Gang-of Six's Last Official Townsfolk-Defiant Act? - Updated

For an example of sheer Orwellian audacity, Ogden townsfolk need look no further than the 2002-2005 Gang-of-Six. In a last-minute gesture of public defiance, the Ogden city council will rubber-stamp tonight (drumroll)...

Emperor Godfrey's Eminent Domain Lobbyist!

Yes, gentle readers. The administration that can't find in the budget the chump change that would be needed to hire a street-sweeper for Ogden's 24th Street pigeon-poop, is set to stick it to the taxpayers with a $45,000/yr professional lobbyist -- with a mission to condemn homes and businesses of some of our fellow citizens, to satisfy the corporate greed of Almighty Walmart.

Although I could rant on for hours about this, our gentle readers will be relieved that I don't have the time for that. I'll be tied up in meetings for most of the day; so I'll leave that all to you.

Please don't hesitate to chime in with your views on the latest Gang-of-Six story. This is a good one to get the ball rolling today, I think.

In the alternative, consider this an open thread.

I'll be back.

Update 12/7/05 8:43 a.m. MT: In yet another demonstration of its disdain for the public weal, the lame duck Gang-of-Six operated as the well-oiled machine its been these past four years, appropriating $45,000 for the hiring of "eminent domain lobbyist" Rob Jolley last night -- by the usual 5-2 vote. For those who may have missed this morning's Standard-Examiner article, you can read the sad story here.

There's no reason on earth that this resolution could not have been delayed until the new council's January 3, 2005 swearing-in, as Councilman Garcia suggests:

"Garcia said the vote should have been delayed until January, given that some of the new council members may sit on Ogden’s Legislative Coordinating Committee. The committee is charged with identifying issues of importance to the city at the state and federal level before making recommendations to the council."

To what extent this resolution may be reversible, I really can't predict. What's likely though, is that the current council, by its action last night, has at least ratified the Jolley contract, thus binding Ogden city for the full $45,000 contract price, regardless of what Mr. Jolley's future agenda may turn out to be.

Whereas many of us had hoped the mayoral administration would adopt a new spirit of cooperation, in the face of its its decisive November 8th election defeat, Boss Godfrey instead demonstrates that he still remains -- and will remain -- the man "in charge."

Rather than extend the new council a simple courtesy, and put this decision off for another three weeks, Mayor Godfrey instead chooses to play political hard-ball. This does not bode well for council-administration relations, as we move into the new year, I would think. This is more than bad political form. It's an insult to the taxpayers of Ogden, and the new council they decisively elected.

And what think our gentle readers about this?

Comments, anyone?

A Political Breakfast Served From Behind the Bar

The Standard-Examiner has graciously provided more red meat for the Weber County Forum breakfast menu this morning, with its publication of this Jim Stavrakakis guest commentary, in which Mr. Stavrakakis severely chastises some good citizens of this community who stood up for the private property rights of their neighbors during the recently-defeated Wal-mart landgrab.

I'm going to incorporate Mr. Stravakakis's article in full, since it's short and doesn't take up much bandwidth (or Brainwidth). Before doing this however, I'll just comment, that Mr. Stravakakis seems to be of that same pseudo-progressive mindset that holds that homeowners and business-people who fight to preserve American core values, i.e., private property rights, are "shameful," "petty" and "selfish." What's more, Mr. Stravakakis makes it very clear that he and his "progressive" fellow travelers suffer serious disappointment and inconvenience, now that they'll all apparently be forced to drive all the way to progressive West Haven, to purchase baskets-full of cheap and shoddy Chinese-manufactured "goods."

