Comments on Weber County Forum: Ogden Residents Have Their Say

Dan: OK. I stand corrected. I think in some othe...

2006-11-06T12:22:00.000-07:00

Dan:

OK. I stand corrected. I think in some other states, things stand differently, and re-zoning that significantly reduces the worth of a tract constitutes a cause of action against the zoning authority. But apparently things are different here in Utah. As so much is. [grin]

The larger point I was [however stumblefootedly] trying to make, though , still stands: we do not want to be in a position in which Comission members, are, say a year or two from now, asking during a dicussion of a development proposal for the Mt. Ogden lands, "why the hell did we drop the 30% slope building restriction in the first place?"

Actually, Curmudgeon, down-zoning a piece of prope...

2006-11-06T11:13:00.000-07:00

Actually, Curmudgeon, down-zoning a piece of property normally does not constitute a "taking" unless it completely eliminates the property's "value" (that is, as long as the owner can still develop the property in some way). Here's a summary by the Utah Property Rights Ombudsman:

Land use regulation in the form of zoning controls rarely gives rise to a Lucas-type takings claim. Even if substantial property value is lost, so long as an economically viable use remains the Lucas test is inapplicable. In a recent Utah case, the property owner's appraiser testified that a large tract of commercially zoned property in Sandy was worth $1.355 million before it was down zoned to residential and $775,000 afterwards, a loss of 43% its value. That was not a taking, said the Utah Court of Appeals. ". . . zoning and rezoning present perplexing problems of economic and environmental gain and loss. While some gain, others lose. It is the Legislature which must strike the proper balance."

Still, the matter before the Ogden Planning Commission last week was a development proposal, not a down-zoning proposal, so the attorney was probably correct to tell them that commenting on the appropriateness of the zoning was out of order.

Comment moved by Administrator to fron page.

2006-11-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

Comment moved by Administrator to fron page.

Well....DUH!!Isn't that the entire point of the pr...

2006-11-05T21:34:00.000-07:00

Well....DUH!!

Isn't that the entire point of the proposed change? Maw saying they'd 'never' discussed a developer was like saying, 'gee, we never noticed those boa constrictors around our ankles'.

Since the fourplexes DO seem a bit much for the parcel...wonder if going back to the drawing board and coming up with fewer units and making a little play area would help. Of course, that won't make the neighbors any happier, cuz they don't want 'transients' so close by. I wish the Logan guy and Peterson would go to Huntsville...it's becoming the chi chi place to be, and they, esp. Peterson, wouldn't be HERE! I know, I know, the Logan builder has every rite to build on his own property.

Sharon: One of the Commissioners, I don't recall...

2006-11-05T20:49:00.000-07:00

Sharon:

One of the Commissioners, I don't recall which, wondered how in the hell that odd piece of property was ever zoned for fourplexes in the first place. During the discussion, it was pointed out [reiterated later by the Comission's attorney I think] that that really was not a proper matter to raise at this point. The fact was a former Commission and Council had zoned it R4, the current owners had bought it as a piece of R4 zoned land, and at this point there was nothing much that could be done about it. If it were rezoned R1, for example , the owners would be in court instantly [and rightly] suing the city for "taking" the value of the land they had purchased for R4 development [or, more likely, seeking direct judicial overturning of the denial of permission to develop.] The mere fact that the neighbors didn't want four plexes on land that had been zoned for four plexes is and was, legally, insufficient reason for the Comission to deny the planned construction there.

What occured to me, and please god, to some of the Commissioners too, was that with respect to the current lands now covered by the ban on building on slopes over 30% in sensitive overaly zones [which includes the city and WSU land Mr. Peterson wants to build on], a few years from now, a new Commission member might be asking his or her fellow Comissioners rhetorically [it then being way too late to do anything about it], "why the hell was the 30% slope limit waived on this land in the first place?"

Which of course reminds me yet again of one of Mr. Montgomery's clever bits of disingenuousness. At one point, he said in response to the "neighborhood" people who kept bringing up the Peterson plans for the city lands in Mt. Ogden park area, that the current restriction on building on lands sloped more than 30% did not apply to that land now, because it's public land. That the restriction in the sensitive overlay zone applied only to private holdings. And so concerns about how changing the Ordiance might affect the Mt. Ogden park lands were really off topic and not germaine to the matter under discussion.

Of course, Mr. Montgomery, everyone in the audience [including Mr. Peterson's atty who was reportedly there as well], plus all those who spoke plus all those who didn't plus [please god] all the commission members knew that Our Glorious Leader, Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey has proposed selling those parklands to Mr. Peterson for development. So that any change to the 30% slope restrictions made in the ordinance, which would cover as Mr. Montgomery said, private holdings, would immediately apply to those parklands if they are sold to Mr. Peterson as the Mayor proposes. Mr. Montgomery's comments raise disingenuousness in public testimony to the level of a high... or in this case, low... art.

The homeOWNERS who spoke against the fourplexes we...

