Big Meeting Tonight As The Council Considers 25th Street Building Heights & Another $16 Million in Bonding - UPDATED

Batten down the hatches, folks, as Boss Godfrey spends every single dime he can borrow, and puts the city in hock unto your grand-kids' generation
Update: SE reporter Schwebke graces us with a glimpse of another ungentlemanly Boss Godfrey temper tantrum

To kick the discussion off this morning we'll provide a quick heads-up about tonight's Council/RDA meetings, wherein consideration will be given to approval of the following items, which have been topics of discussion on Weber County Forum over the course of the last several months:

1) Historic 25th Street Building Height Limit Amendment (three options):
a) Adopt Ordinance Option A as recommended by the Planning Commission
b) Adopt Ordinance Option B, which includes the Planning Commission recommendations plus additional language regarding roof top additions
c) Deny the Petition

2) Junction Hotel Project:
a) Facility Bonds of $9 Million—The City will act as conduit for the purpose of hotel construction. The developer is fully responsible for paying back the bonds.
b) Tax Increment Bonds of $2.25 Million—The RDA will issue these bonds, with backing from the City, for hotel construction ($1.5 Million) and public parking ($750,000).
c) Assessment Bonds of $2.25 Million—The City will issue these bonds to construct the public parking.
(The proposed hotel project will cost an estimated $16 Million, with $13 Million being used for the construction of the hotel and $3 Million for a parking structure.)

For those readers who plan to attend tonight's meetings, here's a link to the full Council/RDA Board packet:

• 12/07 City Council Regular Session Packet

Weirdly enough, Ogden City appears hellbent for another massive spending spree, even in a national economic atmosphere in which "the finances of some state and local governments are so distressed that some analysts say they are reminded of the run-up to the subprime mortgage meltdown or of the debt crisis hitting nations in Europe":

• Mounting Debts by States Stoke Fears of Crisis

Batten down the hatches, folks, as Boss Godfrey spends every single dime he can borrow, and puts the city in hock unto your grand-kids' generation.

We'll leave the lights on as usual, for anyone who'd like to comment before, during or after tonight's meetings.

Update 12/8/10 7:30 a.m.: The Standard-Examiner reports on the disposition of the heights limit amendement petition this morning:

• Historic 25th can reach greater heights

Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke informs us that "the city council unanimously agreed Tuesday night to stretch height limits from 45 feet to 55 feet for new buildings on Historic 25th Street," with a provision "that prohibits existing buildings on 25th Street from being increased in height through rooftop additions or additional stories unless":

• Documentation is presented establishing that additional height is within the limits of the building's historical construction.
• The addition is not visible from the front of the building or from the sidewalk on the same side of the street or across the street.

As an added bonus, Mr. Schwebke graces us with a glimpse of another ungentlemanly public temper tantrum, whereby Godfrey rudely lambasteded one Utah Heritage Foundation historical preservation expert who'd had the audacity to speak in opposition to the height ordinance amendment:

Kirk Huffaker, executive director of Utah Heritage Foundation, said that while the height amendment has some benefits, the city hasn't provided enough hard data to show it would have a significant economic impact on Historic 25th Street.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey described some of Huffaker's comments as ridiculous and derided a suggestion that the city should work more closely with Historic 25th Street businesses to help them prosper. Godfrey said the municipality is already doing that.
"You think we don't do this day in and day out and that we have never done this before?" Godfrey asked Huffaker. "Give me a break."

Hopefully Council Leadership will quickly issue an apology to Mr. Huffaker for our petulant mayor's bad manners.

Unfortunately, Mr. Schwebke provides no word on the City Council's treatment of the Junction Hotel bonding matters.

Update 12/14/10 8:00 a.m.: View the full council video, via the Ogden City website:

• 12/7/10 Council Video

Important City Council Work Session Set For Tonight - UPDATED

The Ogden 25th Street Business Association's proposed Historic 25th Street building height ordinance is on the agenda

Here's a quick reminder of this evening's Ogden City Council work session, where a full public discussion of the Ogden 25th Street Business Association's proposed Historic 25th Street building height ordinance amendment is on the agenda.

Here are the date, time and location particulars:

DATE: November 4, 2010
TIME: Open House 5:30 – 6:00 p.m.; Work Session - 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Director's Suite (2d Floor) Ogden Megaplex Theater
AGENDA: A Collaborative Process to Identify Issues Relating to
the 25th Street Historic District, Including How to Address a
Proposed Height Increase

For the full skinny, check out tonight's council packet:

• 11/04 City Council Work Session Packet

And here's a link to our Weber County Forum article collection on the topic, for those who may still need to bone up on the isues a little bit:

• 25th Street Height ordinance Articles

Update 11/4/10 3:00 p.m.: Okay, here's the first draft of the proposed Historic 25th Street height limit ordinance amendment which we're able to furnish, thanks to the inquiry from gentle reader Joseph S, along with the timely help of Ogden City Council staff:

• Initial draft of a New 25th Street ordinance amendment

We'll make note of the fact that everybody involved in this issue regards this draft ordinance as some kinda "weird starting point;" and that this proposed ordinance will be heavily revised from here before its finally adopted.

Click the link directly above for the "first draft," nevertheless. Let's just label it "a starting point."

We'll leave the lower comments section open for those readers who'd like to comment before, during or after tonight's event... (or dare we hope?)... for any community-minded soul who might deign to provide a little live blogging.