Here's the full text of Mr. Stavrakakis's article (I no, am not naking this up):

Guest Commentary
By Jim Stavrakakis
The recent news story about the commercial successes surrounding the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Harrisville should be "must reading" for all those who opposed Ogden's plans for a Wal-Mart -- a similar development -- and all others in Ogden who advocated for the city's plans to develop the deteriorating west side of the community ("Businesses sprout around Wal-Mart," Aug. 7). This is, indeed, a message and a lesson learned for everyone.
Those who opposed the development should be ashamed. Do they realize they have killed a potentially sales-tax-revenue-rich source that is so sorely needed to be one of Ogden's financial saviors? It is nothing short of pure selfishness to stall or kill Ogden's plans to accommodate such a prosperous commercial development.
Those who favored the plan will realize the disappointment that comes with being forced to travel outside Ogden to make retail purchases that are offered at the proposed retail store, as well as to patronize the other businesses that would most certainly crop up -- just as they did in Harrisville.
What a shame that doomsayers can stop healthy commercial growth in Ogden because of pure pettiness.
They now can sit back and watch Wal-Mart go west to progressive West Haven, whose elected officials are sure to cooperate with developers and inherit the financial windfall that the proposed development promises.
It is mind boggling that intelligent people -- CPAs, real estate agents, store clerks, auto mechanics, etc. -- profess allegiance to living in Ogden, yet demonstrate such lack of respect to the community by throwing up roadblocks and denying our elected officials the necessary tools to proceed with vitally needed business and commercial developments.
Ogden residents ought to mobilize and become boosters and make certain that the city ensures growth and prosperity that is so valuable to the future of our community.

Stavrakakis is a retired social worker, professional bartender and community activist. He lives in Ogden.

Bon appetit, WCF readers!

I'd also like to personally thank the Standard-Examiner's Don Porter for delivering this wonderful plate of USDA prime red meat for our gentle readers, as they sit down for their morning cocoa and open the WCF front-page. It certainly makes one local blogger's life much easier when he doesn't have to scour the internet for hours to find something suitable to serve on the breakfast menu for our information-hungry regulars.

And Jim! How about whipping me up a spicy bloody Mary to wash down all that tasty red meat?

Businesses Sprouts Around Wal-Mart

Weber County Forum Reader Submission
By Politico Observor

As the Standard-Examiner's Jeff DeMoss reports in this morning's edition, 15 businesses that have located near the Harrisville WalMart, the land incidentally, owned by the Boyer Company (there are a couple of undeveloped parcels left, according to a newspaper article, 5 acres in the NW corner and 1.5 acres next to Chili's, on the east side). It seems a shame that Ogden is not the recipient of this "gold rush," as Harrisville's retail sales have exploded from $13.2 million to $119.3 million in the last 4 years.

Now comes the point: Why didn't our RDA attempt to locate WalMart in an area that was not filled with businesses and homes? Much time went into trying to assemble that 22 acre parcel, but to no avail. I'm thinking out loud now, was our RDA (actually our City Council) going about this the right way? Does this go to pattern? Does this evidence that our group of would-be developers (the Gang of 6) are in over their heads and going about things the wrong way?

If one adds up all of the failed and stalled projects, the answer is most likely, "Yes." And it corroborates many people's feelings that the City Administration, except for a couple of well reasoned council people (Wicks and Garcia) is operating from a void. Their time is mostly spent mishandling these huge monetary projects while the infrastructure rots. They listen to no-one during the Public Input sessions. They rubber stamp the Mayor, who rubber stamped Stuart Reid (who has now escaped into the twi-light). And they pay these community and economic development personel immense salaries to dream up and administer these projects with their sullied track record.

It comes down to good management, which, I'm afraid our City lacks. Debate if you can or will, but look at the track record. Today, the emphasis in on Godfrey's High Adventure Recreation Center, which, due to delays and mis-management, is struggling to even get a bond vote or a Public Hearing (I believe that is suppossed to occur this Tuesday). A good idea? Perhaps, but I'm not exactly thrilled in the course, or the progress, that pertains to this project.

And more projects are coming on board, i.e. the Riverwalk or Riverfront, with the same tired practices being administered..., trying to take one person's property away and give it to another. Those who resist are not "obstructionists," they're home owners. Maybe if the right offer came from well intentioned people, they might consider selling. But accepting a "take-away" or an insultingly low offer that benefits big business, not a chance.

When will our Council learn? When will they unfold a city map and identify some vacant land, annex some near our boundaries if necessary, and get the project ball rolling there? When, as long as they're in it this deep, will it sink into their heads that you can't put lipstick on a pig, like the old Parking Terrace, or make it appear attractive, regardless of where it rolls in the "mud?" When will they understand that private enterprise, with some "common sense help" from them as per infrastructure, tax benefits, zoning, etc., is the answer and that given to the peoples' devices, our city can again become whole? Once accomplished, we can revel in those successes and partake of the fruits of those enjoyments.

