other Godfreyite twits and hangers-on have launched a smear campaign against the Ogden City Council. These emails reveal a plan of retaliation against several council members in particular. The council stubbornly refused to rubber stamp Boss Godfrey's Historic 25th Street zoning amendment, which, if passed, would have possibly jeopardised the district's historic preservation designation, and would have most certainly ceded future council authority to Boss Godfrey's hand-picked claque of appointed Planning and Landmarks Commission lackeys. Apparently the council didn't get Boss Godfrey's earlier memo ordering the council to "do as you're told."
Here's a real beauty from Descente Corporation bumpkin and Godfrey bestest-buddy Curt Geiger:
Curt Geiger Email - 9/24/08
And here's a real doozy from that pillar of civic virtue and all around wholesomeness, Godfrey lemming Tom Moore, who comes off in this message like Lord Torquemada:
Tom Moore Email 9/24/08
And even the G-train gets into the act:
Sue Wilkerson Email - 9/24/08
Pull up your popcorn and barca-loungers gentle readers. We'll be finding out who controls Ogden City zoning policy very soon, as the likes of Geiger, Moore and Wilkerson launch their public smear campaign, in the latest ham-handed Godfreyite attempt to bring our duly-elected city council to heel.
Update 9/27/08 10:30 a.m. MT: We're pleased to announce that we've obtained an Adobe PDF version of the "opinion letter" which threw the Godfreyite lemmings into their above-referenced email frenzy. We've uploaded it to our storage site; and our gentle readers can peruse it here:
9/22/08 Murphy/SHPO Letter
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
96 comments:
I'm aware of a plan by Sue Wilkerson, Tom Moore, Curt Geiger and others to discredit the five members of the Council who voted against the ordinance Tuesday. My advice to them is that those who live in a glass house, should not throw stones. When you have SB on your team, you will learn as Godfrey and the administration have, that he comes with liabilities and hazards. I have to wonder how the Landmarks Commission would stand up to a federal investigation. I understand that they are pretty rough on those who violate others' rights and are not strictly ethical. Sue, how do you think the feds would react if they learned about some members being threatened? And then a few months later were removed from the commission. I wouldn't want to be in your place as the chair and allowing that to happen.
You might want to take a few things into consideration before sending your letters to the editor and doing a smear campaign of some of the Council members, which just adds credibility to the charges that can be filed with feds.
As Curmudgeon says above, "Have a nice day!"
Good to know q. Too bad Tom Moore and Sue Wilkerson don't know a damn thing about historic buildings and historic preservation to know what the hell they are talking about. Yes they own some old homes and try to talk the talk, but they really don't know shit. Any letters they plan to write attacking the Council will be off base. Yes, the letters may appease the typical bunch of nitwits as they always do, but they won't change anybody's mind who knows anything about historic preservation and definitely won't change the mind of those who truly do care about the future of 25th Street. Will common sense ever prevail with some in this community?
q cannon:
While the Mayor's purge of public advisory committees, including the Landmarks Commission, is reprehensible, and yet another indication of his clumsy inability to grasp even the rudiments of effective public administration, I doubt very much that any petty schoolyard bullying that may have gone on violates a Federal statute or that the feds will be interested in Hizzonah's playground tantrums.
The spat over changing the height limits comes down, for me, to two things:
1. Is there a reasonable chance that changing them will endanger 25th Street's designation as a Historic District? Do credible people with expertise in the area think that it will, or even may? IF the answer to those questions is "yes," then passing the ordinance Ms. Wilkerson and Hizzonah want passed would be foolish and the Council acted wisely.
2. Will passing the ordinance remove Council oversight from any similar requests for zoning changes on Historic 25th Street in the future? If the answer to that question is "yes," then passing the Ordinance Ms. Wilkerson and Hizzonah want passed would be foolish and the Council acted wisely.
That's it, really. Unless Ms. Wilkerson and her snit-fit bunch can explain why the answers to the two questions above are in fact "no," she and her cronies can stamp their feet, hold their breath and turn blue because they're not getting their way. It won't matter a hill of beans.
Exactly Curm! I don't think the Fed's would act and what I have heard from the professional historic preservationists is that the revised ordinance will endanger 25th Street, and of course the way the revised ordinance is written does remove the Council from the process. Why would the Council not want a say w/ regards to what happens on 25th Street? The only question I have, is why the two Council members voted for the revision? Doesn't make sense to me. I have heard that flexibility is an issue. Well, the current ordinance does already allow for flexibility (you can up your building to 45 ft.). As far as I know, there is not a single historic building on 25th Street that exceeds that, except for the clock tower. So, the ordinance currently in place does allow for changes, additions, etc. while at the same time balancing historic preservation. Which makes sense and as served this community well for many years. It is a good ordinance that does not need to be changed, take note Sue W. and pals. Revising an entire ordinance for a single incompatible project is not the way good planning is done. The Ogden City Planning Department should be ashamed. As well as all others in the City pushing this. How on earth does the Council take this bullying day in and day out?
the clock tower is not historic, btw
I'll look into filing charges further, Curmudgeon and Yankee, but I was given to understand that the the division of the federal govenment that historic preservation falls under does not look very kindly on these kind of shenanigans. They are serious about historic preservation and those who interfere are dealt with rather harshly.
To answer your questions, the first two are "Yes" -- the Weber County Historic Foundation and the Utah State Heritage Foundation.
q cannon:
Regarding fedregs involving the management of Historic Districts, I know nothing. If you find out anything interesting regarding the fedregs on Historic Districts, please let us know.
Geiger: "I was there last night. I was the most embarrassed I have ever been for my home. The investor, told me after the vote, that he felt like he was in Hick Town."
I think Geiger has inadvertantly put the finger on the developer's problem, although in typical Geiger fashion, his interpretation comes out completely ass-backwards.
The real problem is that Geiger and these developer guys assumed they were dealing with "hicks," but instead found their plans thwarted by some highly-sophisticated lumpencitizens.
Althepal:
The question I've seen no one in the Geiger-Moore-Wilkerson-Godfrey Gaggle yet address is this: the developers knew, when they bought the property [and received a subsidy from the city to do so, a subsidy approved by the Council] what the height limits on 25th Street were. They knew going in. Now they're apparently surprised, and mad, that the limit is not going to be waived for them. It seems, then, that they were assured --- by the Administration, presumably --- when they bought the Windsor that getting the height restriction waived would be no problem.