Update 11/5/10 7:30 a.m.: The Standard-Examiner carries the following report on last night's work session, which was apparently met with pronounced Emerald City lumpencitizen disinterest. According to the SE, only about 30 people, mostly merchants, attended the meeting. Were all sides of the proposed height ordinance amendment presented during the meeting? Sadly, the SE unfortunately doesn't inform us what, if any, concrete evidence was presented to the City Council last night, other than Boss Godfrey's Uncle Greg Montgomery constant unsupported refrain, "[a]ltering height restrictions would not threaten 25th Street's historic registry designation":

• Historic heights hit in Ogden 25th Street debate

Historic 25th Street Height Limits Redux

A number of thorny questions arise as we approach an important November 4th Council meeting

Red meat political news is in short supply this morning; so we'll throw out a couple of possible discussion items from our WCF back-burner queue:

On October 14, the Standard-Examiner reported that the Ogden City Council was in the process of hiring a "facilitator" to serve as a sort of "psuedo chair" for November 4th's council work meeting, wherein discussion of a 25th Street height ordinance amendment will be on the agenda. Within our own earlier article on the subject, we opined thusly:

Somebody obviously believes the stakes are high enough that our city council can't be trusted to run their own meeting, so the taxpayers will be paying an unnamed sum for a professional facilitator to "facilitate" the November 4 dog and pony show

Last Friday, The Standard-Examiner editorial board also leapt into the fray on this topic, taking it one step further, panning the "facilitator idea" in no uncertain terms:

The Ogden City Council does not need to have a paid facilitator referee its consideration of a building heighth increase proposed for Historic 25th Street. The debate, which we acknowledge has been very contentious in the past, is whether to allow some buildings to be 55 feet high rather than 45 feet.[...]
It's self-defeating to assume that Ogden's city council can't handle this specific issue debate sans help. Also, the council is paying someone with our money to do a job that is supposed to be done by the council chairwoman, Caitlin Gochnour. It is her responsibility to lead the council through its decision-making process. We have already witnessed that Gochnour has the skills and fairmindedness to handle debate, including the 25th Street issue.

And earlier in the week, the Standard also published this Councilwoman Gochnour letter, "clarifying her position" on the Historic 25th Street height limitation debate, from which we'll clip this except:

The Council is currently considering a petition to increase the existing height limit. Since the initial discussion of this topic, I have had much time to reflect on the controversy and mull over options. I have always believed it is vitally important to preserve and protect the historic character of the district, but that this needs to be balanced with encouraging economic development.
The compromise I brought forward was to support increasing the height limit to 55 feet only if additional language were added to the ordinance, including comprehensive guidelines for rooftop additions to existing historic buildings. These criteria are used by several cities nationwide to guide appropriate rooftop additions in historic districts. [Emphasis added].

Taking into account the above information, it seems obvious to to us that a number of thorny questions arise as we approach this important November 4th Council meeting, such as these, for instance:

Whose idea was it to hire a facilitator in the first place? Is the hiring of a "hired hand" even appropriate in this instance? If Councilwoman Gochnour didn't feel up to the task of "chairing" the 11/4/10 meeting, wouldn't it make more sense for the very capable Vice-chair Susan Van Hooser to serve as the backup Council Chair "stand-in?" As to the "facilitator" issue, we whole-heartedly agree with the Standard-Examiner:

Do Blair and others really believe that both sides of this issue can only be attained if a hired hand guides them through all the information? That's nonsense. The Ogden Council can do this job on its own without wasting our dollars.

And what about Chairwoman Gochnour's conduct in this matter?

Is it appropriate for the Council Chair to be operating with height limit amendment proponents behind the scenes, and publicly expressing her tentative support of a "compromise solution" even prior to public input and full council deliberation?

And there are more questions:

Is it even possible to prudently balance the preservation and protection of the delicate historic character of the 25th Street district, against the aggressive pro-economic development impulses of the Godfrey administration?

And with regard to the "additional (protective) language" which Ms. Gochnour mentions in her letter, the only such language that's been heretofore publicly reported is this:

The amendment under consideration by the city council would prohibit existing buildings on 25th Street from being increased in height through rooftop additions or additional stories unless:
• Documentation is presented establishing that additional height is within the limits of the building's historical construction.
• The addition is not visible from the front of the building or from the sidewalk on the same side of the street or across the street.

So, in the event that the proposed ordinance fails to make specific reference to federal historic preservation guidelines as Ms. Gochnour has suggested, will our City Council Chair and the rest of the Council stick to their guns and reject the ordinance outright, due to that defect?

Even assuming that the proposed ordinance does contain language satisfactorily requiring that Historic 25th street projects conform to "comprehensive" federal historic preservation guidelines, are there other issues which the Council should consider, before amending the standard for height limits on 25th Street?

We certainly haven't made our minds up about the wisdom of even a carefully drafted blanket amendment to the 25th Street District height ordinance, especially since no actual and palpable project plan is on the table.

And with that, we now invite our WCF readers to chime in with their own views on this topic.

Standard-Examiner: How Tall Is Too Tall On Ogden's Historic 25th Street?

Mr. Schwebke's article reveals a couple of interesting new twists

25th Street Business Association President Steve Conlin's proposal to raise Historic 25th Street's building height limits from 45 to 55 feet is back on the Standard-Examiner front page this morning. Read Mr. Schwebke's full story here:

• How tall is too tall on Ogden's Historic 25th Street?

Mr. Schwebke's article reveals a couple of interesting new twists:

1) Somebody obviously believes the stakes are high enough that our city council can't be trusted to run their own meeting, so the taxpayers will be paying an unnamed sum for a professional facilitator to "facilitate" the November 4 dog and pony show:

OGDEN -- The city council has hired a professional facilitator for a Nov. 4 work session at which a controversial request to increase building height limits on Historic 25th Street will be considered.
Information regarding how much the city council will pay facilitator Pam Gardiol, president of Gardiol & Associates, was not available Thursday because a contract hasn't been finalized, said Janene Eller-Smith, a policy analyst for the council.
Gardiol, a former chairwoman of Ogden's planning and landmarks commissions, said her experience in those two positions has aided her as a facilitator. "It helped me be impartial," said Gardiol, who declined to say how much she is being paid by the council.
Gardiol has served as a facilitator for the city of Seattle, the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake County and other entities.

