Response to this Morning's Standard-Examiner Op-ed Piece

Lame Tami Crowley Guest Commentary, thoroughly sliced and diced

By Curmudgeon

In this morning's Standard-Examiner, there is a long op ed piece by Ms. Tami Crowley, owner of Artists & Heirlooms on Historic 25th Street. She is displeased by the Council's vote last Tuesday night not to change the height limits for renovation projects on the street to accommodate the Windsor Hotel renovation. Ms. Crowley notes that many business owners supported the change the Council rejected, and believes that the wishes of those who own businesses on 25th Street were not taken seriously by the Council as a whole, and charges that the Council instead listened to "outsiders" and indulged the members own personal agendas instead.

Ms. Crowley's piece is interesting in a number of respects. She sadly descends into the same rhetorical overkill and partisanship she accuses those on the Council she disagrees with of employing. [Ms. Crowley, there were certainly those at the meeting supporting your point of view, but there were not "countless" numbers of them, as you claim.] But that kind of exaggeration often creeps into pieces written by the angry. There are more substantive problems with Ms. Crowley's missive.

She repeated the usual Godfrey Gaggle charge that the Council bowed to the wishes of those who live in "neighborhoods east of the area," and complains that the Windsor renovation plan had already been approved by "the appropriate officials" and would "never have gone to the council if it weren't for the height ordinance." Let me see if I can rephrase that point for her a little more clearly: "If the ordinances didn't require the Council to approve this, the council wouldn't have had to approve it." We can only wonder if Ms. Crowley had her op ed piece proofread by Sarah Palin before she submitted it, with such a trenchant observation as that at the heart of it.

Ms. Crowley says she was "appalled as one of the councilwomen read a pre-written speech, obviously authored by someone opposed to the project." It's a little hard to know exactly what Ms. Crowley was upset about. That a council member read prepared remarks into the record? Surely not that. That the remarks were "written by someone opposed to the project?" Does Ms. Crowley think only remarks by those in favor of projects she likes should be read into the record? I suspect that's it, but her point is so vaguely made, it's hard to be sure.

"In that speech," she goes on, the councilwoman "degraded landmarks and the planning commission and provided no documentation, only worry."

I agree with Ms. Crowley that some of the discussion by the council descended, by all accounts, into inappropriate... well, mudslinging. I agree with her that such has no proper place in public discourse, particularly in the Council chambers during public sessions. However, about this "no documentation" matter.... I note that Ms. Crowley never mentions the article by the Utah Heritage Foundation cautioning that changing the height ordinance to accommodate the Windsor developers might put the street's Historic District designation at risk. And, despite her expressed concern for the importance of documentation in public debate [which I share], she never in her op ed piece so much as mentions the letter from the State Historic Preservation Office spokesperson raising the same concerns.

What she does include in her essay is this: "I listened to presentations by City Planning Manager Greg Montgomery... [which] provided information showing this change would not jeopardize historical guidelines with federal or state regulations with for future funding." That's it. Just a bald assertion, with no documentation or evidence provided by Ms. Crowley, that changing the height limits would not affect the street's federal designation as a Historic District.

Sorry, Ms. Crowley, but [rhetorically] stamping your foot and shouting over and over "It won't! It won't! It won't!" isn't likely to convince anyone not already committed to your side of the argument.

Let me put it in a nutshell for you, Ms. Crowley: I had no opinion on this Windsor business until I read the Utah Heritage Foundation article, and then saw the SHPO letter. Those moved me off the fence and into the group supporting the Council on this. Those two communications, from groups with a great deal of credibility on matters involving historic preservation, stating that changing the height limits would endanger the streets historic designation, I found convincing.

I don't have a problem with the proposed Windsor re-design. I think it would be good for Ogden in general, and 25th Street in particular to have a deteriorating history property rehabbed in a way to preserve the historic character of the building and bring several upscale condo units to the street. But not at the cost of endangering the street's Historic District designation.

So, if you want to convince me... and Council members too I suspect --- otherwise, what you need to do is present an argument, and evidence, that the SHPO and Heritage Foundation are wrong about this, and that changing the height limits would definitely not endanger the streets Historic District designation. That is, seems to me, what you and those who share your views need to do. Your op ed piece does not even begin to do it.