Salt Lake Tribune: Former Nuisance Waterway Now a Prime Attraction in Ogden

A Weber County Forum  Tip O' The Hat this morning to Dan Schroeder, for once again setting the record straight

Turning to our back-burner Ogden City topical news queu on this, yet another uber-slow news day, the Salt Lake Tribune's Cathy McKitrick provides a little something for Ogden City residents to crow about as we stand mid-way through a long holiday weekend:

• Former nuisance waterway now a prime attraction in Ogden

In her possibly over-yeomanlike efforts to provide background to this story, Ms. McKitrick slips in this quote, from former Ogden City Mayor Boss Godfrey, who in truth, effectively paralyzed the economic health of the Ogden River project area with a heavy-handed Big Government-style "economic development" interference for many years:

Reached by phone Wednesday, Godfrey called the award "a great honor, especially from an organization that was so helpful in making it a reality."

"It was highly controversial at first," he said of the project he introduced a dozen years ago to redevelop several blocks around the Ogden River. "We never would have been able to clean up the river without cleaning up what was around it."

Fortunately SL Trib readers have sharp-eyed and alert Ogden City community activist Dan Schroeder to counteract the self-serving Boss Godfrey spin:

Controversial?

Yes, the redevelopment project on 60 acres surrounding the river was (and is) controversial. The city declared the area "blighted" and scheduled for demolition years before coming up with the money to actually carry out its intentions. The property owners naturally stopped maintaining their buildings, turning a marginally blighted area into a badly blighted one. Shady back-room deals with prospective developers and a continuing debt of several million dollars have added to the controversy.

But that's the redevelopment project--not the river restoration. The ex-mayor has it exactly backwards when he says that the former was necessary for the latter. In fact, most of the redevelopment project has still not happened, yet the river restoration is now complete. With hindsight, it would have made far more sense to carry out the river restoration before even attempting to begin any redevelopment.

There was also some controversy with the river restoration itself. Some of the money for it was illegally diverted from other projects without city council approval. Some of the contractors were hired without competitive bidding. These were unnecessary controversies, which a more grown-up mayor could easily have avoided. And finally, there's the fact that most of the cost of the restoration ultimately came from residents' utility bills, which are among the highest in the state. While I don't mind paying for projects like this, it would be wrong to spend that kind of money without a little controversy.

A Weber County Forum  Tip O' The Hat this morning to Dan Schroeder, for once again setting the record straight.

Good News for Two Emerald City Property Owners

Emerald City receives an adverse ruling from the State Ombudsman's Office

The Salt Lake Tribune's Kristen Moulton reports this morning that Emerald City property owner Michael Moyal and his partner have prevailed in their case before Utah's Office of Property Rights Ombudsman, pursuant to their claim that Emerald City's recent 6-month Riverside property development moratorium is illegal under Utah law.

We quote from today's article in pertinent part:

OGDEN - Utah's property-rights ombudsman says Ogden illegally enacted a land-use moratorium, which it used as the reason for denying the owners of the Ogden River Inn permission to open a restaurant.
In an advisory opinion issued this week, the ombudsman office said Ogden did not have a "compelling, countervailing public interest"- as required by Utah law - when the City Council froze all construction activity in the Ogden River Project area for six months.
The council voted for the moratorium on Jan. 2, but backdated the effective date to Dec. 19.
At the time, Ogden planners argued the temporary land-use ordinance, or moratorium, was necessary so the city could prepare a mixed-use ordinance for the 60-acre redevelopment project.
"Ogden's findings cite a preference for one land use over another as justification for the temporary ordinance, and suggest that the matter is urgent, although the river-project plan, which is the basis for the temporary ordinance, was adopted 4 1/2 years ago," the opinion said.
It was signed by Brent Bateman, one of the attorneys in Utah's Office of Property Rights Ombudsman. Bateman will soon replace Craig Call as the lead state ombudsman.
The co-owner of the Ogden River Inn, Michael Moyal, who had requested the opinion, said Wednesday that he's hopeful the city will now work with him and his partner so they can reopen a long-closed restaurant.
City Attorney Gary Williams could not be reached for comment, but Council Chairman Jesse Garcia said he expects city officials will work with Moyal to resolve the issue.

Although this decision is merely "advisory," it's a step in the right direction for Mr. Moyal and his business partner.

Lacking cooperation from the Emerald City administration, the next step, of course would be the District Court. This ruling would, we think, provide a sound legal foundation for Mr. Moyal, in the event he is forced to seek legal redress through the courts. In addition, it would put the burden upon the Emerald City administration to demonstrate that the Ombudsman's ruling was in error. Among other things, Mr. Moyal and his partner may be entitled to recover attorney's fees, in the event of litigation, together with other damages they may have suffered as a result of the city's highly oppressive action.

Mr. Moyal and his partner say they do not wish to litigate. They merely want to exercise their property rights and open their restaurant.

Will Boss Godfrey and his gang of property rights meddlers wake up and smell the coffee? Or will Emerald City find itself bogged down in another round of expensive and unnecessary litigation, on the eve of the 2007 municipal election?

A Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat this morning to Michael Moyal and his partner, Balwinder Singh Johal, for exercising their legal rights under Utah Law, and achieving this important interim legal victory.

Don't let the cat get your tongues, O Gentle Ones.