2) With an apparent eye to the difficulties arising two years ago, when the Windsdor Hotel project developer submitted garish and zoning non-compliant plans for the Windor Hotel remodel, Mr. Schwebke refers to this protective language contained in the new proposed ordinance:

The amendment under consideration by the city council would prohibit existing buildings on 25th Street from being increased in height through rooftop additions or additional stories unless:
• Documentation is presented establishing that additional height is within the limits of the building's historical construction.
• The addition is not visible from the front of the building or from the sidewalk on the same side of the street or across the street.

Although we've already gone on record as opposing a reopening of this can of worms, we'll defer for the time being to the common sense and diplomacy of Councilman Stephens, who believes there's no harm in taking another look at the issue:

Councilman Doug Stephens questioned whether it is necessary to change the height ordinance, as there is no building project on the table for 25th Street that requires the height extension.
"That doesn't mean we shouldn't go ahead and review it," he said. "The height ordinance isn't going away, so it behooves us to talk about it in a work session. It's prudent for us to gather information to analyze the importance of the height ordinance."

As a consequence we'll be standing by with great interest as ordinance amendment proponents lay their new evidence on the table on November 4, all the while harboring the gut feeling that a blanket height limit amendment is not a sufficiently prudent approach.

Monday Morning Emerald City News Roundup

We'll let Dan's brief comment serve as the foundation for another open topic thread

In one of our lower comments sections we find this comment from Gentle Reader Dan S.:

Hey sports fans, don't forget the rest of the news: Earnshaw condo buyers scammed out of their deposits by FOM...

• No return on deposits for many at Earnshaw Building in Ogden

Proposed height ordinance amendment postponed...

• Consideration Of 25th Street Height Ordinance Postponed, Council Seeks Dialogue

Chickens on the agenda for Tuesday...

• 10/05 City Council Regular Session Agenda

Followed by a Trolley District presentation...

• 10/05 City Council Work Session Agenda
• Trolley District Community Advisory Network Presentation Preview

Your blogmeister's been hog-tied with personal business this morning; so we'll let Dan's brief comment (which we've taken the liberty of expanding with a few helpful links) serve as the firm foundation for another open topic thread.

The floor's now open for discussion this Monday morning, for those WCF readers who survived the weekend..

Standard-Examiner: 25th Street Business Association Wants Height Limits Raised

We urge the Council to reject this proposal outright, and to refrain from again revisiting this already-decided issue, unless and until some tangible proposed project comes along

The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that anti-historic preservation forces are again on the move to compromise the historical integrity of Historic 25th Street, with a new proposal, spearhead by hyper-activist 25th Street Business Association President Steve Conlin, to increase building height limits on Historic 25th Street across the board from 45 feet to 55 feet:

• 25th Street Business Association wants height limits raised

Although we'd assumed that the prospect of raising height limits across all of the Historic 25th Street District had been rejected once and for all by the Council in October of 2008, Mr. Conlin makes it quite clear that he's ready to waste the time of the Council and the public, by girding for battle on this issue once again:

"I don't think we are going to get this passed without a big fight. But I think it's a fight the 25th Street Business Association is willing to take on," said Steve Conlin, president of the association.

Kudos to Councilman Stephens for his savvy take on the issue:

City Councilman Doug Stephens questioned whether it is prudent to change the height ordinance, as there is no building project on the table for 25th Street that requires the height extension.
"We need to protect the historical elements of 25th Street and provide a method that 25th Street can attract business into that area and be successful," he said. "If there is no project coming forward, is it necessary for the council to be reviewing this ordinance?"

Councilman Stephens hits the nail on the head. Absent some new proposed project which might justify Council consideration of an individual zoning variance tied to a specific project, it would be pure folly for the City Council to open up what earlier proved to be a highly contentious can of worms once again.

We therefore urge the Council to reject this proposal outright, and to refrain from again revisiting this already-decided issue, unless and until some actual property developer is willing to put something tangible on the table.

Vision Meets Reality

Sixteen Godfrey chickens that haven't exactly hatched

By Dan Schroeder

The Standard-Examiner recently published a commentary by Mayor Godfrey, bragging about some of his accomplishments and reminding us of his "high adventure" vision for Ogden's future. In response, I'd like to thank the mayor for giving me this opportunity to publish a little list that I've compiled.

When an elected official has been in office for nearly a decade, I think it's appropriate to judge his visions in light of his record. Mayor Godfrey's record has its bright spots, as he repeatedly reminds us. But to get the full picture, we need to look at what he actually promised once upon a time--and compare those promises to the current reality.

So I offer this modest list as an additional basis for community discussion. I don't claim that the list is complete, or that it fairly represents the mayor's full record. Nor do I mean to give the mayor all the credit for either the original promises or the difficulty in fulfilling them. (In many cases the news media played a significant role in puffing up our expectations.) Still, all of these projects are closely associated with the mayor's "vision" for Ogden, and the list is long enough to refute anyone's contention that these shortcomings are due merely to occasional bad luck, or to the recent economic downturn.

Here, then, are some of the facts that Mayor Godfrey's commentary didn't mention:

Project	Then...	Now...
River Project	"Construction on the ambitious river project, in the works since early 2001, should begin in 2005, with the recent approval of a developer's agreement between the Ogden Redevelopment Agency and Cottonwood Partners Management LTD." (January 16, 2004)	Except for the Bingham's building, there has been no new construction in this 60-acre area. The residential blocks have been virtually abandoned and plagued by a series of arsons.
Ernest Health	"Done deal" according to a news article based on statements from the Ogden City administration (June 7, 2008).	Ernest missed its deadline to finalize the land purchase; property is back on the market.
Midtown Hotel	"An Orem company plans to begin construction later this year on a $100 million hotel at The Junction downtown development." (January 10, 2008)	"Canceled".
Ashton Square	"Construction is slated to begin in August and will last about 14 months." (May 24, 2007)	"It's off the table for now and for the foreseeable future."
Earnshaw Building	"Construction on the Earnshaw Building is slated to start within a couple of months and end in about a year." (February 21, 2006)	Construction has slowed to a crawl. Signs in the windows promise that the first tenant, Deseret Books, will move in later this summer. The owner owes over $24,000 in delinquent property taxes.
Junction Leases	Lease revenues from Boyer were projected to bring the city over $300,000 annually by 2010. The Ogden City administration was willing to pay Boyer to add two more floors to its office building because they "wouldn't have much difficulty leasing" the space (May 31, 2006).	Even at four stories, the office building is mostly unoccupied and its only tenants are those that moved from across the street. Overall, the Boyer properties have generated no lease revenue for the city and "there is not anticipated to be any in the near future."
Junction Property Tax	"In the year 2015 ... the redevelopment district expires and community entities begin receiving the full benefit of the tax income from The Junction." (Newspaper advertisement from mayor's office, May 31, 2007.)	At the request of the Ogden City administration, the district's expiration date has been extended for an additional 12 years. Some taxing entities will receive partial "mitigation payments" during this time, but the rest will receive no tax revenue from the Junction.
Windsor Hotel	"Ogden Properties ... is conservatively estimating the project to be finished by spring next year" (June 24, 2007). In a development agreement with the city, the building's owner pledged to comply with all "applicable rules, laws and ordinances".	After the city council declined to amend an ordinance to increase the height limit on 25th Street, the owner canceled the project and threatened to demolish the building.
American Can Building	Was to have housed Mt. Ogden Scientific, Fresenius Medical Care, and 1st Contact Technologies (April 23, 2005).	None of these "high tech" companies ever moved in. The building has been renovated and a portion is now occupied by Amer Sports, but much of the building remains vacant.
Adam Aircraft	Promised to bring "hundreds of new jobs" (March 16, 2005).	The 55 Ogden employees were permanently laid off in January 2008. The company ceased operations soon thereafter, and its taxpayer-subsidized 91,000 square foot building is empty.
Ryan McEuen Amphitheater	"It is hoped that the amphitheater will open in 2008 to coincide with the completion of a commuter rail line... Patterson said." (September 10, 2006)	The site is still occupied by a landfill and a portion of it is posted for sale. Patterson says the city is "continuing to work" on the project, but McEuen says there is "no timeline for construction".
Ice Climbing Tower	"It will go up this year", said John Patterson (April 25, 2007).	$200,000 RAMP grant had to be returned to the county because matching funds were never raised.
High-Adventure Campground	"Campground for rock climbers may arrive soon in Ogden" (July 23, 2008).	Work on the campground began in September 2008 but abruptly ceased soon thereafter and has not resumed after nearly a year.
Velodrome	Mayor Godfrey "is hopeful that fundraising can be completed by the end of next year, enabling construction to be finished in 2011." He predicts that the city's contribution will need to be "more than $100,000". (September 6, 2008)	No funds have been raised yet for this $15 million project. The city's $2 million RAMP application was rejected in early 2009. The application promised that the city would contribute $2 million.
Via Ferrata	Supposedly open to the public for a $25 fee (November 18, 2005).	Never got a business license from the county.
Malan's Basin Resort	"The next few months will see trail work start on a new ski area entirely on private land at Malan's Basin which will be completed in time for the 2007 season" (Ski Press Magazine, August 19, 2005). Plans for the resort were to be made public by fall 2005.	Some ski routes have been cleared of trees and brush, but no other construction has taken place and no plans have been released.

Reader comments are, of course, most welcome. Should other items be added to this list? How can we better understand the difficulties that the mayor has encountered in carrying out his vision? And most importantly, where should Ogden go from here?

Standard-Examiner: City Council, Landmarks Pledge to Work Closely Together

The Council and Landmarks Commission arrive at a kumbaya moment

The Standard-Examiner finally gets around to reporting this morning about the earlier-heralded City Council/Landmarks Commission pow-wow which occurred during a council work session last Tuesday night:

OGDEN — The city council and Ogden Landmarks Commission will work together more closely in the future to avoid controversies such as the one involving renovations at the historic Windsor Hotel.
The two groups attempted to iron out their differences over the Windsor, at 166 Historic 25th St., during a twohour work session Tuesday night.
The tone of the meeting was both conciliatory and confrontational.
But in the end, city council and Landmarks Commission members agreed the discussion was beneficial.
“It gives us a starting place (to keep the lines of communication open),” City Council Chairwoman Amy Wicks said.

Mr. Schwebke goes on to provide us a glimpse into the confrontational part:

Judy Lohmueller, vice chairwoman of the Landmarks Commission, said during the work session the city council should have contacted the commission if it had a problem with the ordinance amendment. [...]

Seems to us that the council had already "contacted the commission" with its objections, (in a formal manner,) by rejecting the recommendation to broadly increase Historic 25th Street District height limits. If there are those on the commission who still believed that Ogden Properties' nonconforming plans were in the best interest of Ogden... and the 25th Street District a a whole, why didn't they just go back to the drawing board and come back to the council with a narrowly drafted "variance" ordinance, applicable to the Windsor structure alone? Hmmmmm? easier to raise a stink, and bitch to the press, we guess.

There's even more reported griping from Lohmueller:

Lohmueller also said she resents untrue statements from some city council members made during public meetings that Landmarks Commission members are susceptible to political influence from Ogden’s administration.
“It’s embarrassing to Landmarks,” she said. “It’s tarnished our reputation.”

So long as the the Landmarks Commission continues to be populated with the likes of Sue "G-Train" Wilkerson, and Boss Godfrey's Uncle Bernie, the Landmarks Commission will continue to suffer similar embarrassment, we suspect.

We'll also note a slight improvement in the accuracy of Mr. Schwebke's reporting of the circumstances leading to the council's rejection of the Landmark Commission's recommended broad zoning ordinance revision:

In Tuesday's article Mr. Schwebke provided this:

Ogden Properties has abandoned its plans to renovate the hotel because the city council has refused to amend a height restriction ordinance to enable the addition of a fourth-floor penthouse.