It was done in the past, which our City Administration is so quick these days to dismiss as "old and used-we must be modern and take new approaches," and it can be done in the present. Managed properly, we too could be sitting back and counting our money, just like Harrisville, instead of spending it on these mis-managed schemes and blaming such on legal delays and "obstructionists."

---------

Editor's Note: There's been some (probably justifiable) "grousing" from the readership trenches this morning, both in blog comments and via email, that I haven't put anything new up on the front page today, into which our WCF readership can firmly sink its teeth. Although I hadn't seen anything in today's news that had seemed particularly inspiring, one of our newest blog members, Politico Observor, did find an interesting "angle" in this morning's Std-Ex Walmart story, and then expanded upon it a bit with a short tome. Inasmuch as I'm still hammering away at an upcoming article on Centerville Citizen's topic, zoning and land-use regulation, I've decided to place Politico Observor's essay on the front page, so the gentle WCF reader-folks will have a little something new to chew on.

Keep in mind, folks, the views herein expressed by Politico are not necessarily those of your Weber County Forum blogger. I've been fishing unmercilessly for thought-provocative reader-submitted articles for quite a long while however, and it seems that Politico Observor has submitted one that fits that bill. I'm thus posting it for your perusal.

I've edited this article slightly, mainly to excise a reference that was perhaps a trifle too "colorful" for the Weber County Forum front page. Otherwise it appears in its original form, as originally submitted.

Give it a read-through and don't hesitate to offer your comments, folks.

The Std-Ex "Weep of the Week"

The land is the only thing in the world
worth working for, worth fighting for,
worth dying for, because it's the only
thing that lasts"
- Gerald O'Hare, Gone With The Wind

Break out your crying towels people. The Ogden Standard-Examiner editorial board is weeping once again, over the loss of the government's eminent-domain power. The citizens of the State of Utah clearly dealt the central planning aparatchiks a truly great blow, when they lobbied their Utah legislators en masse to remove the "nuclear" condemnation power from local municipal RDAs' bag of oppressive tricks. Even the local RDA's lackey hometown newspaper editors are still crying their eyes out now, four months later.

Unlike earlier, however, it isn't the Ogden Wal-Mart project they're weeping about now. They've barely whimpered over that grand disappointment for almost a full week. Whatever therapy they're taking seems to be working, at least on the Wal-Mart topic.

Now it's the Riverwalk Project that's getting them all weepy and misty-eyed. They'll most certainly be needing additional therapy on this as the facts unfold. Loyal Sanduskey Standard-Examiner readers should have seen this coming, of course, with this article, which was published last week, reporting (shudder) that several property owners within Ogden City's Riverwalk project were "holding out," just like a few of them did on the Wal-Mart project.

What the heck's wrong with these people(?), the Standard-Examiner editors ask. Don't they realize they're standing in the way of "progress?" Don't they know that they're thwarting "the greater good" mantras of the eight or so boy genius "planners" who pull down six figure a year "planning salaries" each for Ogden City? Do these anti-social property owners have any idea how much effort local government schemers planners have put into their plan to acquire these recalcitrant citizens' comfortable river-front properties on the cheap so they can be transferred to a rich private developer?

One of the readers on another thread suggested that somebody should question these "holdouts" about their reasons and motives. For my own part, I believe that such a query is entirely unnecessary, and that any answer they may provide is irrelevant. It's their property; and they indicate they don't choose to sell. That ought to be reason enough. Such would be good enough in a truly free society, at least.

Having thrown in my two cents on the subject, you can read today's Std-Ex editorial right here on this very blog. Those gentle readers who are squeamish about heavy doses of guilt-manipulation probably ought not read this, however.

Once you've absorbed the editorial and recovered a little bit from the Std-Ex editorial board's latest outpouring of uncontrollable grief, I have another article for you to read. Entitled The Forgotten Fundamental Right, By Steven Greenhut, it's a nifty little article that clearly articulates the nature of private property rights in a presumedly non-communal and free society such as ours is touted to be. I'll provide a short excerpt here:

But property. Everyone can understand that. I buy a piece of land, build a house on it and live in it with my family - and the state can't bother me unless I'm harboring a fugitive or in some other rare instances. That's freedom. That's the basis for everything we as Americans are supposed to stand for.