If that is what happened, then the Mayor promised the investors something he had neither the right nor the power to promise them. And in the end, he couldn't make good on his word. I'd be ticked off if I was one of the investors too. But not at the Council. I'd be steamed at whoever in the Mayor's office assured me that the waiver would not be a problem.
Comment promoted to main article
....and you all thought the campground was a dead issue..... LAUGH!!
It's still coming, folks.
Were any of you at the town meeting Wednesday night?
Nothing here is stopped dead in it's sneaky processes unless the KING declares it so. When will you learn?
This is interesting. The G-Train closes her letter to her ninth floor puppetmasters Gregg Montgomery, John Mayer, John Patterson, Tom Christopulous and Matthew Godfrey with this this highly revealing complimentary closing:
"yours faithfully,"
This closing is entirely unique in my consideraable experience with formal and informal correspondence, and inadvertantly reveals the posture of a true "suckup."
Oh potato nose, money is not God, nor does it trump all in a democracy. Just like your pleadings of "the thorazine addled squirrel crusader bringing half a billion bucks to Ogden." Now you spout that these Windsor guys are bringing millions if only they can have their way.
As bernie pointed out at the opening of public comments, "this ordinance change is not about a waiver to the Windsor Hotel". For once bernie was staing the truth, but only in part. Had bernie finished his statment in complete honesty he would have added that this change was more specifically designed to allow a free for all of whatever sort of wacky development that can occur down the road regarding the remaining vacant properties in the historic district, at the sole discretion of bernie and the mayor or his subordinants. This proposition would clearly jepordize the historic classification of the whole area.
If your Windsor guys have so much money they certainly should be smart enough to figure out a way to gain one more foot in the top floor of their project, like shaving 6 inches off the lower two.
Have you considered that their plans don't fit the historic designation guidelines anyway?
Q. Cannon, I too am amused that this foolhearty smear is being done by the likes of potato nose, g-train and of all people cavendish.
I, too, took note of Ms. Wilkerson's unusual closing. My thought was, "Is there any doubt as to where her loyalty lies? As the chair of the Landmarks Commission does she also expect their loyalty to "God"free?
In last night's work session, Harmer relayed the message of the developer to the council -- "We want to get out of this deal and out of Ogden!" It seems that the developer was given the understanding that the council were mindless dolts and could be talked into amending the height restriction for the Windsor. Chairwoman Wicks said that she had visited the developer's website, and is concerned about what else this developer might demand in the future. She said that their website advertises "The gondola is only a block away!" Does that mean that in the future the Council will have to grant them a gondola or they won’t finish the Windsor? Maybe it’s just as well that Ogden finds out now what all the Godfrey administration promised the developer to take the Windsor off their hands. I think the price is too high!
This developer knew when the Windsor was purchased and when they requested grants of $288,000. from the city of the 45' height limit, but for whatever reason didn't and still haven't requested an exception for their building of the 45' height limit. Instead Godfrey wants to usurp more of the Council's authority so he is having the Planning Commission recommend a rezoning of 25th St to allow additional height to the historic buildings on 25th St. This action has the potential to impact the historic designation granted by the federal government and forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist the owners rejuvenate and maintain these old buildings in the historic district. The Utah Heritage Foundation has already assessed the Windsor and its recommended height request and said that the changes definitely would remove its “historic” designation. The Windsor is a significant building in the historic district so its removal as a historic building would have serious consequences for the district. It is really unconscionable for the developers to expect the city to go along with their greedy request.
Harmer asked the council to consider “reconsidering” their decision on this matter. Some of the council members did indicate that they would consider the matter if the additional floor could be added in such a way that the building did not lose its historic status.
I think that all the issues should be laid out on the table and an understanding of everything the developer is going to require and what the council will concede before any consideration of the ordinance is given. It was suggested by a council member that the ordinance be rewritten so as not to affect the authority of the council for future building alterations that could impact the Historic 25th Street District.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE: "We must fight back. The future of our city is at stake. Again this comes from the east bench."
I have a question for you, THE SKI: Are you investing all the money you save by buying sport coats at the DI in onion futures?
Ha! Ha! Ha!
And then there's GTrain, who demonstrates her inability to bleep cusswords correctly -- un-----real -- (she's missing two letters) and her NOT! Wow, now that's the kind of smart ex-truck-driver I would want cheerleading for me if I were a mayor like Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey.
And get a load of this, from that major-league hypocrite Cavendish himself, to the council:
Last night at Council Meeting, an amazing sequence of events was
puzzling and troubling. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RESULTING VOTE ON THE 25TH STREET. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE MESSAGE YOU SENT PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO DEVELOP AND GROW THIS TOWN...
This is a renegade city council, sending mixed messages to the
citizens of this community. Several of the members of the City
Council have accused the Mayor of trying to run the City alone when in fact YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, disregards the Administration, disregards the Planning Commission, disregards the Landmarks Commission, and
disregards the owners along 25th Street.
Is this the most despicable position to take and express in public session. You as a council are totally out of control, driven by hatred for the Mayor, and encouraged by a group of disgruntled individuals who will do anything to stunt the growth of this city and embarrass its administration...
NOW THE REVEALING MOMENT. Tonight, the citizens of central Ogden will
meet to begin the Community Plan for the core of this City. Weeks
will be spent with residents working, discussing, studying, and
writing. We will put together a document that will be unique because we are discussing how to grow the city in the midst of historical settings. Landmarks, historical societies, etc., will all be involved in our planning. This document will guide the city's decisions about
the core of this district. As has been quoted over and over, IF THE
CORE OF THE CITY DIES, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SUBURBS.
So, the residents ma rch on valiantly taking on one restoration after another while considering new structures which fit the plan we are
designing.
This City Council approved the Community Plan for the Mount Ogden area of the town. It was approved unanimously. The plan was fueled by people who were determined to block the Administration's attempt to bring a gondola project to the City. The Council listened to these residents and backed their efforts to stop the Administration's plans. The residents were successful, and you cheered them on. NOW,
we are writing our Community Plan, and our recommendations will
attempt to require considerable reviews about architecture,
preservation, harmony, while eagerly seeking development and growth.
If the City Council is going to go against the plan that will emerge
as they did with the IGA-Extension vote, the Community Plan process
for our neighborhood is futile. Perhaps the City Council should write the Comm unity Plan for our neighborhood while giving us the veto power in the matter.