More Evidence of a Small-business Unfriendly Emerald City Administration

Boss Godfrey sticks it to another non-FOM* again

By Michael Moyal

My partner and I are concerned that selective discrimination and arbitrary enforcement pertaining to the Ogden City ordinances have been used against us for the sole purpose of removing our land use rights, our right to conduct a legitimate business in the City of Ogden, and have seriously infringed on our Civil Rights as American Residents and Citizens.

The property at issue is the Ogden River Inn and vacant restaurant building. On November 6th, 2006 we purchased the property containing a business and buildings located at 1825 and 1839 Washington Blvd in Ogden along the Ogden River. Prior to purchasing I made inquiries with the Ogden City Redevelopment agency, who informed me that they not only didn’t have an option on the property, but also didn’t have the money for the rest of the project, and most likely wouldn’t have it for years, considering 24th Street and Washington was their priority. They all wished me the best of luck with my acquisition. My intention was to buy the buildings, get a new business license to operate the Motel, and another new business license to open the restaurant building (which has been vacant for years), as the first Indian restaurant in the City.

In late October the City Planners office directed me to file a petition to rezone the property. On November 1st, I went before the City Planning Commission to inform them of my intention to rezone the restaurant land in order to be able to sell alcohol. I was told that wine and beer sales would be allowed with a provisional use permit and was asked to work with the city planner’s office to get a provisional use permit. I was then told that alcohol sales would likely be rejected and my petition to rezone was “tabled” until the December Planning commission meeting to give me time to work out the details with Ogden City planning division. I went along with their recommendation and on November 27th we submitted a formal site plan to scale, North, South, East, and West elevations and artist renderings of the restaurant site, conforming to the spirit of the Ogden River Redevelopment Project. John Mayer from the City planner’s office told me considering everything was moving ahead with my site plan, Greg Montgomery had asked that I withdraw my petition to rezone the property. John Mayer drafted a letter, I signed it and Mr. Montgomery submitted it to the city recorders office. (Mr. Montgomery, City Planning Division Manager once told me that the only acceptable use for my buildings was to demolish them)

Two (2) days later on November 29th, we received a “Motel Business License Denial letter” based on alleged poor business practices by the Motel’s previous owners specifying business dates from January 1st 2004 to September 30th 2006, all prior to our ownership. We appealed the business license denial the same day and our hearing was set for December 7th 2006, one month after starting our new business. My partner and I along with a couple character witnesses attended the appeal hearing to strongly object the City’s decision.

On December 13th, my partner and I met with Mayor Godfrey of Ogden to discuss openly our business intentions and concerns. Although he appeared to be understanding and after he explained his obligations toward the City and his developer/investors, he stated “you should have expected to pay for the previous owner’s sins!” I strongly disagreed and our meeting was concluded. About a week later, we received an official letter allowing us a “6 month probationary business license”, to clean up the property. Actually, all the code violations given to the previous owner (abandoned/unlicensed vehicles, violations of 90 day ordinance, etc…) had all been addressed and resolved in the first week of our ownership, and the City had so been advised.

On December 15th we received a letter dated December 13th from John Mayer at the city planner’s office informing us of the various conditions to meet in order to proceed with our restaurant site plan. Once the city planner came to review the parking and landscape requirements that we could have easily accomplished, we were made aware of a new, temporary ordinance, a moritorium dated December 19th that denied any new site plan approvals, provisional use permits and building permits for 6 months.

On January 2nd, my partner and I attended the City council meeting and regardless of our objections to the proposed ordinance preventing the improvement of our property (from 18th to 20th, Washington to Wall); and our requests for the building permit required to improve our restaurant building, the ordinance was passed.

Also on January 2nd, my electrical contractor was issued a building permit for the purpose of getting electrical service to our restaurant, now to be an unimproved building with no riverside deck and without the new stucco facade.

On January 3rd, I was contacted by John Patterson from the mayor’s office and asked to meet on January 4th in his office. My partner and I, our attorney, John Patterson, the city attorney, and Scott Brown the River Redevelopment Manager were present for this meeting. In the course of the meeting, many issues were raised and we re-expressed our interest and willingness to consider any options that may help the city with their river planed visions. The City attorney (who once told me that upgrading my buildings would be like “putting lipstick on a pig”) at that time informed us that due to the new ordinance, our only legal use for our restaurant building was as “a vacant and abandoned building”.

Mr. Godfrey had told us that the City of Ogden had planned to lock out the previous motel owners about 8 months ago, but he was advised by the city attorney that the ordinance needed to be revised before such an action could be legal. We are now faced with the very threatening possibility that our entire business operation will be “locked out” within six months, according to the City’s revised “lock out ordinance”. This will leave us with more abandoned/vacant buildings, and no other option but to give in to the City’s arbitrary wishes.

Ogden has either through gross negligence or concerted efforts orchestrated events which have effectively denied us the reasonable economic use of our property and placed our capital at risk. The City’s scheme has denied us the right to use and develop our property with the apparent reason being to enhance some undefined future plan for the area. We followed instructions given to us, which have resulted in denials and delays, and which have effectively denied us due process.

The foregoing article is the full version of this letter, which was edited by the author and published in today's Standard-Examiner letters section. Readers who would like to contact Mr. Moyal for further information may do so through the following link: Weber County Forum Blogmeister

*FOM: Friend of Matt (Godfrey)