Here's the pertinent text from this morning's Scott Schwebke story:

The Landmarks Commission requested the work session to voice frustration surrounding a city council decision in September to reject an ordinance amendment that would have allowed exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction for Historic 25th Street buildings.
The amendment would have allowed the Ogden Planning Commission to grant a height variance once the Landmarks Commission had reviewed and approved building plans. [...]
Several council members have expressed concern that waiving building-height restrictions and adding another floor at the Windsor would jeopardize 25th Street’s National Historic Registry designation and eligibility for federal funding.

Still a mite fuzzy, we think; but an improvement nevertheless.

And for those readers who aren't completely burned out on the Windsor Hotel discussion, the floor remains as open as ever.

The Windsor Hotel Again Arrives on the Discussion Front Burner

Your Weber County Forum blogmeister indulges in a little cathartic nit-picking

Ace Reporter Schwebke again brings up the subject of the Windsor Hotel this morning, with another Std-Ex Business Section story discussing the present dilemma. This morning's story however actually adds little to what has been earlier reported, which is essentially this:

1) Ogden Properties, the developer, still fails and refuses to perform its contractual obligations and complete the project according to the terms agreed in the original Development and Grant Agreements;
2) Now that the structure has been stripped to the brick and effectively gutted, the 25th Street Historic District is stuck with a commercially unusable building smack dab in the center of the district;
3) The developer has proposed demolishing the building as a "plan B" option;
4) Ready, willing and able "backup" buyers aren't exactly flying out of the woodwork.

Without going into a tedious rehash of the series of blunders that led to the current city/developer stalemate, we'll nevertheless tangentially nit-pick a little bit. First we'll take a couple of potshots at the accuracy of Mr. Schwebke's reporting:

1) Once again, Mr. Schwebke continues to mischaracterise the circumstances which led to the council's rejection of Boss Godfrey's proposed Historic 25th Street District zoning ordinance. Here are Schwebke's words from this morning's Std-Ex story:

Ogden Properties has abandoned its plans to renovate the hotel because the city council has refused to amend a height restriction ordinance to enable the addition of a fourth-floor penthouse.

As everyone who has even been casually following this story knows, the council's chief objection to the proposed ordinance amendment was its overbreadth. Rather than drafting a narrow ordinance aimed at creating a zoning variance affecting the single Windsor Hotel project only, Godfrey instead overreached, and stubbornly sought an increase in building height limits which would have affected the entire Historic 25th Street Historic District. Hopefully Mr. Schwebke will write this down so he doesn't repeat this aggravating mistake.

2) Again referring to Mr. Schwebke's morning text, we find this technical inaccuracy:

The company [Ogden Properties] has asked the city, which provided $288,000 in incentives last year to assist with renovation costs, to buy the hotel back.

If Ogden City were to buy the property from Ogden Properties, it wouldn't actually be"buying it back." According to our recollection, Ogden Properties and the original owner, Ruben Villalobos, were the buyers and sellers in the sale transaction; and Ogden City wasn't a party to that transaction at all. Neither Ogden City nor the Ogden RDA ever held title to the property either, so far as we know. If Ogden City were to be dumb enough to buy this property, it would be merely taking it off Ogden Properties' hands; that's all.

3) Lastly we'll snarkily comment that the current predicament provides even more evidence supporting the conservative proposition that city governments, especially those governed by the likes of Boss Godfrey, shouldn't meddle in what ought to be entirely private real estate transactions. For that we'll refer back to one of of our earlier WCF articles, published around the time of the Windsor sale transaction, from which we extract this text:

Notably, the new owners are reportedly a little foggy about the prospective use of their newly-acquired downtown property. They'll hopefully know more, once they've consulted with their architect and engineers.
Oddly, they're opting to turn a rent-generating property into a vacant one. That's their prerogative as property owners though, we guess.
Still we wonder if it might not have made more economic sense for these young and eager new property owners to have formulated their plans BEFORE they kicked out their paying tenants. [...]
As for the outgoing former property owner Villalobos, we suppose it was easier to just cut and run, with Boss Godfrey and his henchmen breathing down his neck.

As our readers will recall, the Windsor's previous owner, Mr. Vallalobos, already had his own plans for refurbishment of his Windsor Hotel property; but his 6-month projected timeframe wasn't good enough for Boss Godfrey. Instead of waiting for Villalobos to put together his own plans and financing for a Windsor remodeling, Godfrey issued an ultimatum, and forced Villalobos out:

Ruben Villalobos, the previous owner of the hotel, said the sale closed June 4, but declined to share the purchase price. According to Weber County property records, the hotel and the 0.12 acres it sits on are valued at $286,319.
Villalobos said he wanted to convert the building into an upscale dwelling when he originally bought it in 2004, but it wasn’t feasible at that time because there were many unsold residential units at the Union Square development on the other side of the street.
The Union Square units are all sold now, he said, and property values in the area have gone up. He said he is disappointed he couldn’t fix it himself.
“The city gave me an ultimatum, either sell it or clean it up,” Villalobos said. “I wanted to renovate it myself, but I guess the city wanted to get it done right away.”
He said he was about six months away from securing the necessary funding to clean and fix up the building.
“My plans were to keep it historical and make a bed & breakfast-type place,” Villalobos said.

Using our 20/20 hindsight, we can't but help speculate how much better Ogden City's situation would have been at this point, if Boss Godfrey had just kept his grubby mitts off the Windsor Hotel.

Nice work, Boss Godfrey! It's another fine mess you've gotten us into.

Comments, anyone?