2006-11-05T18:57:00.000-07:00

The homeOWNERS who spoke against the fourplexes were very articulate. They were polite and passionate about saving the 'community' of their neighborhood. Their fears about the high crime already there and escalating further were valid. And, what about the apt dwellers? They don't get much of a bargain either. The parking would take up yard space and it appeared that any children wouldn't have a safe place to play.
The landlord/owner will be in Logan, and would not be around to address problems as they arise.
Is this how slumlords are spawned?
Ms Holman addressed their concerns and voted 'no'. Bravo to her.
I also thot it interesting that 'no' votes were explained. How about 'yes' votes?
But, getting back to the 'sensitive overlay' and the MU zones....what do y'all think would be the best way to proceed to alert the citizens that this is on the table and about to be digested?
Unfortunately, most people don't read the editorial page, watch news, or involve themselves in community affairs. 'Leave it to Beaver'......he'll take care of my needs.
So, do you think you more articulate folks like Dan, Tod, Dian, could write some commentaries? Of course, 'you know who' will be alerted and the peices won't be printed til his commentary can run on the same page.
Also, more 'neighborhood' meetings?
Flyers???
I await with abated breath, (and you know how painful that is!), your collective reasoning.

I have some bad and sobering news for Theresa Holm...

2006-11-05T16:14:00.000-07:00

I have some bad and sobering news for Theresa Holmes. It would not matter if she had 3,000 or 30,000 signatures on a petition against selling the Foothills. Here in Ogden we are a Republic and the only signature that counts is Godfrey's. He has demonstrated many times that he really doesn't care what the residents of Ogden want. He is going to do what ever he sees fit regardless because we voted him in and he is the decider.

Once again there is that damned word with no meani...

2006-11-05T14:29:00.000-07:00

Once again there is that damned word with no meaning in Godfrey's Ogden - ETHICAL!

Thanks for those comments, Sharon. And no, I did ...

2006-11-05T14:22:00.000-07:00

Thanks for those comments, Sharon. And no, I did not notice that some came up two and three times. I agree with you about the receptiveness and graciousness of the Chair--in fact, I did think at one point that she had gone beyond the call of duty here and might have said--Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of these amendments? Not because the comments were not good--just because the meeting had gone on so long. Which is probably why she did not do that.

I also was impressed with Commissioner Lillie Holman, and my apologies to her for getting her name wrong. Obviously up to speed in meeting protocol and obviously involved enough with the community to know the wishes of the people. I think she's going to be a great addition.

The most important thing that came out of that meeting for me is what I perceive to be a hitch in the process of community input being meaningful. Ms. Lockwood evidently made it clear that if a developer is complying with zoning regulations, there is really not much community input can do to change things if the community is not in favor of the project.

Here's a scenario: People are living by undeveloped acreage for years, and really appreciating it. It is zoned commercial, shall we say, but nobody's ever done anything with it. Suddenly, it is sold. These people may or may not know this. The developer begins going through the process with the Planning Commission.

There's a big chance the surrounding people would not be aware of this at all.

It might only be late in the process that those people finally become aware that they're about to lose "their" open space. If the developer has complied with all the rules, those people can of course complain to the Commissioners, but from what Ms. Lockwood said, those complaints aren't going to mean anything. Because the developer is legally within his/her rights to proceed.

I may be wrong about this---maybe there is a provision somewhere early on that the developer has to give notice to the surrounding neighbors that development is in the works. But for the developer to get that far, the zoning has to be compatible with the project.

What this says is that people who care about what is going to happen in their neighborhoods would be wise to check that zoning. I imagine they could do this online with the zoning map from the Ogden website. However, I don't really know of any way that they would be notified of a sale of that property or the intent of the buyer except by word of mouth, if that.

Maybe this is something those Neighborhood Councils, which I have seen exist but have heard nothing of their activities, could do.

It was sort of upsetting seeing all those community members near those development projects, some feeling so threatened by them, and really having no recourse at that point but to try to work with the developer, who really would have no legal obligation to work with them, although I imagine many would feel they had an ethical one and would try to do so.

It is interesting that our city attorney Lockwood ...

2006-11-05T14:05:00.000-07:00

It is interesting that our city attorney Lockwood takes the same line of reasoning that Mayor Godfrey does:

"If it is legal it is automaticaly ethical and moral, and it doesn't matter what the citizens want"

It seems to me that this whole effort to change all these plans and public safety rules in Ogden are geared toward making the Peterson proposal "legal".

Once the Mayor gets these horrible changes declared legal, he can and will proceed with the rape of Ogden regardless of what the people want.

To Mayor Godfrey, if it is legal, it is automatically ethical. Most tyrants in history have used this same sociopathic logic.

Dian,You've done a bang-up job of reporting the nu...

2006-11-05T13:52:00.000-07:00

Dian,
You've done a bang-up job of reporting the nuts and bolts of the meeting! Thanx.

I was struck by Maw's contention that a developer has never been mentioned in their discussions. I think we all found that to be unbeleivable.

Over all, I was pleased with the openness that the Chair invited into the meeting. She was very welcoming, gracious and invited comments. Did you notice that some even came up to the podium at least 3 times...and the Chair even encouraged those who remembered they had something else to add. At the late hour too.

I complimented her on that, as the meeting was so very different in tone and iplementation then our rigid, unwelcoming City Council meetinigs. I didn't see a policeman there, but the chambers were so crowded, I could have missed that.

Kudos go to Commissioner Lillie Holman. Brand new, and willing to speak up. (Dian...her name is Lillie, not Lillian).

Commissioner Maw had recused himself from that particulat Item #'s discussion...and did come back, as you saw.