YOU WILL THEN KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE LIVING WITH A COUNCIL ENERGIZED BY HATRED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, FLOURISHING IN THE
DARK WITH EMAILS, GOSSIP, AND PETTY REVENGE...
We will put this Community Plan together in open sessions and with determination to protect our neighborhoods. We will not al low petty attacks to disuade us.
I beg and plead for these jokers to write letters, make hay and march against predication all they wish. Because these are the illiterate dipshits running the mayor's office. Let them be heard!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
GK:
Thanks for the report on the work session. Couple of comments:
(a) You wrote: It was suggested by a council member that the ordinance be rewritten so as not to affect the authority of the council for future building alterations that could impact the Historic 25th Street District.
That would mean, presumably, granting a variance to the Windsor owners to allow them to go higher than 45', but not altering the existing ordinance per se. That would resolve one of the two major problems with what the Council was asked to do Tuesday. But it would still leave open the other problem: might granting the variance put in jeopardy 25th Street's designation as a Historic District? If the answer to that is "yes," then even the one-time variance is a non-starter.
(b) As for the investors wanting to exit the Windsor deal and "get out of Ogden:" According to their website, the investors have four properties under development in downtown Ogden, in which they hope to lease sell space. Now they tell us that because the City Council refused to grant them a variance for one of their properties, involving a zoning limit that was in place when they bought the property, with help from a grant by the City Council, they want to clear out of town, and exit all four property developments? That does not make a great deal of sense to me, unless one of these two possibilities are true:
(1) They intended to ask for additional variances for their other properties as well, if the proposed changes in the ordinance had passed, something they no longer see as probable.
(2) They were promised that the variance for the Windsor would be "no problem" by the Mayor and his development team, and perhaps other things as well, and they now realize that Hizzonah cannot deliver.
I suspect there may be something else at work here. They're hoping to sell upscale condo units in most of their properties downtown [it seems from their website]. One look at the morning papers, and the economic wreckage seven years of Bush and Republican "leadership" has left us with, particularly in the real estate markets, might induce investors in high end condos to begin rethinking their business model and the probability of profit. We know one large condo development at the Junction, Mr. Reid's, has been placed on hiatus for at least two years. The one condo project actually built... or almost built... seems to have slowed to a crawl. The much ballyhooed combination five star hotel and indoor wading pool project for the Junction has been taken off the boards. Under the current economic conditions, we have to consider whether the investors are pulling in their horns at least in part to try to limit their exposure to potential losses in the short and medium term. And, if so, that has damn all to do with what the Council decided Tuesday night.
But I think it unlikely that failing to get a variance of a limit they knew was in place when they bought the Windsor alone would induce them to want out of all four of their downtown Ogden projects.
Hey, write a letter to Descente Corp in Japan, they are honorable and hate bad press. If they knew how their representatives here in Ogden ahve divided the city, paid a fine for a sign stealing, and sent unflattering e-mails about elected officials maybe they would reign in their loose canons.
I'm sure as businessmen they do not want their corporate name attached to the anti-environmental stance to build a gondola over the cities crown jewel Mt. Ogden Park area.
Letters to the editor to Outside Magazine and other outdoor adventure publications might shed some light on how they bully those who are real adventure lovers and outdoor recreactionist.
Speculation regarding king matt's possible smoke-and-mirrors promises aside, can anyone verify whether the three stooges' accusations are true regarding the letter being sent in error and/or whether Gouchner(sp) contacted them?
Sorry, Curious, but I disagree. You don't go after someone's job because you disagree with them on matters of public policy. [Unless that someone is an elected official, in which case you go after him... or her... at the polls].
I disagree with the Messers Geiger on many things: their unblinking [and uncritical] support of our not-particularly-competent mayor, their endless tub-thumping for the silly flatland gondola idea, their support for selling off the city's largest public park to finance the silly flatland gondola, and so on.
And Mr. Geiger has not, so far as I know, stated that "Descente" supports the gondola or park sale or ice tower. [If I'm wrong about that, someone let me know and give me an example or two.] He's put his name behind those bad ideas, but not the company's. And he's as entitled to campaign for what the thinks are good ideas... in other words, he has every much right to be wrong about things, and in public... as the rest of us do.
But going after someone's job because of a disagreement about public policy is... well, just not something folks ought to do.
Drew:
Hard to say, since it's not quite clear what they are complaining about. They seem to be saying the UHS letter was sent by someone in the org. "by mistake" and without permission of his or her superiors. But in none of the emails do I see them saying the content of the letter... that raising the 45' height limit might jeopardize the street's Historic District designation... was incorrect.
If the only complaint they have is that the UHS person should not have sent the letter without getting permission of his or her superiors in the organization first, they don't have much of a point to make. I didn't see anything in their hyperventilating emails that claimed the content of the letter was false.
Did you?
That's a good point - however, they'll spin it that the letter was unauthorized, regardless of the content and their message will be soaked up like a sponge.
I'd like to know for certain whether UHS concurs with the content of the letter, and whether or not it was "unauthorized". If the answer to the latter is false, and the letter was kosher, then it can at least show the stooges are flat out lying, rather than spinning half-truths.
"Barak Obama plays basketball. Charles Barkley plays basketball. Is Charles Barkley qualified to lead the country?" - SNL
Anon, your post reflects not only that you're relatively new around here, as well as too stupid to understand some of what you read.
"the ski is beautiful blue" is the invention of none other that potato nose, i.e. curt geiger. He's the idiot orchestrating this bogus attack at the Council.
My advice to you would be don't try getting into a verbal fight with Jason, he'll kick your ass and leave you totally bewildered.
I don't think he's all that new; he referred to him as Jason Wood, despite the fact that Jason always posts as jason w. .. seems strange that he'd refer to him with his full name if he's unfamiliar with who he even is..
Although I am a little confused as to what "ski is beautiful blue" means as well.
Drew:
I notice that this is still up on the Utah Heritage Foundation official blogsite:
Ogden City Council considers major zoning change for historic 25th Street
Are we to suppose that this page does not express the UHF's position in connetion with this matter, and that this web page is "unauthorized" too?
Drew, only potato nose knows. His e-mail address is right there on his e-mail, so is cavendish's. Someone ought to find out how cavendish's efforts in the man-boy love association are panning out in eastern Europe.