And it's something that's continually under assault in America today. It's not just the politicians who view as arcane the traditional concept of property rights, but an increasing number of The People themselves - the very individuals whose lives are what they are because the founders understood the importance of property.

Let's face it. A socialist ethic has taken hold in America. Every time I write a column defending people's property rights against eminent domain or some incursion by envix ronmentalists backed by the power of the state, readers complain that I am a tool of big business or a greedy person seeking profits. Can't I understand that these issues are complicated, and that property rights have to yield to the greater good of saving the planet or eliminating blight or promoting responsible planning?

What these critics advocate is a form of majoritarianism, in which everyone has a say on everyone else's business. It's the antithesis of what the American founding is all about, and the perfect embodiment of the oft-quoted definition of democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Be sure to read the entire article. It really is quite good.

These "obstructionist" holdouts ought to be able to say "No, thank you," and that ought to be the end of the discussion. That's how it would be, anyway, in a truly free, non-communalist society.

Your comments are invited as usual.

Smooch! Kiss Ogden's Downtown Wal-Mart Good-bye

Scott Schwebke reports this morning that the Ogden RDA is officially dead in the water in its attempt to acquire the 98 parcels of real estate necessary to assemble the proposed 22-acre Wal-Mart downtown site:

OGDEN -- The Ogden Redevelopment Agency will apparently be unable to assemble a 22-acre site for a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter downtown, making it doubtful the project will become a reality, a city official said Monday.
Although the RDA has options to purchase a majority of the 98 parcels needed to build the 206,000-square-foot store on Wall Avenue between 21st Street and 22nd Street, it has been unable to reach agreements with a few property owners who have refused to sell.
"We are not in a position to deliver the preferred site to Wal-Mart," said Richard McConkie, the city's deputy director of community and economic development. "Being able to develop the site is very questionable."

It appears that the project will be permanently "DOA", unless Wal-Mart decides to negotiate with the individual property owners on its own, and in good faith:

However, Wal-Mart could still move ahead with the project if it is able to assemble the parcels on its own, he said.
Wal-Mart has not considered acquiring land on its own, said John Petrovich, a Wal-Mart real estate manager. The company has not been notified by the Ogden RDA that the deal is off for the supercenter, he said.
"If it (the RDA) can acquire the land, we would still be interested," Petrovich said. He declined to elaborate on terms of the agreement with the RDA.

Fat chance of that. What's obvious is that Wal-Mart is only interested in coming to town if it can do so with a sweetheart deal, borne on the backs of individual property owners, with the Ogden RDA acting as its broker/hatchet-man.

This raises the question as to whether the result might have been different if Wal-Mart had operated in a more conventional and less oppressive manner, engaging an experienced real estate broker to conduct negotiations, rather than relying on the coercive power of the Ogden RDA, wielding the heavy eminent domain hammer, and offering low-ball "take it or leave it" offers. The ham-handed manner in which this situation was conducted is an embarrassment to the citzens of Ogden City, and illustrates why Ogdenites need to look toward more business-experienced replacement councilmembers than we have now, as the November election approaches, I think.

The Ogden Wal-Mart tale reeks of arrogance, insensitivity, corporate greed and government hubris, and started out a sad one. It has a happy ending, however, in the tradition of Jack the Giant Killer folklore:

Cris Rodriguez, who lives on Oak Street and has refused to sell her home for the Wal-Mart project, said she is pleased the big-box store apparently won't be built in her neighborhood.
"It makes me feel great," she said. "I never wanted to move."

It makes me feel great too, Cris.

Howbout everybody else?

Guest Editorial: Avoid Political Labels -- Think for Yourself

By Dorothy Littrell

There is a very disturbing trend gathering steam in the political arena. This trend is to paint all individuals with a brush that tars and feathers them as "terrorists" or "not supporting the troops" if they disagree with government policies on the national level.

On the U. S. Supreme Court issues a person is labeled as liberal or conservative or pro-life or pro-abortion with no regard to the issues particular to a specific case.

