No surprises here concerning Charlie's seeming ho-hum reaction however
Charles Trentelman chimes in via his "Wasatch Rambler" column on Friday's Ogden Sierra Club victory story this morning... with what we take to be a giant, gaping yawn. Charlie says: "The documents show a lot of back and forth that is, frankly, boring." Yep, that's what he says about the set of highly revealing documents released as the lawsuit was settled... before he segues off into a "ramble" about a subject more mentally stimulating for him (bicycle safety, that is):
No surprises here concerning Charlie's seeming ho-hum reaction to the OSC's big court victory however, we guess. Throughout the four-year course of the Godfrey administration's heavy-handed and obsessive Gondola/Mt. Ogden Park Landgrab full court press, Trentelman was never even remotely onboard what we'd call the opposition bandwagon.
Update 6/5/11 3:44 p.m.: Trentelman's column has now been posted to the SE Live! site:
Showing posts with label Peterson land-grab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peterson land-grab. Show all posts
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Sierra Club and Ogden City Settle Open Records Lawsuit
Sierra Club clips Ogden City for $10,000 in costs/attorneys' fees; declares total victory
We're pleased to report this morning that The Sierra Club and Ogden City have settled their gondola-related open records lawsuit, which had been pending for three years running. The Sierra Club, plaintiff, has reportedly received from defendant, Ogden City, 43 of the 46 disputed records and clipped Ogden City for $10,000 attorneys' fees. The Sierra Club quite properly considers this a complete victory, as is more thoroughly set forth in this morning's press release:
Be sure to visit the Sierra Club website, where you can examine the array of documents finally released to the persistent Sierra Club plaintiff:
Putting it all in a nutshell, these records document both "the depth of involvement of Ogden City officials and others in promoting the gondola-resort proposal," and "city’s overly broad interpretations of several GRAMA exemptions." Additionally, these documents "highlight the city administration’s troubling preoccupation with secrecy, even in instances when the withheld records contained no information worth protecting." Moreover, these documents expose the bad behavior of almost everyone involved in the Gondola Fiasco, from Boss Godfrey, to the Ogden Records Review Board, to officials of the Utah Transit Authority, etc.
A Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat this morning to the Ogden Sierra Club for its dogged pursuit of the truth in this matter, and for serving as a champion of government transparency and accountability.
And no... we're not happy to observe that Ogden City taxpayers have coughed up $10k in costs and attorneys' fees. Having said that however, we'll also observe that it wouldn't have had to happen this way, if Boss Godfrey had in good faith complied with GRAMA in the first place.
Okay... that's it from us for now.
Time for our gentle readers to let 'er rip.
Update 6/3/11 7:20 p.m.: The Salt Lake Tribune is carrying Cathy McKitrick's writeup on its website:
Update 6/4/11 4:13 a.m.: The Standard-Examiner is now running the story too:
We're pleased to report this morning that The Sierra Club and Ogden City have settled their gondola-related open records lawsuit, which had been pending for three years running. The Sierra Club, plaintiff, has reportedly received from defendant, Ogden City, 43 of the 46 disputed records and clipped Ogden City for $10,000 attorneys' fees. The Sierra Club quite properly considers this a complete victory, as is more thoroughly set forth in this morning's press release:
Be sure to visit the Sierra Club website, where you can examine the array of documents finally released to the persistent Sierra Club plaintiff:
Putting it all in a nutshell, these records document both "the depth of involvement of Ogden City officials and others in promoting the gondola-resort proposal," and "city’s overly broad interpretations of several GRAMA exemptions." Additionally, these documents "highlight the city administration’s troubling preoccupation with secrecy, even in instances when the withheld records contained no information worth protecting." Moreover, these documents expose the bad behavior of almost everyone involved in the Gondola Fiasco, from Boss Godfrey, to the Ogden Records Review Board, to officials of the Utah Transit Authority, etc.
A Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat this morning to the Ogden Sierra Club for its dogged pursuit of the truth in this matter, and for serving as a champion of government transparency and accountability.
And no... we're not happy to observe that Ogden City taxpayers have coughed up $10k in costs and attorneys' fees. Having said that however, we'll also observe that it wouldn't have had to happen this way, if Boss Godfrey had in good faith complied with GRAMA in the first place.
Okay... that's it from us for now.
Time for our gentle readers to let 'er rip.
Update 6/3/11 7:20 p.m.: The Salt Lake Tribune is carrying Cathy McKitrick's writeup on its website:
Update 6/4/11 4:13 a.m.: The Standard-Examiner is now running the story too:
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Administration Pushes Forward on Peterson Land Grab
A Planning Commission heads-up; and a report on last night's City Council meeting
By Dan Schroeder
Pop quiz: What document from the Ogden City Administration proposes that the Mt. Ogden golf course be redesigned to be more "playable", that the golf clubhouse be relocated to a mixed-use center at the top of 36th Street, and that the trails around the golf course be "enhanced"?