From what I've heard from council members, Caitlin did ask the Utah Heritage Foundation what their assessment was of adding the fourth flooor to the Windsor Hotel. The letter was written by a senior staff member who does that all the time because that is her job. Harmer used to work at UHF, and called down there when he received a copy of the letter, and asked to speak to her boss. When he discovered that he was out of town and hadn't seen the letter, then suddenly it became unauthorized.
The contents of the letter verified that with the addition of the fourth floor, the Windsor, in their opinion would lose its historic status and if other developers requested similar variances, the whole district could be in jeopardy of losing its national historic ranking.
Curmudgeon,
You reference my post, “It was suggested by a council member that the ordinance be rewritten so as not to affect the authority of the council for future building alterations that could impact the Historic 25th Street District.” In the paragraph above the one you reference, I posted, "Some of the council members did indicate that they would consider the matter if the additional floor could be added in such a way that the building did not lose its historic status." I assumed that both stipulations would be part of the new ordinance.
From Mr. Geiger's email:
"This person has brought millions of dollars to Ogden and brought many other people to invest here."
Can any one verify this statement? It was my impression that the city gave this group $300,000 in the beginning, which as I recall was very nearly their buying price to begin with. So do they really have any skin in this deal or don't they? Have they really put "millions" into Ogden or haven't they, and finally have they really brought other investors into Ogden, or not?
In all of the Little Lord's grandiose schemes I am not aware of any significant private money being invested. The many millions that have been dumped into these screw ball deals has mostly been from the poor beleaguered tax payers of Ogden.
So is Mr. Geiger diluted and/or lying on this matter, or is there really big private money at risk on any of these scams?
Folks, I think some of you may be confusing the Utah State Historical Society (a division of the state government) with the Utah Heritage Foundation (a private organization).
George
When did Harmer work for the Utah Heritage Foundation? I have been in and around that organization for a long time and I don't recall him ever working there. He very well could have, but I do not remember him there. They only have a small group of employees and a rather large and sometime involved board of directors - most of whom are posers.
I believe Harmer did work for the State in Salt Lake in a development capacity, but he was fired from that position and then hired by the Little Lord. This incidentally is the LL's MO - hiring, for big salaries, bust outs and rejects from other agencies.
GK:
IN re: I assumed that both stipulations would be part of the new ordinance.
You're right. I didn't make the connection, and I should have. My bad.
Well, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon, don't you think that every inane, rambling, illiterate, decimal-fractioning pile'o'shit commentary published by THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE or Short-deck being ascribed to an executive with Descente NA(aparrel of choice of The Devil) grants implicit Descente corporate approval? Furthermore, the onion-reeking Geigers have banged on doors, spit on women, head-butted opponents, demanded people remove signs promoting Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey's opponent, threatened my job, among others, and made me pee my pants. They deserve nothing less. But feel free to claim your moral high ground and rebuke any tit-for-tat; I almost agree. But in the case of THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE and Short-deck (and Cavendish, GTrain, Blake McCarthy, the Storeys, Mike "Gondola Boy" Dowse, jackass!, Addled Ed Allen, Bernie Allen, and all the rest of the unthinking, moronic, high-adventure douchenozzles): ---- 'em. Look! I have the correct number of spaces for the substitute letters! I love THE GONDOLA. NOT!
Your faithfully,
Jason W.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Wow, Jason! How the apple has fallen far from the tree! I've known your father, Roger, for many years. I respect him greatly. He's such a soft-spoken, intelligent, respectful, humble man. You, unfortunately, are the opposite. I prefer the elder Mr. Wood.
Geiger or Whomever:
Knock that shit off, asshole. You know where I live, then, fuckface? Get over here.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
I think given,
1. The very non-historic (as well as ugly) nature of Ogden Properties' (OP's) proposal for the Windsor and
2. The fact that to my recollection both the state and local historical societies both said at the city council meeting that the proposed modifications would risk 25th Street's historical status and
3. The nature of the proposed ordinance was a clear power grab by the administration,
That the council made the only decision they could.
At that meeting, I suggested that the council vote "no" but still endeavor to work with OP.
And while I realize that neither Geiger, Wilkerson, or Moore speak for OP, the embarrassing and vacuous nature of their attack on council member Gochnour makes me wonder if there is any possibility of good faith on these people's part to work with at all.
It seems they have reached the point that they have so insulated themselves in the company of like minded persons that they are nearly entirely removed from reality.
In which case, the threat from them that they will leave town is hardly worth worrying about.
Jason:
You wrote: Furthermore, the ... Geigers have... threatened my job, among others....
I know that, Jason. That speaks volumes about their character, or lack thereof. None of which justifies going after their jobs. Decent people don't do what they did, go after the jobs of people they disagree with on public policy matters. Not even as payback.
And yeah, Jason. I do like occupying the moral high ground whenever I can. You should too.
found it interesting that at ogdenpropertiesllc.com web site for the windsor hotel that they state that residential units will be available of the 2nd 3rd and 4th floors when you look at the pricing.
had been to this web page before and dont recall the fourth floor being mentioned in the past or the insetion of artists drawing of the proposed building on the last slide the slide show. to support this comment of mine look at the pricing scheme for the floors. notice they only have prices for the second and third floor. no pricing for the 4th floor residential unit. the 4th floor was a recent addition and not their orginal plan. they were planning to renovate this with only 3 floors until recently. This is the understanding and terms under which they recieved money from the city. 3 floors.
Frank,
You asked when Harmer worked at the Utah Heritage Foundation. I can't tell you when, but last night at the work meeting, he said that he had worked there, and if he were still the boss there that (the name of person who wrote the letter withheld out of courtesy) would be fired. It was Harmer who daetermined that the letter was "unauthorized."
To answer Oz Boy's question whether "This person has brought millions of dollars to Ogden and brought many other people to invest here." I haven't seen it or heard about it, and my sources haven't mentioned it. Harmer is as big a liar as Godfrey, so I don't believe anything he says until I see the proof.
David S., the Geigers, Moore and Wilkerson and their corps of nitwits are so filled with hate that there is no hope of a reasonable discussion with them. Because Caitlin tried to be a peacemaker and is a lady at all times which they mistook for being on their side, they are directing their hatred toward her. They will try to break her by their contemptible behavior. I saw a side of Caitlin last night that thrilled me down to my toes as she went toe-to-toe in a nice way with Harmer, but never gave an inch. We have another strong woman on the Council! Hooray!
