Sunday, January 30, 2011

Standard-Examiner: OUR VIEW: Voters Should Decide Field House

The Standard believes a large-scale vote, possibly county-wide, would provide necessary respectability and community ownership for the project

Submitted by: ND

Say it ain't so... Standard-Examiner editorial saying voters should decide on funding the project and not fund it from pockets all over the place...
We support the idea of Ogden city officials and others in creating a multipurpose field house in Junction City.
However, extending the life of the Business Depot Ogden economic development project area to garner $15 million in tax increment money is not the best way to provide financing for the project.
In order to provide legitimacy to the field house project, as well as assurance that the $40 million project would be a success, either a bond proposal or a sales tax initiative vote should be provided.
Here's the surprizing full editorial:
About passed out.

24 comments:

you who said...

As it should be. The endless spending needs to come to a halt. Let the voters decide if this is worthy project and the amount of tax and debt burden they want.

P.S. Vote Godfrey out this year!

Curmudgeon said...

Interesting that the SE in its editorial did not inform its readers that the company which did the feasibility study on which the board relied for its recommendation on the Godfrey Wonder Dome was picked by Hizzonah who waived the competitive bid requirements retroactively after the company he selected had delivered the recommendation he wanted.

But then, we shouldn't judge the SE editorial board too harshly. If the board depended on the SE for information, the members may not have known about the suspect selection process and the retroactive waiver because the SE never reported it. Weber County Forum readers knew. SE readers did not.

Imagine that....

Curmudgeon said...

BTW, Cal Grondahl's cartoon accompanying the SE editorial is right on target and definitely worth a look-see. Link here.

ND said...

crum....its quite annoying that the SE can't or wont publish the facts of the study and the pass though payments too.....is this RFP for architects another attempt at a retro-active waiver?

accuracy in media said...

I do like that for the second time I have seen the following phrase in the SE re: the field house -- "according to a feasability study ... the field house can be a success." At least there is the recognition that things will have to go a certain way for the field house to be a success. It can succeed, if the thousands of out-of-towners come to Ogden and use it ...
I hope the issue is put to a vote among Weber County citizens.

ND said...

whats going to make them come to Ogden vs the one that is going to be built in Provo....one that was voted for and supported by the citizens of that community.....to get the kind of traffic that they are talking about there would have to be ALOT of repeat visitors....not one timers...a 3rd grade math level can figure this one out....IF IF IF....If I had a nickel for everytime we heard that out of the 9th floor we could pay off the debt we have and then some. The details of that study..the process of that study and all the IF's being witheld from the general public is suspicious at best.

Dan S. said...

I've just finished writing an analysis of the feasibility study, intended to assess the range of uncertainty in its projections. Stay tuned.

oldguy said...

Dan,

Perhaps the authors of the feasibility study used a method prefered by entrepreneurs, i.e., experience based heurestics called effectuation (as opposed to) causality) to overcome uncertainty.

causation says - if I can predict it I can control it.

effectuation - if I can control the future I don't need to predict it.

In failing to specify a range of uncertainty for their study the authors may have envoked the off the hook entrepreneurial approach. Just a thought.

ISTHISFOR REAL? said...

FOUR SIMPLE QUESTIONS:
1. Will voters be able to wade through this steaming pile of rhetoric to separate fact from fiction?
2. Is representing this project as "hope" and "vision" for future financial security of the city delusional?
3. Why aren't any private investors coming forward to be involved with this potential financial disaster?
4. Will Ogdenites be as happy to subsidize this as they are the other projects that are siphoning money?

ND said...

Old guy...perhaps "defication" is more like it.

Seems our only hope here is the RAMP committee opening thier eyes and the taxing entities affected by changes with BDO shinanigans.....because it is unlikely that "Joe Ogden" is going to find out about any of the BS that has been going on with this because the SE sits on its fat one picking and choosing what facts to portray....the editorial was nice, but feels to me like a CYA or one of those "after the fact" waivers.

Dan S. said...

oldguy:

You mean, just like the administration decided it could control the future of The Junction?

Dorrene Jeske said...

I liked Grondahl’s cartoon, too. There was just one thing wrong with it, -- Grondahl depicted Godfrey as the lifegurard – that’s like having the fox guard the henhouse.
I’m sure that the fieldhouse and veladrome would be economically feasible IF the original plan were followed, which would dictate a larger lot. The proposed current plan has compromised quality, and a world-class facility in order to locate it downtown. The SE editorial today stated that the desired location would be next to hotels, but I have been to several conventions that were held at convention centers with the hotels blocks and miles from the convention center. They were still successful and well-attended. I believe the site between 20th and 21st streets below Wall is the ideal location. People could ride the FrontRunner and walk to the different venues. More than one activity could be accommodated because of the layout of the venues and enough parking. The hotels could run shuttles to the fieldhouse along with the downtown loop train, providing convenient transpsrtation from the hotels. Because the current plan has condensed the fieldhouse to fit downtown, only one activity can successfully be held at one time. This threatens the economic success and makes it more difficult tor the fieldhouse to be profitable.
I definitely concur that Weber County taxpayers should be able to vote on the fieldhouse. More consideration should be given to location and the kind of facility we want. All the facts have not been presented to the public.

