River Project Developer "Could" Be Chosen Soon

Then again... maybe not

By Curmudgeon

How to explain Thursday's odd River Project story in the SE's "Top Of Utah" section... If in fact it is a news story. News stories, after all, ought to actually contain some... well, some news, shouldn't they?

Even the SE seems a little confused about what, exactly, the story is. It's print edition headlines it this way: River Project Could Start In 2010. [Note: not will start but could start.] But the on line edition headline is different: River Project Developer Could Be Chosen Soon. Not exactly the same thing, is it.

The piece is one long string of conditionals. "A developer may be selected by the end of the year...." [But Ogden's business development manager, Tom Christopulos, refused to name any of the thee developers allegedly contending for the job.]

What else did Mr. Christopulos have to say? That if in fact a developer is chosen by the end of the year, then "a master plan should be updated with city council input." Should. Not will. The orginal master plan for the project [nearly ten years old now] the story reports --- and this may be the only real news in it --- will have to be thrown over the side. It's no longer viable. Too many residential units in it, it seems now. But that's not all. The city will also have to decide "which components of the project should be undertaken first" and "the number of phases needed to complete the work." That too from Mr. Christopulos.

But that's not all. Mr. Leshem of California is listed as owner of 60% of the River Project's properties. However, the story reports, "it hasn't been determined if Leshem will sell his parcels to a developer or participate in construction within the River Project," Christopulos said.

So, what are we left with? Maybe a developer will be selected by the end of the year. Could happen. And the former development plan is now kaput and an entirely new one will have to be agreed upon. Maybe that will happen by the end of the year too. Or maybe not. And before a developer can go forward, if and when one is selected, to work under a new development plan [which does not yet exist], someone will have to figure out if Mr. Leshem will sell his property to another developer, or take part in the development himself. And what does Mr. Leshem have to say about this not inconsequential matter? From the story: "Leshem could not be reached for comment Wednesday."

Other than that the existing development plan is now, the administration concedes, a non-starter, I'm hard put to find any real news in the story, as replete with "coulds" and "mays" and "shoulds" as it is.

This is pure speculation, but I suspect something like this might have happened and might explain why the story appeared [happily, given its gossamer thin news content, not on the front page]. I suspect Hizzonah had a hissy-fit over the SE's front page story about the River Project's problems yesterday, and told his business development director to get out there and say something positive to spin and counter. And Mr. Christopolus did, being careful to salt his remarks will all those conditionals, since I suspect he knows just how iffy things regarding the River Project are. Or something like that.

If I were teaching in a J-School, I think I'd use today's piece in the SE as an example of a non-story: something that appears to report news but actually doesn't. Or not much of it anyway.