Great work, Disgusted! It will be interesting to see how Harmer and Montgomergy react to this disclosure. Do you have anything that has the original plan so the Council can show them?
Here are the plans for the addition to the Windsor. Looks like a VW popup camper to me. No wonder the Council wasn't shown THIS...
Windsor Hotel Addition
bullet:
Looks pretty ahistorical to me.
Can you make out a date on the original? It might speak to disgusted's point.
I find it quite amusing that Catlin is being attacked by these idiots(Harmer included) for doing exactly what is the most responsible approach any decision maker can take. Consulting experts and gathering documentation to aid the decision making process. But then they're used to the lying little matty approach which is to avoid experts and use statements and paraphase anonymous sources that they claim are experts.
Everyone still seems to be confusing the Utah Heritage Foundation (a private non-profit organization) with the State Historic Preservation Office (known as SHPO).
Harmmer worked for the latter -- no way would any private organization / company pick up someone so incompetent.
Kirk Haffaker is the Executive Director that came down from SLC to personally speak at the meeting. Harmer has NEVER worked for this private organization.
My bad. Should have previewed the last blog. It's Huffaker.
Bill C:
In re: your remarks on Councilwoman Gochnour: Exactly.
That flurry of whining emails from the Godfrey Gaggle working themselves up into a frothing at the mouth frenzy over the UHS letter and whether it was "unauthorized" without so much as mentioning, much less challenging, the content of the letter suggests one of two things to me: (a) these people are so off-the-rails angry to the point of irrational hatred of those who've opposed, often successfully, some of the things the Godfrey Gaggle wanted... like selling MO Park to pay for the flatland gondola... that they've left any faint vestiges of reasonable conversation and sane discourse behind; or (b) they all just had their meds changed.
It's deja vu! I remember when Council members Jeske and Glasmann suffered at the hands of the moronic bullies called "the administration" and their poor hopelessly non-thinking minions via a bashing in the SE. Just like Caitlin, they wanted more information and Godfrey had told Patterson and Harmer not to give it to them so they went out on their own and found information that demanded answers. Cailin was only doing what a good decision-maker does -- getting the facts by which to make the best decision.
I find it most interesting that Godfrey, the A-Team and their mindless minions always attack when the facts are brought into the picture -- they're opposed to people having correct information. But then isn't that the way all dictators operate?!
Thank God we finally have enough people on the council who will go after the truth and use to make the best decisions long term for Ogden and the taxpayers. Let them know you appreciate them because Godfrey's mindless minions are trying to intimidate them into being another "rubber-stamp council."
Last week, Freddie Mac 30-year fixed mortgage rates surged 31 bps to 6.09%. Fifteen-year fixed rates jumped 42 bps to 5.77%, and one-year ARMs increased 13 bps to 5.16%. Bankrate's survey of jumbo mortgage borrowing costs had 30-yr fixed jumbo rates this week up 17 bps to 7.18%.
Note that when the traitorous Paulson bailed out Freddie and Fannie, and shot them with $200 billion of taxpayer morphine, it was supposed to LOWER mortgage rates. Yet, they are going UP! The bailout they are working on this weekend will not work either, but will only insulate a few bankers from their mistakes at huge cost to us all.
Call or email Hatch and Bishop (and Bennett if you feel like it) and tell them to vote down the taxpayer funded bailout of Wall Street.
(BTW, thanks to the CC for showing the sense to vote no on Godfrey's appalling zoning change.)
The Secretary of the Interior has guidelines that are to be followed for modification to historic buildings. The following link addresses their guidelines for new additions to historic buildings, http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/new01.htm. If they want to keep the historic district designation, these are the regulations that must be followed.
Regardless, council should not abdicate authority over these issues to the mayor. Historic districts are an important part of cities, contributing to tax incentives, tourism, and overall feel. This does not mean new development cannot occur, just take into account the history of a place.
Bill Gross of Pimco says the bailout needs to be a full trillion. Some other jerk, Kenichi Ohmae of McKinsey and Co. says it needs to be 5 trillion dollars. If you think these ticks will be finished sucking your blood after $700 billion goes up in smoke, think again.
(BTW Federal Bureaucrat, good link. Nails it. Windsor addition was a very bad idea.)
The link and text below specifically indicate that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who sent the letter to the council, is responsible for administering funding – this is where the council's greatest concerns should be. Millions of dollars are infused in Ogden through these programs. This is guaranteed money – even if the economy tanks – but only if we keep the historic designation.
Through many "minor" changes over a period of years, Park City lost their historic designation. All of those federal funds are no longer available. It does happen. One allowance, on a major construction issue like this, can be the proverbial opening of Pandora’s Box.
The national guidelines the Landmarks Commission is supposed to follow specifically state that a rooftop addition is almost NEVER appropriate when the existing structure is less than four stories tall (the Windsor is three). The plan should not have been approved at that level because it does not meet the national standards. There’s a reason why the company’s Website does not have a photo of the addition (and we haven’t seen much of it). It’s an architectural eyesore – so much so it would likely become a major visual focus on the street.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/index.htm
"The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program encourages private sector rehabilitation of historic buildings and is one of the nation's most successful and cost-effective community revitalization programs. It generates jobs and creates moderate and low-income housing in historic buildings.
The program is administered by National Park Service and the Internal Revenue Service in partnership with State Historic Preservation Offices."
Here is the National Park Service (the federal agency historical preservation falls under) guideline for rooftop additions.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/ITS/its_47.pdf
They show a plan very similar to what develops want to do at the Windsor and state:
"Contrary to National Park Service guidance which states that rooftop additions should be limited to one story and are rarely acceptable
for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full story and a half above the roof. The prominent
cornice, an important character-defi ning feature of the primary elevation of the historic building,
is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition
barely set back from the front of the building, its asymmetric, modernist design further detracts
from the character of the building’s classicallystyled
façade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also
out of character with the surrounding district. This rooftop addition is not compatible with the
historic character of the building and, therefore, does not meet the Standards."
Historically Innacurate:
While I personally appreciate your informative, well-researched and well-reasoned posts, you overlook a key point.
To wit, (as mentioned by someone previously) the Volkswagen popup van IS a design of classic historical significance. This no doubt, is what the Godfrey-stacked Landmarks Committee had in mind when they narrowly approved the design.