Dorrene Jeske said...

I was also going to suggest that by taking the time to thoroghly study and discuss the fiekdhouse and obtain the public's vote, the time might be more feasible economically and the general economy more stable.

ND said...

One really has to wonder about the chosen location for this facility....what kinds of site analysis was completed to determine that this is THE BEST possible location in all of Ogden?....any part of a site analysis would include the cost factors....this site has multiple strikes against it....closing Grant Avenue and relocating all the utilities....closing Grant and dead ending a major north/south road....cost of demolition of buildings....that the city does not own...thus having to buy them....Parking?...what parking...where is that going to go?....not to mention making a mess of the back side of 25th Street....nice charm there. The cost of this site is ridiculous and the impact of a cohesive layout of downtown is blown to bits by its siting.... the site changes when the wind blows....Where are the answers to this question?

Curmudgeon said...

The complex is primarily intended to enhance the attractiveness of the downtown hotels and convention center. Moving the various sports venues to other separate sites, even to another single site elsewhere would not serve that purpose.

Bee in my Bonnet said...

so Curm,
You're saying the idea is to attract people to the hotels by attracting them to the Field House? Does that mean that the residents of Ogden aren't figured into the patronage projected by the feasibility study?

Once again, it's the Mayor wanting people from out of town to come and spend money here, while making the people who live here work at below-living-wage to serve those who do ... and not caring that the residents of Ogden could not, would not afford to patronize the Field House.

Sheesh and Holy pipe dreams, batman

Curmudgeon said...

Bee:

They're figured in, but they're not the main group to be serviced by all this. Remember, the Godfrey Wonder Dome is offered as part of the conference center expansion, which includes as elements hugely expanded parking garaged close to all this, skyway walkway connecting existing conference center and the center hotel to expanded exhibit space in the Keisel Building and to new restaurants/clubs in the Berthana building, which will be right next to [interior access?] to the Wonder Dome. Hilton a block away. Marriot right next door. That's why it all has to be where they've planned it.

Yes, they need, expect local and regional use. But the core concept, I think, is enhanced appeal of the conference center/downtown hotels. That goes away if the venues are split up by sport and located elsewhere in town.

Dorrene Jeske said...

Curm,

Have to disagree with you that the "Superdome" will add to the ambiance of downtown and Histioric 25th St. Have you visualized an oblong Dee Event Center sitting in the middle of downtown? With the new design, it will be taller than anything else downtown.

You probably weren't living in Ogden when the Dee Event was built, but it was called the "Big Hamburger on the hill." The "Superdome" could be called the "The Big Sub Downtown."

Curmudgeon said...

Dorrene:

You wrote: "Have to disagree with you that the "Superdome" will add to the ambiance of downtown and Histioric 25th St."

Dorrene, I think you've confused me with another poster. I don't think I've argued anywhere that the Matthew Godfrey Wonder Dome would "add to the ambiance of downtown and Historic 25th St." I certainly don't think that so I doubt I've said it on WCF.

T.R. Morgan said...

If this is up for citizen vote, will anyone show up to actually vote. It is pathetic that voter turnout in my race for commission seat A, was only at 31.3% (42269 out of approx 135000 voted). It definitely seemed like more than 31.3% of the people I met on the campaign trail had concerns and problems with how the county and cities were being run.

Curmudgeon said...

Good question. We can barely get six in ten to vote for President of the US. But not voting is making a decision as much as voting is. It's making a decision to let others decide for you. And the majority of voters in local elections most of the time seem happy with conceding the decision making to others.

AWM said...

Ok..just how does this "Indoor" non-adventure oriented facility contribute to Lord Gadfly's visage of Ogden becoming the High Adventure "Outdoor" Mecca? Why not spend that money on renovating and rehabing the Ogden river front in various areas, bench trails and kayak park to complement the newly completed Weber/Ogden River trail system..this would actually push Gadfly's agenda and more than likely result inmonies still left over for other things...like a Zepplin Landing Pad that Greiner will come begging for shortly

KL said...

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" - Plato

oldguy said...

ND and Dan S.

Absolutely, in both cases.

Post a Comment

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