Although we've taken the day off from posting, we didn't want to let the whole day slip away without at least addressing today's Standard-Examiner editorial, which slams both the Emerald City administration and the council for ill-considered acts and comments allegedly undertaken and made in connection with the now defeated Historic 25th Street District administration rezoning proposal .
In that connection, alert reader Danny has directed our attention to a wonderful rebuttal appearing on the Std-Ex Live website, the full text of which which we incorporate below:
By: flatlander100 @ 10/12/2008, 10:33 AMOur thanks to Std-Ex reader Flatlander for the most excellent rebuttal.
We can all agree, I think, that rancor between the Mayor's office and the Council is not good for Ogden City. But when today's editorial goes on to assess responsibility for the current state of affairs, it does so in what, for a newspaper, is a disturbingly fact-free way.
For example, the editorial repeats the claim of the Council's critics that it made its decision to deny the Windsor developers a zoning change on the basis of "inaccurate information." And as evidence of that, it notes that the Murphy letter [which warned that changing the zoning might imperil 25th Street's Historic District designation] was withdrawn by her supervisor, Mr. Martin, because his organization does not as a rule get involved testifying in zoning matters.
True enough. But did Mr. Martin suggest in any way that Ms. Murphey's conclusions... that changed zoning would endanger 25th Street's Historic District status... was incorrect? He did not. So what "incorrect information" does the editorial identify that the council relied on in making its decision? None. Nor did the editorial so much as mention letters and testimony from several other people with much experience and substantial credibility in historic preservation that concurred with Ms. Murphy's conclusions.
The editorial then, seeking apparently to saddle the Council with responsibility for the rancor, ranges back two years to resurrect Godfrey administration spin regarding the Ernest Company project, claiming that the Council "badgered and berated" company representatives at a Council meeting. I wonder, did the editorial writer bother to listen to the tape of that Council meeting? [It's a matter of public record.] There is little or nothing on it that anyone not an Administration spin-meister would characterize as badgering and berating. And did the editorial mention that the Council members questioning Ernest were seeking information about the company that they'd requested from the Mayor's office much earlier... and had been refused? It did not.
The SE is entitled to its editorial opinion. However, when it offers such an opinion to its readers, it has a responsibility to marshal fact in support of it. This editorial did not. From MY hometown paper, I expect better. Much better.
Our readers' additional observations and comments are encouraged... either here... or on the Std-Ex site.