Windsor Hotel proposal
Timeless VW Popup Design
What I find truly funny and amazing is the fact that there are idiots out there to the likes of Geiger’s, Moore, and Wilkerson, who will do the bidding of the Mayor and his Administration.
These people are loosing credibility, and making a bad name and reputation for them selves, while little Lying Matty is sitting back laughing.
I am sorry, but I would never make myself look like such a fool to promote such frivolous agendas for people like Matt Godfrey.
What are these idiots going to do when Matty is gone from the public scene in a few short years, and they are considered outcasts in the community?
Let’s all sit back and enjoy the show folks; it's going to get better.
Rudi:
Thanks for the PDF. It's very clear now why the Godfrey Gaggle is desperate to discredit the letter. All the wailing about its being "unapproved" and sent in error [as opposed to its content being wrong] is beginning to remind me of the more rabid wingnuts you can find on the web sometime who discover, say, that President Clinton signed a tax bill "William J. Clinton" but that his official name on his drivers license is "William Jefferson Clinton" and so his signature on the tax bill is "not official" and therefor "illegal" and so "nobody has to pay that tax because the president didn't use his legal signature when he signed it."
Happily, most such people are usually kept, for their own safety, in places that have limited visiting hours.
Except of course in Ogden.
The addition drawings remind me of the incredible abortion they built in the courtyard of the Louve in Paris. It is a giant glass pyramid that totally clashes with the old architecture of the museum itself. Strangely this monstrosity has been embraced by the art world! Ah the French, ya just gotta love them as walking talking contradictions. Maybe these Godfreyites are actually wanna be Frenchies?
Barbara Murphy probably stepped over the line in this letter when she "respectfully request(ed that Council) oppose this zoning amendment." She should have simply offered her professional opinion on what the potential adverse effects of passing the amendment would be.
Regardless, I can't see how Gochnour's request of information from the SHPO or her decision to show this letter to Council is in any way a problem. Council should seek out all relevant information pertaining to the votes they are to make.
One last point - Mr Moore needs a refresher course in politics. Tyranny is not when the elected representatives of a town refuse to pass an ordinance that would take power away from them - the elected representatives of a town - and place it in the hands of a commission. The attempt to move the power into the hands of this commission looks a lot more like tyranny.
Fed B:
Good post.
Another house in Leshamville caught fire. Third one in this neighborhood. Thankfully Ogden's finest FD put it out quickly and safely.
Thats strange, the FD has been instructed to circle the block several times until they are sure the house will be destroyed.
Can we get an ordinance that if a vacant house or structure burns the city charges triple to the owner and applies the funds to the fire department.
Maybe the owner has insured all those homes and collects on insurance when they burn. Good way to pay off his debts.
Lord knows the mayor has cut the OFD budget and we need new equipment to keep us safe.
I'm thankful that the fire department is good at their job. Hate to see them put themselves at risk for those abondoned properties. How many more years will they sit vacant and attracting problems and weeds.
As for the letter that was written by Ms. Murphy, what a great piece. It presented the facts clearly. Had the Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission, and developers asked for this info that is what they would have received. I've read the letter a couple of times and I really don't think what Ms. Murphy mentioned at the end of the letter is all that bad. Definitely not enough to get in trouble over. She was apparently asked her opinion and she offered, backed w/ a lot of facts. If Wilkerson and the ilk are claiming that is out of line, then where does that put them. If only Ogden City had the same integrity the State Historical Office and Utah Heritage Foundation has, then we wouldn't be in these messes so often. Does Sue Wilkerson and buds ever think before they act or say anything? To reaffirm, the none of the facts of the "letter" have been disputed (because they can't).
Who is Tom Moore? Is his wife Stephanie that teaches at Polk Elementary?
Moore is an old, ex-school teaching fruiter who's main claim to fame is having married into one of Ogden's old money families. A sycophant of the first order! For all practical purposes he is total zero who likes to pretend he is worth something more than a pinch of shit, which he's not. Phony to the core.
I can't believe my eyes that tom, curt, and sue have become the nay sayers that are going against anything and everthing that our council is doing. shame on them. shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame shame....
OGDEN DEM askwd
“”Who is Tom Moore? Is his wife Stephanie that teaches at Polk Elementary?” Yes. I won’t share my personal opinion of who or what Tom Moore is. I think when you read his email, you can guess that he is the one who is filled with hate and has an ego to rival Godfrey’s.
BILLYBOB said
“If Wilkerson and the ilk are claiming that is out of line, then where does that put them.” (I believe that Councilwoman Jeske indicated that same thought at the Council meeting last Tuesday and that is what riled Tom Moore so much.) “If only Ogden City had the same integrity the State Historical Office and Utah Heritage Foundation has, then we wouldn't be in these messes so often. Does Sue Wilkerson and buds ever think before they act or say anything?” No! Boss Godfrey does their thinking and they do whatever he tells them
Curmudgeon,
I love your 11:27 am post! It’s really great and what a clever sense of humor!
FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT & HISTORICALLY INACCURATE
Have given us some very pertinent information. Their posts are excellent! THANK YOU! You guys are what make this blog such a great and worthwhile place!
Rudi, please accept my belated thanks for posting the letter from the state historical preservation office. Up until now I was relying on hearsay--albeit from sources I trusted--about the possible consequences of permitting taller buildings on 25th Street. Now it's absolutely clear that the council did the right thing and indeed, it is unconscionable that two council members still voted for the ordinance change. It's also clear that the Landmarks Commission completely dropped the ball on this by apparently believing what the administration told them instead of consulting with the state themselves. Now we all know that the Landmarks Commission cannot be trusted. We all owe tremendous thanks to councilmember Gochnour for making sure the council had the facts in time for their vote.
Yeah Dan, it was real delight to finally obtain and upload the letter, which was the crucial piece of evidence lacking during our earlier discussion on this thread.
The letter speaks for itself, and reveals a level of corruption in this town which is absolutley mind-boggling.
More Strange News From MattGodfreyWorld
Rudi,
You said, "The letter speaks for itself, and reveals a level of corruption in this town which is absolutley mind-boggling."
Meaning, if I may, that the letter, and Caitlin's request for it, were all obviously done straightforwardly and in good faith. While on the other hand, the godfreyite claims that something nefarious transpired is clearly false and not in good faith.
So we can see that there are some politicians locally who we feel are on the level and trustworthy. We are not naysayers after all.
