Friday, October 17, 2008

First Bulldozers Begin Demolition in Leshemville

Leshem expects to have a full demolition plan... within three months

This morning's Standard-Examiner reports that some progress -- however slight -- is being made in the Ogden River Project area, with the razing of one of Gadi Lesham's burned out homes. Oddly, the $10,000 demolition is currently being paid for on the taxpayer's dime. The city is carrying out the demolition, and will lien the property in the expectation of being reimbursed later. In addition, Scott Schwebke reports that Mr. Leshem, who owns some 50 vacant homes in the area, "hopes to complete a plan within three months for the demolition of all of the vacant homes he owns within the river project’s boundaries."

Three months? What's the rush, we ask? At the rate our local arsonist is moving, all fifty of Gadi's properties ought to be burned out by mid-January. We're sure this is NOT good news for the Ogden Fire Department.

Don't let the cat get your tongues.


Bill C. said...

Let's see, the City is now in the demolition business to placate leshem's lack of money to finish off the first step of the scam that was facilitated by the City acting as gadi real estate partner. Meanwhile lying little matty is trying to purchase all the remaining properties not yet handed over to gadi by draining all RDA funds. In other words, continuing to act as gadi's real estate partner. Between the property and demolition costs how large an investment is this City making on behalf of this guy, who's done nothing so far but plead no contest to fraud charges brought by the state of California?
Could it be their partnership will end with some newfound buyer for the whole developement, allowing gadi to make a profit without spending a dime? All transactions coming together at the final closing? Would it be legal? Is it ethical?

Joe said...

... why is it that Joe the Plumber has recieved more media interviews in a single day than Jerimiah Wright and William Ayers have had this entire campaign?

And why does the fact that because Joe is (not a liscenced plumber not making $250,000 a year and owes backtaxes) somehow diminish looking into Obamas awnswer and the fact that "spreading the wealth around" is a socialist marxist theology! The same theology taught in Obama's church for 20 years, the same ideology that caused william Ayers to bomb buildings, and the same ideas that attracted Obama to intentionally associate with Marxist professors in College...

IT is a pattern and those are his core beliefs! And I have a problem with that.

Joe Plumber may have been misleading, but Obama was very clear in his Ideology that he has represented for the last 20 or more years. MARXISM.

Curmudgeon said...


"the fact that "spreading the wealth around" is a socialist marxist theology!"

Oh, good lord, give it a rest and read a little history. Obama is talking about progressive taxation. Raising taxes on the wealthy, lowering them on the middle class. If that makes him a socialist, it makes Teddy Roosevelt a socialist too. And Woodrow Wilson. Progressive taxation [which means the rate you pay rises with your income, so that those making the most pay the highest rates] was a reform brought in during the Progressive period. Teddy Roosevelt also brought in the inheritance tax on large fortunes because he thought concentrating more and more of the nation's wealth in fewer and fewer hands through untaxed huge inheritances was not good for the nation.

The period in which we had the highest degree of progressive taxation was 1945 to mid 1970s... which is also the period during which, for the first time, we became a predominantly middle class nation. The money taxed in from the upper levels went to fund, among other things, the GI bill, and all those homes bought by vets after WWII [the birth of suburbia], and all those vets going to college to improve their lives, and their families lives, and their incomes. Which in turn boomed the American economy since "spreading the money around" like that hugely increased the buying power of the newly created middle class nation. Everybody won, including businesses and industry, whose leaders nevertheless screamed "FDR is a socialist/marxist/communist" all the way to the bank.

Returning to the principles of progressive taxes [cutting taxes for the middle class which is now hurting big time thanks to eight years of Republican right-wing ideology being imposed by the White House, and raising taxes on those making a great deal more] is a very good idea at this juncture. And it is, in fact, Sen. Obama's proposal.

The Cold War is over. Time to stop seeing socialists under ever bed. Long past time.

Ms. Pappas said...

Glad I tuned in to today's Forum because for once I agree with Curmudgeon.

Its true, just ask the admin. said...

Hey bill,
I bet they are not using the city dump to dump the old stuff. Oh yea, I forgot they are using it. It is called the Ogden river.

Curmudgeon said...

Ms. Pappas:

Why, thanks. Now that you've tried it [agreeing with me], maybe you'll like it and do it again.... [grin].

Peon said...

You say you’re for a progressive tax and so I am to some degree, but rich is not defined at an earnings level of $250,000 per year. Inflation has raised that level to a much higher income level. Is someone that makes that much per year better off than say someone making $60,000 per year, yes, but the difference in life style is not that much different. At the level of $250,000 you still worry about retirement funds, you still worry about health care costs, you still worry about your mortgage payment and you still worry about your investments which are still basically the same type that everyone else you know is investing in. You don’t make enough to buy buildings or large farms or ranches nor can you afford to hire people to work exclusively for you to manage your money. You are exempt from virtually all tax withholdings, personal exemptions, medical write offs or any other deduction that everyone else is provided. The government loves you, you’re too rich to get any tax breaks, you’re taxed at least 50% and though you save it does not accumulate as fast as you may think. You do not benefit from your wealth the way the truly rich do. The truly rich do not pay the higher tax rates that someone that make $250,000 per year does. They have their money and their investments sheltered for taxes in such a way that they pay substantially lesser tax rates. At $250,000 per year, you don't own big boats or own private planes or you don't own homes all over the world. Rich are the guys that are making millions of dollars per year (not $250,000 per year) and there are a lot of them. The guy or lady that makes $250,000 per year is stuck in the middle. They are your doctors, dentists, small business owners and higher up middle managers in companies.

We have a government that is controlled by the rich and they will allow the peons to only rise so high in the economic environment, after which they have convinced the rest of the peons that anyone that make $250,000 per year or more is rich and should be taxed to submission while the truly rich shelter there own personal investments and money from taxes.

John McCain’s wife who is truly rich reported her taxes for the last two years. Her effective tax rate for those years was 28.5% while someone making $250,000 was paying 50% plus.

We have a class war going on here and the truly rich want to keep there position. A tax structure that kicks in big time at the $250,000 level is protection for the rich. It keeps most everyone from ever climbing up to their level. A tax increase that started at $1,000,000 per year and focused more at taking away the tax shelters for the rich would accomplish, I dare say, more in generating tax revenue for the government then what is currently being proposed. The 250 number just puts a ceiling on the middle classes ability to achieve the American Dream. The concentration of wealth in this country among the top ½ of 1% of the top wage earners is staggering.

I don’t favor either of the candidate’s tax plans. Progressive taxes are good to a point but they should not provide disincentives to people from trying to achieve a better life for their selves and their family. People should be contributors to the society not takers of the system. That said, I believe in paying a living wage, raising the pay of teachers firemen and the police. Those people that are truly rich should pay more but the level to start at is much higher than $250,000 per year.

Below is a link to an analysis of the Obama tax plan that appeared in the Wall Street Journal the other day. It’s quite interesting and in my opinion not in the best interest of the peons of this country. Oh, and by the way I consider myself a peon too.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved