Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Hot Emerald City Rumor of the Day

Interesting intel re Boss Godfrey's unquenchable gondola fetish

By: WhatWardRUin

Chris Peterson and Godfrey have had a falling out; in fact they have become bitter adversaries.

Godfrey is now working with Sen. Hatch, Gov. Huntsman, the Board of Regents and Earl Holding to develop Weber State University land and run a gondola to the top of the mountain to link directly to Snowbasin. The latest Nicklaus golf plan shows a new driving range and golf holes surrounded by condos on WSU property.

Godfrey has "foreign" investors lined up to finance the whole thing, including relocating WSU maintenance buildings.

Remember you heard it here first.


WhatWardRUin said...

In case you are planning to "gramma" City hall for info be advised that Godfrey and his A-Team now correspond through text messaging and home/private emails; non-discoverable.

googlegirl said...

Exclusive Yellowstone Club files for bankruptcy

PPK said...

Earl Holding?
Earl = Sinclair Oil = $$$billions profit/quarter = Ogden's gettin' a gondola!

I can see it now.

For a minute I didn't understand the connection of googlegirl's post, but think about it...even the "wealthy" in Yellowstone are crying bankruptcy in this awesome economy (of course, to "protect" their "ass"ets for now, I would guess).

But if someone who has an income from owning an oil company comes into the picture, and they want to make sure a gondola is put into place...that would connect Ogden to their own ski resort above Ogden...well, seems to me the writing is on the wall with this one. This is probably one individual who probably has the money to "make it so, No 1!"
I wonder....will we see any news articles in the SE about this lineup of gondola-donors??
I have my doubts.

WhatWardRUin said...


Don't count on the SE to do any type of critical expose' of anything in Ogden. Godfrey's head cheerleader, John "the ladies man" Patterson has been running all over town bragging about how Godfrey has preview editorial privileges with the new editor.....how sad. Godfrey actually gets final say on what shows up on the editorial page. He is counting on SE support when the current street car study says that a street car is too expensive and won't pass "revenue per new rider" criteria set by the feds. Enter the gondola, backed by the SE to provide that much need transit connection from Downtown to WSU (and the new godfrey-dola ride to the top of the mountain).

Follow_The_Ratz said...

I guess if I was the Little Lord on 9, I would be reading this and thinking..."so what?"
Nobody can do anything about any of this anyway. Isn't he right?
What can all of our brilliant and excellent postings on here do about his obvious control of the city and its money/funding?

WhatWardRUin said...


Maybe a gondola to the top of the mountain is a good idea, maybe WSU would like to have a golf course on their surplus property and a few condos isn't an objectionable compromise, maybe a crosstown gondola is better than no transit at all. If you disagree then contact your concilmembers, planning commission, Sen. Hatch, Gov. Huntsman, and WSU Admin. Get involved in the street car study process. Attend open houses and public hearings and insist that viable alignments are studied and not just ones that are doomed to fail. Get involved and demand transparency. Write to the SE and ask them to explain every position they take. Follow the lead of courageous citizens like Dan Schroeder and dig for answers and information. You are right ratz; Godfrey will just get what he wants as long as he never has to answer to anybody.

ozboy said...

Earl Holding didn't become a billionaire by making stupid investments. The team that runs his empire are all very conservative and well trained by Holding. This team incidentally does not include the erstwhile son in law Peterson.

If this group did decide to finance a gondola from Ogden to Snow basin then it probably would be a money maker. As long as the citizens do not pay for it directly or indirectly through looting of the Mount Ogden park, or some other sneaky Godfrey move, then why not?

In any event it is extremely unlikely in today's economy that there is anyone dumb enough or flush enough to take such a wild gamble. It is also unlikely that the mentioned big shots like Huntsman and the others would be hitching their stars to this goof ball Godfrey fantasy. These people all have much bigger fish to fry at this troubled time in our economic history. I also doubt if Godfrey has much credibility with any of these people considering his miserable failures with every thing he has touched so far.

I believe Godfrey's gondola dream is DOA for the foreseeable future. Even if the economy stabilizes I doubt if we will see the excesses created by the free money credit markets return too soon, not until that debt is retired, forgiven and forgotten by this era. It will take a new generation of get rich quick schemers with no personal memory of this collapse before this gondola boondoggle will see life again. But there is no doubt it will be back, it seems like an Ogden idea that just won't stay dead.

WhatWardRUin said...


Remember you heard it here first.

what will it cost us said...

OK, the Forest Service has a master plan in place that was negotiated for ther Olympics that would need to be changed. Snow basin has said repeatedly that they do not want a gondola from this side. When they shut down snow basins gondola for winds what would they do with the folks that rode up from Ogden's side.

I also don't think the regents would be fooled by secret money or foreign un named investors to even try and sell or trade their property.

These so called plans showing condos were probably drawn up by the same guy who did Ashton Square, that are now on hold. Show me the money.

I do believe that Godfrey's "A" team are using their private e-mail's so we can't GRAMMA their lies and see what they agree to behind closed doors. Don't we have laws on the books that government using official communications. Oh I forgot that Republicians do what ever they want and the public suffers.

PPK said...

Technically, ozboy "read" it here first. ;)

PPK said...

What do you call it when officials at any or all government and tax funded entities, AND large corps are all holding hands in secret?
I think the word I'm looking for starts with and O....not for sure....
Anyone? Anyone??

Keisha said...


danny said...

Snowbasin has been clear that they have evaluated the west facing gondola and ruled it out.

And WSU is hardly pals with Godfrey.

This sounds like a pure rumor, nothing more.

That we believe it could be true, only proves again how inept our mayor is, and how much he wastes everyone's time.

It does seem possible though, that he's been paying someone city money to put together another set of pipe dream plans.

When will the city council take away this man's taxpayer slush fund? Let Godfrey's cronies pay for his juvenile, unworkable daydreams, not us. We are in a budget mess already, after all.

PPK said...

OH YEA....that's the word I think I was looking for! ;)

WhatWardRUin said...


Snowbasin has expansion plans of their own that they have been very open about. One of the expenses they would like to avoid is the cost of creating a whole new town; schools, churches; employee housing; non-resort related shopping and businesses. A direct connect to Ogden via a gondola creates an opportunity to tie his resort to Ogden in a fashion seen nowhere else. Remember, he once held property in Taylor Canyon that was intended to be for a tram to his resort. He has not lost interest in Ogden. WSU is in the process of updating their master plan. They said out loud and in public that it makes sense to make room for golf holes on their property east of the campus, so their golf program has a true "home course". Dismiss this as a rumor and beyond Godfrey's ability to assemble the right players if you want too. It is already in motion.

PPK said...

I can't wait till the Little Lord gets to be our governor.
Maybe then he can even get Lagoon to expand their skyride to go from Ogden, to Basin, to all the major ski resort, and on to St. George!
What a ride!
Go Little Matty, Go!! You can do it, little buddy!
Aww shucks...don't be shy! Why stop when you're ahead?

Monotreme said...


Oligarchy. "Government by the few."

I suppose oligorgy would be "sex by the few."

PPK said...

Monotreme -


Or could it be "sex by the government"???

Hmm...interesting to ponder...
Or.... "the few in government having sex"....

So many options here....

Curmudgeon said...


You wrote: WSU is in the process of updating their master plan. They said out loud and in public that it makes sense to make room for golf holes on their property east of the campus, so their golf program has a true "home course".

Universities are forever updating their master plans. And I'm always leery of pronouncements that "they" [meaning the university] have declared something to be "their" intention. Who exactly is this "they"? The University Board and President Milner speak for WSU, so far as I know, and no one else. And I've not seen anything from either of them on the matter of committing the University to provide land for a golf course extension. If you have, give us the reference please, so we can all go to the source and draw our own conclusions.

Danny falls into the same error when he writes And WSU is hardly pals with Godfrey. The University includes many people --- students, faculty, staff and administration --- who encompass among them a wide variety of views on a wide variety of matters. I doubt very much any poll of the faculty or the administration or the students or the staff would produce a majority in any of those categories who think of themselves as generically "opposed to the mayor" though there may well be majorities opposing any particular proposal he has made.

Those who do speak for the university have made it clear they do not support selling the university's benchlands for commercial development. On that issue, the University has officially differed with the Mayor. On other issues, the University as an institution, and its administrators, have cooperated with the City administration on projects on which they both agree.

Claiming "the university is no pal of Godfrey's" [implying "the University" is his opponent] is as wrong, I think, as Dr. Allen was when, in his frustration over some faculty and students asking Mr. Peterson substantive critical questions about his Mt. Ogden Park development plans, he lashed out on campus saying "they're all idiots up here." Frustration and anger can lead to hheated statements of doubtful verity... statements which in the end harm the very cause the utterer wants to advance.

So I'd be a little cautious about all of this lumping of "the University" into categories like "not the mayor's friend," etc. Those who speak for WSU are charged with putting the interests of the University first. They've been doing that, and I expect they will continue to do that.

what will it cost us said...

This was in the Trib for all you Godfrey lovers....

Highlight the miracle
Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated: 11/11/2008 01:51:07 PM MST

What would a church stand for if it did not do all that it could to protect what remains of the traditional family? Since its inception, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has strengthened and helped improve families in nothing short of miraculous ways. The church needs to see beyond the demonstrations and protests against it and put at least as much effort and resources into helping the people of California and elsewhere know of the transformational work being done on behalf of individuals, families and the societies they are a part of.

The conflict cannot be allowed to overcome the miracle.

Stuart C. Reid


danny said...


Your posts are always interesting and worth reading.

Tying Snowbasin to Ogden could be interesting for both Snowbasin and Ogden. But my sense is Snowbasin has looked at it many times (Taylor Canyon, other options) and have turned thumbs down. In other words, they are about 10 years ahead of Godfrey.

I consider Holding to be a player to reckon with. If he is on board it is a different ballgame. But I see nothing to say he is, quite the contrary.

And as far as Godfrey assembling players, now that he has "shot the city's wad" I doubt he will be assembling too many more "players" by which, in Godfrey's case, we mean "leeches". He will have a hard time finding road paving money, let alone giveaways. But then again, I suppose the city still has ASSETS he can give away.

Old tired guy said...

I just read Stephen Trimble's book, Bargaining for Eden. It cover's the development of SnowBasin and the Olympic landswap. This should be mandatory reading anytime Earl Holding's name is mentioned. Through the actions of Jim Hansen and Orin Hatch, he swapped 1300 acres at the base of the mountain(Forest Service recommended just over 200)for about $4M of real estate while bypassing all environmental review. Oh yeah, after promising many times to build the road from Trapper's Loop, the feds spent $15M doing it for him. Beware, if Earl Holding is involved. After reading the book, I renewed my membership in the Sierra Club and joined "Save our Canyons". Somebody has to look out for the best interest of the American public and the Forest Service and our elected representitives won't if Uncle Earl is involved.


WhatWardRUin said...


You are correct about who can really speak for the university or as the university. When WSU hires a consultant one assumes they speak, at least on a narrow band of topics, for the university. Dr. NT might also be considered as one who speaks as the university. It seems this would be a good time for this iteration of the ongoning updating of the master plan to make a definitive statement about the intention of use of the campus surplus property. The master plan certainly is a clear statement of the universities intentions.

Curmudgeon said...


On consultants: well, no, often they do not speak "for" the people who hire them. They speak to the people who hire them, and sometimes, the people who hire them don't particularly like what their consultants tell them.

That is, if the consultants are good ones, doing the job they are paid to do: study a matter and deliver their best recommendations in the light of their research with respect to the questions they've been asked. There are, however, as we both know, consultants who will, for a price, deliver whatever the hiring party wants to hear. [Think "The Tobacco Institute" for example.] And folks sometimes go "opinion shopping" shamelessly.

But as a general rule, I wouldn't assume that a consultant's report spoke for the body who hired the consultant unless and until the hiring party endorsed the report and adopted its recommendations as policy.

Curmudgeon said...

What It Will Cost Us:

In re: Mr. Reid's remarkable letter.... I wonder if a refresher course in Utah history might be in order for Mr. Reid:

What would a church stand for if it did not do all that it could to protect what remains of the traditional family? Since its inception, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has strengthened and helped improve families in nothing short of miraculous ways.

Can he possibly truly be arguing that the LDS church "since its inception" has been the champion of traditional families? Has he entirely erased the matter of "plural marriage" from his understanding of church history? Or is he arguing that polygamy reflects traditional American family values? Seems to me it's got to be one or the other, que no?

Of course, what this has to do with Mayor Godfrey escapes me. But Reid's letter does seem to be a good example of how people cherrypick history, even their own, to reach conclusions they find attractive in the present day. [By the way, all churches I'm familiar with, and all nations for that mater, sometimes do the same. Or try to.]

WhatWardRUin said...


You don't sound like you have spent much time in a consultant/client relationship. It is clearly different than you portray.

PPK said...

Curm wrote: "But as a general rule, I wouldn't assume that a consultant's report spoke for the body who hired the consultant unless and until the hiring party endorsed the report and adopted its recommendations as policy."

That being said, if an entity is implementing a master plan with their consultant's recommendation as their guide, then how can you defend your position that the consultant isn't speaking "for" those who hired them???

You are talking circles around yourself, it seems.

Curmudgeon said...

ppk and What Ward:

PPK: Universities, and other public bodies, generally hire them to do studies and make recommendations based on those studies in answers to questions posed at the outset. If the University accepts the recommendations of a consultant, and incorporates them into the master plan, then those recommendations become university policy. Not until then. Sometimes consultants' recommendations are rejected. Often they are accepted but modified first. And sometimes they are accepted completely. It varies, but whatever the consultant reports, it does not become University policy until the University accepts the recommendations as policy.

What: There are consultants and there are consultants. And working relationships between consultants and the people who hire them vary as well --- a great deal, from what I've seen over the years. Some are hired to do a study or report and go away. Others are hired to advise a city or company or university throughout a planned project, from the git go to completion. Again, it varies.

PPK said...

That's basically what I said...just not nearly as elaborately as you did.
I'm going with the "assumption" that the university has, or maybe, "shall" accept the recommendations, implementing them to policy, thereby speaking for the university, in a sense.

Why would the university spend any money at all to invest in a consultant if they were in no way interested in trading or selling off any of their property?
It would be like someone wanting my home, offering some figure for it, and me not interested in the least....but still...hiring an appraiser to tell me what it's worth....at my cost. Why would I do that if I truly had NO interest in selling...for any reason or amount of money??

WhatWardRUin said...


Whether a conultant is hired to give planning, archetural, legal, engineering, or financial advice they definitely do know and understand their clients philosophies and desires. the client would be foolish to engage a consultant and not express what their desired outcome of a study or report or design or case was from the beginning. Consultants validate and articulate for and on behalf of clients that do not have the training or expertise to do so on their own. If WSU hasn't shared what their future goals are with the consultant doing their master plan, then that is one lucky consultant with an open ended contract.....they just hit the lottery. In 40+ years in the business I have never heard of a client that is that naive.

PPK said...

In this particular economic era...I probably wouldn't hesitate to sell my old house if someone came knocking on my door wanting it for a reasonable amount of money. That was probably a really stupid analogy! OOPS.

WhatWardRUin said...

sorry, should be architectural.

Curmudgeon said...


My experience is entirely with universities, and I don't know of any which have hired a consultant to devise an entire university long range plan. I do know universities that have hired them to do projections of probable enrollments, say, over the next decade, for example. On that kind of contract, the University would be idiotic to try to signal what it wanted to hear to the consultant. What the U. needs is unbiased, objective, fact based projections on which it can then rest plans.

Again, there are consultants and consultants, and they are hired to do different kinds of consulting. One size does not fit all. I also no of no university that would ever consent to having a consulting group... of any sort... actually write, without being subject to revision and alteration by the U... a long term plan that the U. would be committed to automatically.

Or, simply, one size does not fit all.

WhatWardRUin said...


Case in point. WSU has hired an architect and planner to update their master plan for projected enrollment growth of 10,000 students over the next 20 years. They are also looking at development options on the west side of Harrison and on the upper east side of the campus. They are investigating the various developments that include housing, classrooms, parking, administration, and yes, golf course development. This is specific to a consultant working for a university. Of course the consultant doesn't make decisions for WSU. I didn't say they did. I said consultants don't work without the clients direction and clients don't just let consultants work without objectives. During the course of the consultants contract they definetly do represent their client. I have stood before countless judges, boards, councils, and other governing bodies and spoken on behalf of my client. I have discussed my assignment with too many too mention as my clients mouthpiece, so please don't tell me that consultants don't speak for their clients; university or otherwise.

Curmudgeon said...


Representing a client in court is entirely another matter and not what we were discussing. The original post [by What I think] implied that what a university consultant had recommended could be treated as the University's position on the matter. I disagreed then and disagree still now. Once the report is made... I think the one we're discussing, though What doesn't say specifically, is the one assessing whether it would be advantageous for the U. to sell its benchlands for commercial development... the U. can accept the recommendation, amend it, or reject it. Until people who are authorized to decide such matters for the U. and to announce them do one of those, we can't know if the consultant's recommendation will in fact end up as U. policy.

Seems a simple point to me. Whole lotta definition dicing going on, I think, over a relatively simple... and to me, pretty clear... point.

WhatWardRUin said...


We could no doubt engage in endless debate that leads us farther apart from where we started. I will simply concede my points as off topic. Thank you.

employee rights said...

Is it true that Godfrey is not using his email anymore?

PPK said...

One way to find out...do a GRAMMA and find out for us. :)

Post a Comment

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