On another subject, I've gotten used to what I call "The Sunday Afternoon Rigging", when Washington throws billions into the marked in a Sunday bailout trying to push the market up before the Monday NY open.
Each time, it has been a bigger amount of money, and the effect on the market has diminished each time! Now, we hear of a "deal" on the mother of all bailouts, and the market right now in Asia is fluctuating around the Friday close, i.e. the latest bailout is doing nothing so far!
Please folks, call or email Bennett, Hatch, and Bishop. This bailout will not stave off the collapse, but will only insulate banks as they take our money with them. Remarkably, it is Democrats who are following the "trickle down" theory - bail out the banks, and they will trickle the money out to the public in the form of LOANS! Unbelievable!
"Meaning, if I may, that the letter, and Caitlin's request for it, were all obviously done straightforwardly and in good faith. While on the other hand, the godfreyite claims that something nefarious transpired is clearly false and not in good faith."
Bingo.
I'm sorry if my on the fly comment was unclear. I was merely attempting to expand upon Dan's earlier comment, however inarticulately.
"Please folks, call or email Bennett, Hatch, and Bishop. This bailout will not stave off the collapse, but will only insulate banks as they take our money with them. Remarkably, it is Democrats who are following the "trickle down" theory - bail out the banks, and they will trickle the money out to the public in the form of LOANS! Unbelievable!"
Thanks, Danny. You're exactly right.
For our readers' convenience, I'm linking this contact page, which was most recently updated on September 22, 2008:
Contect your Utah Congresscritters.
I've checked the links; and they work.
I'm also adding this page to the contact links in our right sidebar.
Rudi and Googlegirl,
Thanks for the links to the Ogden City Code governing committees and commissions.
Especially, the appointment and reappointment of committee members:
"1. By Mayor: Boardmembers shall be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council." Council, take note.
You might find it interesting to know that when the "cleansing" of the Landmarks Commission took place in March of this year, the Council rejected the new appointee to replace Libby Norvell because her term was not up, the City had paid for her to attend training for the position. She was very qualified for the position and still took the time to obtain more training. While her replacement had an interest in historic buildings, she had no training. This was brought to the attention of Godfrey by Council members. To get out of an uncomfortable position, he said that he would check on it. He later told the Council that he had checked on it and was sticking to his original recommendation. When the Council voted on the recommendation, Councilwoman Jeske was the only who voted "Nay" on the change. But the Council had the power to keep Ms. Norvell on the Commission, now it's coming back to haunt them. Godfrey is throwing it in their face with, "You approved the new appointees." It's too bad foresight isn't as good as hindsight.
But now we're stuck with a LandMarks Commission with a credibility vs. loyalty problem. And with Ms. Wilkerson's "Yours Faithfully" closing to her email to Godfrey, doesn't leave any doubts as to where she stands.
One item that really bothers me is how Greg Montgomery attempted to pin this on Caitlin to Curt Geiger. Instead of looking for a scapegoat w/ Caitlin and the historic prez organizations, maybe the City needs to take a good look inside.
On the inside:
(1)I don't think the Council had the authority to keep Ms. N. on the Landmarks Commission. It could have declined to ratify the appointment of whoever the Mayor nominated to succeed her, but I don't think the Council could have kept her in place if the Mayor declined to submit her name for reappointment.
(2) The members of the LMC should have been familiar with the federal rules for obtaining, and sustaining an Historic District status for 25th Street. That goes without saying. Some of them clearly were, but the majority either did not know, or knew but did not care. Does anyone know if the members had an opinion from the UHS in hand when they made their decision to recommend changing the zoning ordinance? Just curious....
(3) This is all another example of Mayor Godfrey's thin grasp of even the rudiments of effective public administration. Appointing unquestionably independent citizen advisory committees means the recommendations of those committees carry some weight with the Council and public because the committees are known to be independent. Once you compromise that independence, as the Mayor has done on the Landmarks Commission and the Trails Commission and the Independent (?} MOGC Citizens Advisory Committee for example, then the recommendations of those committees lack the power, generally, to convince because the committees are known not to be independent. Even for his own purposes, the Mayor would probably be better served by truly independent citizen advisory committees --- provided of course that he is confident that he can convince them of the worth... on the merits... of whatever he is trying to get them to recommend. His attempts to stack the various committees in his favor is strong evidence that he is not confident that what he wants those committees to endorse can stand scrutiny on the merits before independent referees. In short, stacking the committees, or trying too, is proof of the weakness of the Mayor's arguments.
peabody-
Montgomery is in a tough position: professional integrity or do what the little twerp nephew dictates?
Peabody:
I hold no particular brief for Mr. Montgomery, but AA has a point: he serves whoever is in the Mayor's office. He has only limited freedom of action to do other than what the Mayor... whoever that might be... wants done with respect to matters that fall under Mr. Montgomery's purview.
Curmudgeon,
Ms. Norvell's term was not finished, she was to be on the Commission until 2010, so the Mayor should not have been replacing her. So if the Council had not approved her replacement, she should have been allowed to stay on.
I contacted the Utah Heritage Foundation, and was told that no one that was not approved by the Council should be allowed to assume a position on the Commission.
On the Inside:
You wrote: I contacted the Utah Heritage Foundation, and was told that no one that was not approved by the Council should be allowed to assume a position on the Commission.
Of course. That's what I said. The Council must ratify those nominated by the Mayor or they cannot take a seat on the Commission. We are both agreed on that.
The point on which we may be disagreeing... or on which one or both of us is unclear... is this: If Ms. N. was a fully approved by the Council member of the Commission with two years left to run on her term, how could the Mayor remove her? I don't think he has removal powers, does he? I think his power to take members off the Commission is limited to asking them to resign [which they may or may not do at their option], and to not reappointing them when their terms expire.
As I recall, the Mayor's story was that Ms.N. was appointed only to fill out a brief period left in the term of someone who had left the commission. Once that short period was up, he was free to nominate her to a full term [isn't it six years?] or to nominate someone else, which he did. Perhaps the Mayor's story was bogus. His stories often are. But as I recall, that's how it was reported in the SE.
If Ms. N. was already on the Commission, and had been approved by the Council for a term that ended in 2010, I'm a little unclear on how the Mayor could have removed her from the Commission before her term was up without her consent.
Mr. Curmudgeon,
You posted, “If Ms. N. was a fully approved by the Council member of the Commission with two years left to run on her term, how could the Mayor remove her? I don't think he has removal powers, does he? I think his power to take members off the Commission is limited to asking them to resign [which they may or may not do at their option], and to not reappointing them when their terms expire.