(a) The gondola FAQ, posted in April 2006 and still prominently posted on the city's web site;
(b) The draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, just released and posted right below the gondola FAQ on the city's web site;
(c) Both of the above.
Please, if you have time, take a look at both of these documents and see for yourself. But because the Mt. Ogden Community Plan is scheduled for a public hearing at 7:00 pm tonight (Municipal Building, 2549 Washington, 3rd floor), I'll go ahead and tell you right now that the answer is (c). That's right, the draft Mt. Ogden Community Plan includes three of the same components as the Peterson landgrab "proposal".
To be fair, the Mt. Ogden Community Plan also contains sections that directly contradict the Peterson proposal--like keeping the golf course and adjacent park lands as open space. So maybe the Plan isn't using the words "playable" and "enhance" in the same Orwellian senses as the landgrab proposal. But the Plan certainly doesn't define these words, and I'm at a loss to guess what they're actually intended to mean.
I urge all Mt. Ogden Community residents (east of Harrison, from 26th to WSU) to attend tonight's hearing and tell the Planning Commission what changes you would like to see in the Plan. One word of advice, though: Don't mention the Peterson landgrab. If you do, they won't listen to you. Argue for or against the components of the Plan on their own merits (or lack thereof), and based on what residents said they wanted during the public input meetings.
Meanwhile, at last night's City Council work session, planning director Greg Montgomery pulled out all the stops and put on a terrific show to explain why the Council should disregard the recommendation of the Planning Commission and eliminate Ogden's prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% (as well as the density limits on somewhat shallower slopes in the foothills). In his heroic effort he received considerable support from Councilman Safsten (who repeatedly described the current limits as "arbitrary and capricious") and Councilman Stephenson, as well as from development director Dave Harmer who was sitting in front of me in the bleachers.
Here is Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke's report on the work session.
During the two-hour discussion there was only one mention, by Councilwoman Van Hooser, of the elephant (named Peterson) in the room. I'd encourage Rudi to give her a WCF tip o' the hat for her courage.
As Schwebke says, the Council took no action. More specifically, they agreed to give the Planning Commission a chance to clarify its recommendation regarding hillside development before they proceed. This may have been appropriate, because the Planning Commission has expressed a desire to make further changes to the city's foothill zoning ordinances, perhaps moving the slope/density restrictions out of the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance and into a new base zone for foothill residential areas.
Coming back to the elephant in the room, unfortunately it seems to be alive and well--despite Rudi's obituary last month. On Monday I had a private conversation with the mayor and although I was trying to keep the subject focused on points that we could agree on (regarding transit), he kept bringing up the "gondola project". He gave no specifics on how the proposal might change in light of WSU's position. He gave no hint regarding when we'll even hear any more specifics. But he made it absolutely clear that this project is still his number-one priority.
Editor's Addendum: By all means, Dan. A Weber County Tip O' the Hat to councilwoman Van Hooser! She's proven to be a very quick study. She has mastered her council role in record time, we think, and has demonstrated that she's one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courageous members of our Emerald City council. Her strong leadership skills are also undeniable; and we do hope she'll be throwing her hat into the ring for election to her at-large "A" council seat this year.
And speaking of the wonderful Emerald City council, don't miss our latest city council report, wherein Curmudgeon skillfully details the events of last night's council meeting.
We thank Dan Schroeder and Curmudgeon for this morning's most excellent Weber County Forum contributions.
Don't let the cat get your tongues, oh ye ever-gentle readers.
By Dan Schroeder
Pop quiz: What document from the Ogden City Administration proposes that the Mt. Ogden golf course be redesigned to be more "playable", that the golf clubhouse be relocated to a mixed-use center at the top of 36th Street, and that the trails around the golf course be "enhanced"?
(a) The gondola FAQ, posted in April 2006 and still prominently posted on the city's web site;
(b) The draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, just released and posted right below the gondola FAQ on the city's web site;
(c) Both of the above.
Please, if you have time, take a look at both of these documents and see for yourself. But because the Mt. Ogden Community Plan is scheduled for a public hearing at 7:00 pm tonight (Municipal Building, 2549 Washington, 3rd floor), I'll go ahead and tell you right now that the answer is (c). That's right, the draft Mt. Ogden Community Plan includes three of the same components as the Peterson landgrab "proposal".
To be fair, the Mt. Ogden Community Plan also contains sections that directly contradict the Peterson proposal--like keeping the golf course and adjacent park lands as open space. So maybe the Plan isn't using the words "playable" and "enhance" in the same Orwellian senses as the landgrab proposal. But the Plan certainly doesn't define these words, and I'm at a loss to guess what they're actually intended to mean.