This idea that " you're either with us" or "you're agin us" is very dangerous as it removes all personal thought and prerogative to present opposing viewpoints. The local trend to label all persons opposing Mayor Godfrey's political agenda as being part of Mitch Moyes' group shows the persons doing the labeling don't know what they are talking about.

There are several groups such as the petition gathering group, Citizens and Businesses Concerned for Ogden's Future. Chuck Eddy's organization, Citizen's Coalition, includes citizens from all over the state attempting to become informed to solve different problems such as West Haven's growing pile of refuse and the Weber County Sewer and Water Districts' failure to have taped meetings.

I personally did not have an organization when I took on the Wal-mart eminent domain fight. I fought Ogden City tooth and nail on that but that does not automatically make me part of the Citizens and Businesses Concerned for Ogden's Future. My sole issue was eminent domain seizure of private property for another private person or entity.

The Ogden Standard-Examiner has a tendency to label all persons with opposing viewpoints to theirs as obstructionist.

Let's bring back free speech on its own merits without a blanket label for everyone.

Dorothy Littrell

----------------------------

Ms. Littrell is a local CPA, a prominent property-rights activist, and worked as a primary community organizer in the recent anti-eminent-domain fight.

B-B-Q'ing for Freedom

Like many Ogdenites, I attended a backyard barbecue on Saturday afternoon. This wasn't an ordinary run-of-the-mill Ogden neighborhood barbecue, by the way. This one was special - VERY special. What made it so was this: it was hosted by two Ogden property owners whose property had been targeted by our local Ogden planners and developers to be knocked down and resurrected as Ogden's miraculous new Wal-Mart Superstore Property & Sales Tax Generator. Milton and Cris Rodriguez are the owners of this nice little piece of residential Ogden real estate where the BBQ was held, just west of Wall Avenue, and north of 22d Street. They'd turned down all Ogden city offers on their property, and were ready to litigate in the Spring of this year, when Senator Bramble's SB-184 made the eminent domain discussion moot. The Rodriguezes served as gracious hosts, and provided a fare worthy of BBQ Kings, with ribs, burgers, dogs and all -- I mean ALL -- the trimmings. A fine time was had by all in attendance.

The purpose of the event was two-fold, I think. First and foremost, I believe it was the Rodriquez's intention, in hosting this BBQ, to thank the many people of the local community for their year-long effort, ultimately culminating in Senator Bramble's SB-184, to save their home from the wrecking-ball. Secondly, I believe it was done as a celebratory event, where local anti-eminent domain activists could finally get together socially, pat themselves on the back for a job well done, and let their hair down a little bit. I won't name names, but for sake of the privacy of the various local community "leading lights" who enjoyed the barbecue, take it from me, most of the prominent local property rights activists who worked feverishly for over a year to strip the condemnation power from local RDAs were happily in attendance.

I honestly didn't know what to expect of the Rodriguez's property, before I arrived at the event. Ogden City planning experts and our diligent and trustworthy city council had declared it "blighted," after all. Well, that's what they "said," at least. Having spent a few hours on the property myself, I'll just say that the adjective "blighted" is about as far off the mark as you can get. "Gorgeous" would be much better, I think. I'm not a part of the elite "urban planning intelligentsia," of course, so what do I know about intricate and convoluted things like blight, anyway?

I'll devote a few paragraphs to describing Mr. & Mrs. Rodriguez's property. It's parcel of a little over one acre, located on a country lane accessed off 22d Street. It's fully enclosed by modern suburban style fencing, which lends a cozy and private ambiance. There are two residences situated on the south side of the parcel and two non-residential buildings on the north. The structures are attractive and well-maintained, and clearly reflect the Rodriguez family's obvious "pride of ownership."

The barbecue was held in the fastidiously manicured backyard of the main residence, which is mainly planted in full lawn and mature trees. To the side is a large and well-tended vegetable garden. All-in-all, the place has a little bit of a "country feel" to it, even though located in the center of Ogden city. It's obvious to me why the Rodriguezes love this property. Such a private and peaceful place as theirs is unique and entirely irreplaceable. It is equally obvious to me, having visited them for a few hours, why they were willing to fight to save it.