“As I recall, the Mayor's story was that Ms.N. was appointed only to fill out a brief period left in the term of someone who had left the commission. Once that short period was up, he was free to nominate her to a full term [isn't it six years?] or to nominate someone else, which he did. Perhaps the Mayor's story was bogus. His stories often are. But as I recall, that's how it was reported in the SE.
“If Ms. N. was already on the Commission, and had been approved by the Council for a term that ended in 2010, I'm a little unclear on how the Mayor could have removed her from the Commission before her term was up without her consent.”
The following excerpt from the Ogden City Code, Section J. dealing with committees and commissions may clarify things for you. “J. Removal From Office: Board members may be removed from office at any time by the mayor, without cause.”
When Ms. N was first appointed to the LMC, she was given a document that said that her term ran to March 2010 which very pointedly proves that the Mayor’s story is another one of his lies to cover his dirty deed. You say that his story was reported in the SE, another reason not to believe everything that you read in the SE.
I have a question for you Mr. Curmudgeon, Why do you feel compelled to question EVERYTHING that others post when you have no idea of which you speak?
Inside, Curm loves to question everything, and he tries to place himself in the other point of view. I think sometimes it just to get you to go on, and hopefully reveal more info to back your argument or position, and it's his way of telling you that you've yet to win him over.
That aside, it's become quite clear that the mayor has in fact removed very qualified folks on this commission and replaced them with uninformed lackey's that will do whatever he desires. Bernies remarks at the begining of the public comments last Tuesday are really quite revealing. He knew that what he and this commission were advocating goes against the principles of their calling, and that they knew they were approving this project that would not comply with the historic restoration criteria. That's why he adamently stated to all, that this was not about this one project, has nothing to do withit he said.
This should tell all of us that there are more very big suprizes coming for 25th st. and they probably all will jeopordize it's classification as a historic district.
In their first action as a new commission, they have shown that they won't adhere to the principles of their calling. What can we do to correct this? How can we get g-train and bernie removed from this commission? This is the real issue now.
To the Council I plead, please do not reconsider anything that takes what's left of your oversight away, and if there is a way to gain more oversight do it.
on the inside:
The section of the code you quoted doesn't apply to the landmarks commission. It has its own section in the code where it says the mayor can remove members only for cause. I can't provide a citation right now but I'll find it later if you can't.
On the Inside:
You ask: I have a question for you Mr. Curmudgeon, Why do you feel compelled to question EVERYTHING that others post when you have no idea of which you speak?
I don't question everything others post or anything close to that. I do question matters that don't seem to add up to me, because, when I'm wrong about something or misunderstand it, that's how I discover that I am wrong or misunderstand things. People who know more about the topic than I do often post information I didn't have, and often post links or cite sources I wasn't aware of. And so I learn.
I note you're providing a reference to the City Code, but someone else below says that the Land Marks Commission is under a different section of the code, with different provisions. Hence, what we have going on here now is a discussion about what the provisions in the code are regarding appointment [and removal] of Landmarks commission members. I figure this is a good thing, since as it proceeds all of us, myself included, will end up with a better grasp of the facts, and can draw sounder conclusions from them.
Any time something doesn't seem to add up to me, I'll question it, OTI, and explain why I think it doesn't add up, or why I have doubts about it. As I did this time. If I subsequently learn more, and that I was wrong in my understanding of the matter, that's good, so far as I'm concerned. Anytime someone here can straighten me out on something I've misunderstood, I'm better off.
The matter we're discussing, the conditions under which the Mayor can remove a member of the Landmarks Commission, is still unresolved, though.
Bill:
You wrote: Curm loves to question everything.
Well, no, not everything. Not by a long shot. Why, Bill, I can recall agreeing with you here. Lots of times, especially when Hizzonah was pushing to sell Mt. Ogden Park to finance his damn silly flatland gondola. And on many other occasions as well.
Curm, we do agree most of the time, thats because we're usually right. (I resisted to say always)
It seems that what's been going on in Ogden isn't too hard to clearly see, it's almost black and white.
You are more cautious than I am, and don't fly off the handle as quick, once convinced, I respond, sometimes in ways guys like you never will. I respect and appreciate you very much as you know, it's nice having guys like you on our side.
Here's the citation re the Landmarks Commission: Ogden City Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 3:
C.Vacancies; Removal: Vacancies occurring in the membership of the commission other than by expiration of term of office shall be filled by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council for the unexpired term. Members of the commission may be removed by the mayor for cause.
Please note that this passage applies only to the Landmarks Commission, not to other city committees.
Good catch, Dan.
I suppose it could be argued then that Ms. Libby (and any other commissioners who were removed "without cause") have legal claim to their original seats, and that subsequent appointments may be "void ab initio."
Too funny!
It's gonna be a hell of a lot of fun sorting this one out, methinks.
Rudi:
Also am wondering who, under the city code, determines what adequate "cause" for removal is? In most instances I'm familiar with, an appointing exec cannot simply declare that he or she has reasonable cause to remove someone. They must have that claim reviewed, usually by the group that had to ratify the initial nomination... in this case, the Council I'd imagine.
But city codes can be strange and wonderful and unique things. I have no idea what the Ogden city code requires to establish "cause" for removal of a LC member. Or whether it deals directly with that question at all.
I'm quite sure that the City Council was aware of the "for cause" requirement when they approved the new appointees to the Landmarks Commission. But I have no knowledge of the details of who was removed from the Commission, exactly how they were removed, or whether their terms had expired. However, this information should be easy to obtain, either from the Planning Department or the Council office. There's no need to rely on hearsay.
dan s. I was one of the people removed from the Landmarks Commission. It took them three months to approve me after I applied. I received paperwork that stated my term ended in 2010. After the election the Mayor lied and told everyone I was finishing someone else's term, which would have made me a commissioner for a glorious three days!!! Why would they take three months to appoint someone for three days? Why spend tax dollars to send me to the National Preservation Conference if my term was for three days? They never even sent me a letter of dismissal. The landmarks commission is stacked with Godfey supporters. He cleaned house of the commissioners that didn't support his agenda. The others were already on his team.
Libby,
Thanks for telling your story. Perhaps you should make sure others hear it, by writing a letter to the Standard-Examiner.
Post a Comment