Historic 25th Street District Rezoning Ordinance Finds Itself Back on the Council Calender

Councilman Stephens moves to reconsider "height ordinance"

Interesting development you're not going to read about in this morning's Standard-Examiner. It seems that one of the five council members prevailing in the vote to deny approval of Boss Godfrey's Historic 25th Street District building height zoning amendment has put the matter back on calender:

Ogden City Council *Special Meeting* Agenda - October 14, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.:

8. Old Business:
... b. Reconsideration of Revised Height Limit Ordinance on 25th Street. Reconsideration of Proposed Ordinance 2008-43 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Subsection 15-34-3.A to revise the height limits on 25th Street Historic District. (Reconsider/not reconsider ordinance; if reconsider, receive public input and adopt/not adopt ordinance).[Emphasis added]

Our sources report that it's Councilman Stephens who seemed to have had the change of heart. Stephens thus holds true to his reputation as the most enigmatic and unpredictable council member.

We don't quite get the point, inasmuch as Ogden Properties Inc. has already announced it's pulling out of the project. Perhaps the project isn't quite so dead as we thought.

Be sure to contact your council members to let them know exactly what you think about this latest twist in the Windsor Hotel saga; and don't forget to spread the words to your historic preservationist friends.

We assume the council chamber will be packed next Tuesday with steely-eyed lumpencitizens who oppose Boss Godfrey's reckless approach to our Historic 25th Street designation. You can be assured the G-train and her fellow property-flipping vampires will show up in force. It'll be a lively council meeting, for sure.

Your comments are invited, as always.

Appointments, Water Rate Fixes, and a Godfreyite Council Assault

City Council Notes - 10/7/08

By George K.

Chair Wicks was excused from the Council meeting.

The Council approved a number of entities recommended by the Arts Council to receive a portion of the $35,000. grant from the Council. These entities enrich the community through their artistic endeavors from the Childrens Treehouse Museum to the Foursite Theater group.

The Council appointed Dustin Chapman to the Board of Adjustments with a 5 to 1 vote with Councilwoman Jeske casting the dissenting vote.

Bill Cook explained the purpose of the water, sewer and storm sewer rate increases and briefly reviewed the process the Council used to determine what the rates should be. Then Laura Lewis went into more detail. John Patterson concluded by presenting the current rate structure developed by the administration stating that the $5.00 surcharge would be eliminated and the top tier removed, so that the $2.30 per 1,000 gallons surcharge for non-secondary water customers would take effect at 70,000 gallons of water used. A $2.00 per gallon surcharge for secondary water users would begin at 20,000 gallons. After listening to a number of concerned citizens, Bill Cook read a list of concerns and issues that the Council wished to address at a later time when more information was available with the new water software that the City had purchased to handle the water billing and information system. It was noted that only about two percent of Ogden residents would receive either a refund or credit for the huge bills that they had received.

After public input, Vice Chair Stephens told patrons their input was appreciated and thanked them for their input and suggestions and said it was this sharing and communicating of concerns that problems were solved. Councilwoman Jeske asked Bill Cook to add lot size consideration to the list of issues to be considered. She also asked that a way be developed to inform senior citizens and low income residents that the City allowed some relief for them. Vice Chairman Stephens noted that challenges of the new water program had been addressed by both the administration and the council with citizen input and it was this cooperative effort that had allowed for a satisfactory outcome for all concerned.

A number of 25th Street business owners and some members of the Landmarks Commission addressed the Council with all of them requesting that the Council reconsider their vote on the height ordinance. Several said that the Council was playing politics and really wasn’t concerned with the historic district designation. There were four speakers who did not request the Council to reconsider, with three stating the importance of preserving the Historic District.

Councilwoman Jeske was rebuked for not apologizing for her comments by Sue Wilkerson, Bernie Allen and Dorie Mosher, and for operating behind closed doors. Referring to the flashlights that Councilwoman Jeske had given to each Council member when she was sworn in as a token that the Council would operate in the open and shine a light on city government, Ms. Mosher gave Councilwoman Jeske a couple of batteries since apparently the light had gone out in her flashlight.

The Mayor, in his comments, said that he wanted the city government to conduct business in the open, and he encouraged communication at any time because his door was always, but he said that Mrs. Jeske had made the statement that she didn’t want to work with the administration. Then Councilmember Brandon Stephenson stated that he felt it necessary in order for the city to continue to grow the council and mayor had to work together. He mentioned that there are no joint goals for the city because the council would not work with the administration and come to a compromise. He faulted Council Leadership with failing to work with the administration and communicating with the mayor.

Council member Jesse Garcia, defended the Council and their decisions. Then Council member Stephenson said that he guessed that he wasn’t through with his comments, and further stated his disappointment with his fellow council members. Council member Garcia gave a short rebuttal. Councilwoman Jeske spoke up and said, “This isn’t the place to do our dirty laundry,” and made the motion to close the meeting. Vice Chair Stephens said that he wasn’t ready and made a few comments.

The meeting adjourned about 9:15 PM. with no action taken to reconsider the vote taken regarding the height amendment ordinance.

Update 10/08/08 6:32 a.m. MT: Ace reporter Schwebke offers his own version of last night's council meeting hijinks in this morning's Standard-Examiner, with typical Std-Ex pro-Godfrey spin.

The G-train Pressures the Council for a Second Bite of the Re-zoning Apple

The Emerald City Godfreyites continue to "bark up the wrong tree"

The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that Ogden City Landmarks Commission Chair Sue "G-train" Wilkerson continues pushing the administration's effort to broadly modify the zoning ordinance pertaining to Ogden City's Historic 25th Street District. From this morning's Scott Schwebke story:

OGDEN — An Ogden Landmarks Commission member is asking the city council to reconsider its decision to reject an amendment that would have allowed exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction ordinance for Historic 25th Street buildings.
Sue Wilkerson, who has served on the Landmarks Commission for 3 1 /2 years, said Monday the council’s Sept. 23 decision should be revisited because it was based on flawed information.