I mingled for a while under the canopy of the back patio, but finally retreated later in the day, as the temperature ratcheted up into the mid nineties. I found a lawn chair in the shade under a pear tree toward the south of the back yard. Others had already gathered in this cool and shady spot; so I sat down to join into their discussion. Like me, they were thinking, and commenting, about the remarkable beauty and comfort of the Rodriguez place, and the sheer injustice of ousting them from their lttle piece of "heaven on earth," for the sheer sake of greedy corporate interests. Somebody wise-cracked that we'd probably be sitting right then in the Wal-Mart cosmetics department if the elite urban planners and corporate greedheads had gotten their way.

Nobody in their right mind would call the Rodriguez property "blighted," under the common definition of the word. Of course the Rodriguezes are self-made people, mere commoners; and not part of the Ogden city hoi-polloi.

As the event grew to a close, somebody brought out some bottles of non-alcoholic "bubbly," and we all hoisted our glasses for a variety of toasts to victory and freedom, before we all hit the road. This was a celebratory event, after all, so there were a couple of things (almost) left unsaid. This was a also a gathering of fairly politically-sophisticated people, who know the fight for individual property rights is not yet over. We have a new legislature convening for the 2006 session, and we all know the developers and the League of Cities & Towns will be waving the US Supreme Court's ridiculous Kelo decision in our local legislators' faces, demanding the curbs put on the city RDAs by the 2005 legislature be rolled back. I think everybody at the BBQ knew that, although the subject hardly came up at all.

In that connection, I did some research over the balance of the weekend, and came up with an excellent article from Senator Howard Stephensen, who also happens to be the president of the Utah Taxpayers Association. It's the first article I've seen that directly addresses the question of what legislation will be pending re RDAs in the upcoming legislative session. From the article:

Senator Curtis Bramble (R-Provo) will be sponsoring legislation this year to prohibit city abuses of so-called redevelopment agencies (RDAs). The Utah Taxpayers Association is teaming up with the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah School Boards Association in lobbying aggressively for this bill. All three groups have identified this bill as one of their highest priority bills for the upcoming legislative session.

The article discusses Utah RDA law, and explains the issues and arguments at length. As to the question of what's going to happen in the legislature next year, the article provides this:

Bramble’s bill will prohibit cities from using RDAs to subsidize retail and other business activity that is patronized by local customers. The bill would eliminate RDA subsidies for the following types of businesses:

• General retail including big boxes and strip malls

• Office and professional parks

• Auto dealerships

• Movie theatres

• Stadiums (i.e. SLC proposal to use RDA money for soccer stadium)

Due to increased awareness by the public and by legislators concerning RDA abuses, the Utah Taxpayers Association is confident that significant RDA reform will occur this year.

Senator Bramble's on a roll right now in his effort to protect individual citizen rights and to eliminate RDA abuse. Having the UTA, the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah School Boards Association backing his efforts can't hurt at all, either.

I spoke with Mike Jerman of the Utah Tasxpayers Association by phone this morning, by the way, and he agrees with something I've been thinking about. The Kelo decision, which basically gives redevelopment agencies carte blanche to take virtually anyone's property at the whim of local government officials, may well backfire on the developers, box-stores and government schemers. The citizens are in an uproar all over the country on this, which will afford the ideal political atmosphere and opportunity for reformists to further clip the wings of local RDAs.

There's room for optimism for property rights advocates, I think. Perhaps its time to schedule next summer's barbecue event. Maybe I'll do it on my dime this year. If I do, I'll be sure to invite a few select local developers, planners and politicians, just in time for the main course. They're not half bad, I've heard, after being grilled over hot coals with Senator Bramble's special recipe BBQ sauce.

Too Funny...It's Grondahl Redux

Two reader letters appeared in this morning's Std-Ex, re last week's "Blight Family" political cartoon. Something tells me that our local newspaper of record took substantial heat over that over-the-top illustration:

From Ogden's own Rulon Yorgason:

Reader reacts to 'Blight' family cartoon
Friday, July 8, 2005

After seeing the June 28 cartoon, "Living with the 'Blight' family," first I was angry; second, I was disgusted; and third, I was sorry for the offenders.