I urge all Mt. Ogden Community residents (east of Harrison, from 26th to WSU) to attend tonight's hearing and tell the Planning Commission what changes you would like to see in the Plan. One word of advice, though: Don't mention the Peterson landgrab. If you do, they won't listen to you. Argue for or against the components of the Plan on their own merits (or lack thereof), and based on what residents said they wanted during the public input meetings.
Meanwhile, at last night's City Council work session, planning director Greg Montgomery pulled out all the stops and put on a terrific show to explain why the Council should disregard the recommendation of the Planning Commission and eliminate Ogden's prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% (as well as the density limits on somewhat shallower slopes in the foothills). In his heroic effort he received considerable support from Councilman Safsten (who repeatedly described the current limits as "arbitrary and capricious") and Councilman Stephenson, as well as from development director Dave Harmer who was sitting in front of me in the bleachers.
Here is Ace Reporter Scott Schwebke's report on the work session.
During the two-hour discussion there was only one mention, by Councilwoman Van Hooser, of the elephant (named Peterson) in the room. I'd encourage Rudi to give her a WCF tip o' the hat for her courage.
As Schwebke says, the Council took no action. More specifically, they agreed to give the Planning Commission a chance to clarify its recommendation regarding hillside development before they proceed. This may have been appropriate, because the Planning Commission has expressed a desire to make further changes to the city's foothill zoning ordinances, perhaps moving the slope/density restrictions out of the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance and into a new base zone for foothill residential areas.
Coming back to the elephant in the room, unfortunately it seems to be alive and well--despite Rudi's obituary last month. On Monday I had a private conversation with the mayor and although I was trying to keep the subject focused on points that we could agree on (regarding transit), he kept bringing up the "gondola project". He gave no specifics on how the proposal might change in light of WSU's position. He gave no hint regarding when we'll even hear any more specifics. But he made it absolutely clear that this project is still his number-one priority.
Editor's Addendum: By all means, Dan. A Weber County Tip O' the Hat to councilwoman Van Hooser! She's proven to be a very quick study. She has mastered her council role in record time, we think, and has demonstrated that she's one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courageous members of our Emerald City council. Her strong leadership skills are also undeniable; and we do hope she'll be throwing her hat into the ring for election to her at-large "A" council seat this year.
And speaking of the wonderful Emerald City council, don't miss our latest city council report, wherein Curmudgeon skillfully details the events of last night's council meeting.
We thank Dan Schroeder and Curmudgeon for this morning's most excellent Weber County Forum contributions.
Don't let the cat get your tongues, oh ye ever-gentle readers.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Peterson's Attorney Wrote Proposed "MU" Zoning Ordinance
Updated 12/5/06
Ogden Sierra Club December 4, 2006 Press Release:
Records recently obtained from Ogden City show that Tom Ellison, a Salt Lake Attorney representing Chris Peterson, drafted a proposed new zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission will consider this Wednesday.
The city provided the records to the Ogden Sierra Club in response to a request pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Most of the relevant records consist of email messages between Ellison, Ogden City Attorney Andrea Lockwood, and Ogden City Planner Greg Montgomery, with successive drafts of the proposed ordinance attached. The earliest draft came to the city from Ellison on August 16. Subsequent revisions by Lockwood and Ellison consisted of minor clarifications that did not alter the essential features of the ordinance (see below for an example). Roughly 90% of the language in Ellison's August 16 draft remains in the version of the ordinance now being considered by the Planning Commission.
The ordinance is titled "Mixed Use Zone (MU)", but it is actually a general-purpose zoning ordinance that could accommodate virtually any type of use. In a letter to Mayor Godfrey dated July 21, Peterson asked the city to adopt such an ordinance, referring to it then as a "Planned Community Development Zone." Much of the language in the ordinance was borrowed from a similar "Specially Planned Areas" ordinance adopted last year in Iron County to facilitate large resort developments. Ellison was also involved in drafting the Iron County ordinance, on behalf of a client who is now developing a resort near Brian Head.
In his November 1 staff report recommending approval of the new ordinance, Montgomery makes no mention of how the ordinance was drafted, or of Peterson, Ellison, or Iron County. Rather, the report claims that the ordinance is intended to allow the development of high-density urban mixed use centers and villages, as identified in Ogden's General Plan. The ordinance itself, however, does not seem to require mixed use, and could potentially be applied to any parcel of land in the city. The ordinance simply states that the allowed uses in an MU zone "shall be those uses specified in an approved development agreement . . ."
Ordinarily, a "mixed use" zone would be applied only in areas where high-density development is desired. It would include minimum density requirements and other elements to encourage an urban, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Many cities have used such ordinances successfully in recent years to promote redevelopment and economic growth. An example would be Ogden's existing Central Business District (CBD) zone, which was recently expanded to include the River Project.