The prescribed process for bringing up a council decision for reconsideration is provided by Section 16 of the Ogden City Council Rules of Procedure:

16. Reconsideration
A. Any Council member who has voted with the prevailing side of a question may move at the same meeting to reconsider the question at the same meeting, or at the next available Council meeting. If a question has failed by a tie vote, members who voted against the question shall be considered to be on the prevailing side. [Emphasis added]

Whether any of the five prevailing council members on last Tuesday's "nay" vote (Wicks, Garcia, Gochnour, Jeske & Stevens) will succumb to Wilkerson's lobbying pressure is something, of course, that can't be predicted with absolute certainty.

One thing is clear however, in our view. Wilkerson and her fellow Godfreyites have missed the main issue here. Although they trot out several dilatory and peripheral issues, such as whether the council's decision to reject Boss Godfrey's proposed ordinance may have been (hypothetically) founded in some part upon flawed information, they nevertheless continue to overlook the single pivotal issue in this matter, i.e., the broad wording of the now defeated ordinance amendment, which would have stripped the council of zoning approval power, and ceded it to a pair of unelected volunteer advisory commissions.

Unless and until the Godfreyites are prepared to offer a more narrowly drafted ordinance, which would preserve the council's zoning approval authority, we believe it's unlikely that anyone within the prevailing majority of the city council will be willing to take a second look at Windsor Hotel re-zoning.

As it stands, Wilkerson and her fellow Godfreyites are "barking up the wrong tree," in other words, we think.

Before closing, we'll also link (without our own editorial comment) the latest Godfreyite anti-council smear letter, appearing in this morning's Std-Ex:

Ogden should make inner city upscale

The fun never ends in Ogden City politics.

We'll leave it to our gentle readers to enlighten the blogosphere about the true meaning of all this.

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.

Ace Reporter Schwebke Pronounces the Windsor Hotel Project Dead

And Councilwoman Gochnour attempts to smooth over some ruffled Landmarks Commission feathers

Two important items in this morning's Standard-Examiner, regarding the Weber County Forum hot topic of the week, Ogden Properties LLC's Windsor Hotel rehabilitation project.

Ace Reporter Schwebke's morning story pronounces the project dead. We incorporate Mr. Schwebke's opening graphs:

OGDEN — The owners of the Windsor Hotel officially canceled plans Monday to renovate the historic inn because of a city council decision preventing the addition of a fourth floor.
Ogden Properties LLC, which owns the Windsor, lost its construction loan for the project because the council last week refused to approve a zoning amendment that could have allowed the additional floor to be built.
“In today’s market, lenders are trying to get out of construction loans,” said Dave Harmer, Ogden’s director of community and economic development. He tried Monday to persuade Ogden Properties to reconsider its decision. “They had financing ready to go, and then it all fell apart because of the council action,” he said. In addition, Ogden Properties has asked the city, which provided $288,000 in incentives last year to help the Windsor renovations move forward, if it plans to exercise its option to buy the hotel back, Harmer said. If the city chooses not to exercise that option, it forfeits any right to the incentives it provided, he said. Stuart Sheldon, an official with Ogden Properties, said his company is disappointed that the Windsor project won’t be undertaken. “It’s dead, so there is nothing for us to say,” he said Monday in a phone interview. “It’s sad and frustrating, but that’s the end of it.” The Windsor project was dealt a fatal blow last week when the city council rejected by a 5-2 vote an amendment that would provide exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction for Historic 25th Street buildings.

There will no doubt be plenty of second guessing about this; and we're quite certain there will be the usual flurry of Godfreyite letters to the Standard-Examiner, blaming the council for the failure of this project. When the smoke clears however, a troubling series of questions will remain: Why did the developer draw up plans and arrange financing for a project which clearly failed to comply with the existing zoning ordinance? If the developer was aware at the time of the purchase of the property that the addition of a penthouse would require a zoning variance, why wasn't this mentioned (or made a contingent part of the deal) at the time the proposed transaction was first presented to the council? Inasmuch as the developer's proposed project merely required a single exception to existing zoning rules, why did the administration draw up a new ordinance which would apply to the entire Historic 25th Street District? Why did Boss Godfrey's proposed ordinance contain language which would have stripped zoning approval authority from the council, and have vested it in an unelected advisory body, i.e., the Landmarks Commission? And last but not least... is there anybody who really believes that the developer had its loan all lined up... taking into account the current condition of the U.S. credit market?

So many questions... so few answers.

We also learn this morning that Councilwoman Gochnour has issued a written apology to the Landmarks Commission for ill-considered remarks uttered last week, evidently in the heat of passion:

“I went a step too far in my frustration at the end of a long and exhausting week,” she said in the e-mail obtained by the Standard-Examiner.
“And, I also want you to know I have great respect for the Landmarks Commission and all the excellent work you’ve done through the years in furthering Ogden’s historic preservation efforts.”

While we duly applaud Ms. Gochnour for her graciousness in reaching out to the Landmarks Commission, in a truly classy effort to smooth over some ruffled feathers, we nevertheless urge Ms. Gochnour and all five council grownups to remain vigilant. As long-time Godfrey watchers are well aware, our thoroughly Machiavellian Mayor Matt, regards apologies as acts of submission -- evidence of weakness -- which will henceforth require further acts of contrition (groveling.)

There hasn't been a week during the 3-1/2 years we've been Godfrey watching that we've been more proud of our city council's performance, by the way, than during this week's Windsor Hotel matter. The council has recently demonstrated a profound dedication to protecting the lumpencitizens' interests. Now is no time to let down their guard, we believe.

And lest our readers are temped to believe that this is the end of this story, we'll advise that we received this tip from a trusted source this morning:

"Sources close to me indicate Bob Geiger submitted a GRAMA request to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office for all correspondence between Barbara Murphy, of the office, and Ogden City."

The plot sickens, gentle readers. The Godfreyite's Council smear campaign which we warned about on Friday, is apparently well underway.

Have at it, gentle readers.

We'd love to get your takes on all this.