Angry at what? Angry that Grondahl would denigrate upstanding, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who happen to live where they wish -- in peaceful, safe neighborhoods where friends look out for each other. Neighborhoods the city has neglected for years. One can guess why.

I was disgusted because the cartoon assumes we should be alike, and if we aren't like the perfect Ogdenite ideal, then we should be forced to conform or made to leave and be sacrificed for the good of the majority.

Sorry for the bullies? Why not? These are the people who pick on those they assume are defenseless. Sorry, because bullies are really afraid to face their equals; they need help. As it is, they find someone to do their dirty work.

One form of their bullying is: "Do this if you really like your job." We saw this during the petition drive. It doesn't need to be done openly. A hint here and there and a little body language can say a lot.

Do this or you are not patriotic. We are seeing this today when our trusting young people are ordered to kill innocent women, children and other young men they have never met and don't even know. Oops! Now I have strayed onto another stage and another bully.

-Rulon Yorgason

And from the inimitable Tom Owens:

Cartoon was tasteless, warrants an apology
Friday, July 8, 2005

The Standard-Examiner has reached an all-time low with the publication of the extremely tasteless June 28 cartoon "Living with the 'Blight' family," depicting the decent folks who stood up to the mayor and Wal-Mart as a bunch of rabble-rousing scum.

The cartoon may reflect how Lord Mayor Godfrey sees those who oppose his policies, but it was a big disappointment to see you sully the reputation of the great newspaper Bill and Abe Glasmann built with such cheap and biased shots.

I think that you owe the brave people who stood up to this naked land grab a front-page retraction and apology.

-Tom Owens
Farmington

The reader poll here has 69 votes tallied, by the way, and these are the results, so far:

"What's your take on the 06/28/05 Grondahl cartoon? (Scroll down page)"

Totally innocuous (2) 3%
Mildly insensitive (5) 7%
Grossly insensitive (24) 35%
Accurately describes property rights advocates (2) 3%
Accurately reflects the perception of Std-Ex editors & publisher (30) 43%
Other view suggestions (6) 9%
Total Votes: 69

My initial take was that this cartoon was basically innocuous, but I've changed my mind on that. Grondahl obviously rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Grondahl is a fine illustrator, I think, but you won't see his works hanging in the Smithsonian or the Louvre, so long as he's willing to continue selling his soul to the corporo-fascist "Suits from Sanduskey."

It really was a cheap shot. But I don't think we should hold our collective breath for the well-deserved apologies that would naturally flow forth in a righteous and decent world. The Std-Ex editors and publisher are obviously still too preoccupied with wringing their hands -- and crying towels -- over the Wal-Mart ad revenue that was lost as a result of our local citizens' noble efforts to stand up for their God-given individual property rights.

Turning Up the Heat on Wal-Mart

By Don Hazen, June 3, 2005

With its stock gone flat and bad publicity in virtually every news cycle, Wal-Mart is feeling pretty defensive these days. Among recent company missteps are fines and monetary settlements for hiring illegal immigrants and allowing underage employees to operate heavy machinery.

According to a recent article by AlterNet reporter Kelly Hearn, a more complete list of Wal-Mart's myriad transgressions includes "union busting, labor law violations, shipping jobs overseas, artificially suppressing wages, financial improprieties by a top corporate officer and links to a powerful Chinese businessman allegedly involved in the weapons-trading arm of the People's Liberation Army."

In the face of a steady drumbeat of bad publicity, the company has recently started spinning its PR wheels to cover its tracks. First, Wal-Mart broke a long-held tradition and invited the media to its Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters. The company has set up a new Web site that emphasizes its "positive impact on business." It has also shown sudden support for journalism schools, minority scholarships, and even -- gasp -- funding for NPR programming.

But Wal-Mart should prepare to dig much deeper into its PR budget, because its image is about to get much more tarnished.

[...]

Perhaps more insidious is that by building new stores as quickly as possible in as many communities as possible, and engaging in its trademark predatory pricing, Wal-Mart is rapidly destroying the small businesses that make up the fabric of rural and exurban life. And many of those businesses -- small newspapers, grocery stores, gas stations and more -- are hopping mad.

[...]

Read the full article here.