9/23/08 City Council Meeting Results

Sanity prevails on Ogden's Historic 25th Street

By Bill C.
Historic 25th Street wins 5-2. Yes folks, own responsible grown up Council quelled the threat to losing the Historic designation of our only real successful downtown endeavor. The only ones voting in favor of this silly ordinance change being Brandon Anally Stephenson and of course the biggest benefactor of the lying little matty movement to date, Blaine Johnson.

The most remarkable thing about this was the wording of the ordinance, it essentially would have eliminated all future Council oversight, by removing the one restriction that was a zoning issue -- The 45 ft. height restriction. This would have allowed all future infill to be done at the discretion of the Landmarks Committee and the Planning Department. Both of course hand picked mayoral appointments.

Of further insight is the revelation that what these guys had planned for the old Windsor would not have qualified for historic designation, despite the landmarks members' rather disingenuous pleas about their strict adherence to all guidelines, those being of course Bernie and G-train.

All the Council voting in opposition to the ordinance commented that to do so would jeopardize the historic designation, and they weren't willing to do that. Thank your lucky stars that there are mature long range thinkers on our Council.

One other tidbit I picked up from a very credible attendee at tonight's meeting, but I'm still not sure that it is in the Historic District boundaries: the icecicle is over the 45 ft. height restriction. Could it be we've been saved?

The floor is open for further reader comments.

Update 9/24/08 6:54 a.m. MT: Ace Reporter Schwebke chimes in this morning with a pretty decent writeup about last night's meeting:

• Ogden rejects height amendment

Important Council Meeting Tonight

Another dunning reminder and call to citizen action

We open this morning's discussion by once again reminding our readers of tonight's city council meeting, wherein the council agenda includes consideration of the mayor's proposal to broadly amend the current zoning ordinance for Ogden's Historic 25th Street District:

6. Reports from the Planning Commission:
a. Height Limits on Buildings in the 25th Street Historic District. Proposed Ordinance 2008-43 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending subsection 15-34-3.A to revise the height limits on 25th Street Historic District. (Receive public input, adopt/not adopt ordinance – roll call vote)

We've had ample discussion of this proposal here on this blog. Readers who'd like to again review the issues surrounding the proposed municipal code amendment can find our previous articles assembled (in reverse chronological order) within our Windsor Hotel article collection.

It's also come to our attention within the past several days that the Windsor Hotel developers are in the midst of putting on a full court press to persuade the council that this new proposed ordinance has the support of the downtown business community. One of our sources close to city hall informs us that the administration has also been aggressively pressuring downtown business owners to support this proposal, even though it would have effects contrary to their personal interests. The council has already been subjected to a coordinated email and letter campaign by the ordinance proponents. The developers have also scheduled a special meeting this afternoon to organize a formal council presentation, wherein various proponents of the amended ordinance will divvy up their talking points.

Inasmuch as it's obvious that the ordinance amendment proponents intend to ambush the council tonight, and pack the commission chamber with their shills and stooges, we strongly urge all readers who oppose this re-zoning proposal to put tonight's council meeting on their calenders, and to make special efforts to be in attendance, pitchforks and torches in hand.

We've observed numerous incidences in the past where some council members have been swayed in their decisions on controversial ordinances by strong citizen turnouts. What a shame it would be, we believe, if the unique character of our Historic 25th Street District were to be forever compromised and diminished, because the steely-eyed lumpencitizens failed to show up in force.

Once again, we link our council contact information page, for those readers who still haven't contacted the council to express their views.

Ogden City Council Considers Major Zoning Change for Historic 25th Street

The Utah Heritage Foundation joins the 25th Street Historic District preservation fight, in re the Windsor Hotel

One of our gentle readers sent us an email this morning, with a link to an article appearing on the Utah Heritage Foundation blog. It's a well-written article, touching on an issue we've discussed here on Weber County Forum, i.e., The Godfrey administration's proposal for a wholesale zoning change within Ogden City's 25th Street Historic District. We incorporate the opening paragraphs below:

Ogden's 25th Street is the model downtown historic district I am proud to use in my presentations. But sadly that may not be for much longer.
On Tuesday, September 23rd, the Ogden City Council will consider a request to change the 45-foot height restriction in the 25th Street Historic District which has been in place since 1989. If you've walked 25th Street and seen the ongoing revitalization of downtown Ogden, then you have witnessed how historic preservation has played a key role in sparking the comeback of one of the great historic downtowns of Utah. This includes award-winning rehabilitations, new local businesses, and with the relocation of the IRS, thousands of new jobs downtown.
Just like other zoning ordinances, preservation ordinances for historic districts and their design guidelines are in place to create a level playing field for everyone. So is it fair that now a developer comes forward with a proposal to change these ordinances that govern the entire district to make their single project work? It seems not.

The article goes on to discuss the background of our 25th Street Historic District's remarkable revival, within the context of an overall historic preservation ethos, and to make a fine and cogent argument for the denial of a broad change in our unique historic district's zoning, on the basis of the questionable purported "wants" of the single Windsor Hotel developer.

Among other things, the article provides Ogden City Council contact links, along with a wealth of other useful information.

It's an interesting and informative read, and we urge all of our readers to check it out here:

Ogden City Council considers major zoning change for historic 25th Street

Sometimes we lumpencitizens of Ogden City feel a mite isolated in our 24/7 fight to to oppose Boss Godfrey's efforts to blithely turn our city over to his friends, cohorts and campaign contributors. Having said that, we're happy to learn this morning that a Utah historic preservation heavyweight, The Utah Heritage Foundation, has joined us in what has heretofore seemed to be a purely local fight.

The Utah Heritage Foundation has adopted a position strongly opposing the new ordinance, and invited its blog readers to contact our council with their opinions on the subject. We accordingly urge our gentle readers to open the above-linked article, take advantage of the embedded contact links, and let the council know exactly what the Ogden lumpencitizens think as well.

As mentioned in the blog article, the council will consider the zoning change during its regular September 23 council meeting. Time is running short, gentle readers. If you intend to take action... we'd suggest you DO IT NOW.