The records recently obtained from Ogden City also show that Ellison's office played a role in drafting an extensive revision to Ogden's Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance. The revision would remove the current prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% within the overlay zone. After a lengthy public hearing on November 1, the Planning Commission tabled that proposal until February.
Another email exchange between Ellison and Lockwood discusses how they should respond to press inquiries about his involvement in drafting the proposed ordinances.
---------------
We invite our gentle readers to read the full press release here. It's chock full of details, documents and links, and paints a picture that isn't very pretty, in the face of assurances from certain of our Emerald City public servants, that the two zoning and planning ordinances which are suddenly and feverishly being rammed down the townsfolks' throats "have nothing at all to do with Chris Peterson, or the Mt. Ogden Park land-grab."
Comments are invited, of course, once you've taken the time to read this blockbuster article, and to fully digest the revealing evidence which is meticulously embedded therein.
Have at it, folks; and don't forget to get back to us with your own 2¢.
Update 12/04/06 11:45 a.m. MT: Don't forget Tom Ellison's Iron County crafted, rurally-designed MU ordinance will be coming up for consideration, discussion and/or approval by the Planning Commission, in the Emerald City council chambers, @ 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December Six (6).
And we dutifully provide a handy Planning Commission contact link, just in case some of the folks would like to contact our appointed Emerald City Planning Commissioners, and register our gentle readers' views re this pending idiocy, in advance of Wednesday's commission meeting. (This updated link is also available in out WCF upper-left sidebar.)
Update 12/4/06 1:34 p.m. MT: The danged best reporter in northern Utah is now onto this story. We link Kristen Moulton's afternoon article here. We also thank one of our 'anonymous" readers for the heads-up.
Update 12/5/06 8:14 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner's Jordan Muhlestein picks up on the Ellision Ordinance (Mixed Use Zone) story this morning, in classic Std-Ex he said/she said style. The Sierra Club's Dan Shroeder continues to press the argument that the proposed ordinance, drafted and submitted by Peterson's "mouthpiece, is specific to the Mt. Ogden Parklands Landgrab, while Andrea Lockwood, Boss Godfrey, and the usual pack of Godfreyite suspects contend that Lockwood's "revised" version is designed to implement improved general planning/zoning policy only.
Mr. Schroeder argues that the two versions are substantially (and substantively) identical, whereas Lockwood claims her version is new work product.
Adding surreal frosting to the cake, Boss Godfrey's minions now contend that the adoption of the obviously project-specific Ellsion Ordinance is perfectly OK, and grounded upon "standard practice" -- i.e., that it's perfectly normal for a city to completely up-end its existing planning/zoning scheme, in order to accomodate a yet uncommitted developer-suitor.
As an added bonus, the Std-Ex has uploaded both document versions to their website, inviting diligent readers to make their own comparisons between another 18 pages of turgid legalese. You can be the judge of whether the proposed MU ordinance is a brand-new approach, or merely a Tom Ellison knock-off.
WCF Compliments also go out to the Standard-Examiner for its fresh new website design (which is unveiled this very morning,) and to Curmudgeon, for coming up with the brilliant "Ellison Ordinance" moniker.
Ogden Sierra Club December 4, 2006 Press Release:
Records recently obtained from Ogden City show that Tom Ellison, a Salt Lake Attorney representing Chris Peterson, drafted a proposed new zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission will consider this Wednesday.
The city provided the records to the Ogden Sierra Club in response to a request pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Most of the relevant records consist of email messages between Ellison, Ogden City Attorney Andrea Lockwood, and Ogden City Planner Greg Montgomery, with successive drafts of the proposed ordinance attached. The earliest draft came to the city from Ellison on August 16. Subsequent revisions by Lockwood and Ellison consisted of minor clarifications that did not alter the essential features of the ordinance (see below for an example). Roughly 90% of the language in Ellison's August 16 draft remains in the version of the ordinance now being considered by the Planning Commission.
The ordinance is titled "Mixed Use Zone (MU)", but it is actually a general-purpose zoning ordinance that could accommodate virtually any type of use. In a letter to Mayor Godfrey dated July 21, Peterson asked the city to adopt such an ordinance, referring to it then as a "Planned Community Development Zone." Much of the language in the ordinance was borrowed from a similar "Specially Planned Areas" ordinance adopted last year in Iron County to facilitate large resort developments. Ellison was also involved in drafting the Iron County ordinance, on behalf of a client who is now developing a resort near Brian Head.
In his November 1 staff report recommending approval of the new ordinance, Montgomery makes no mention of how the ordinance was drafted, or of Peterson, Ellison, or Iron County. Rather, the report claims that the ordinance is intended to allow the development of high-density urban mixed use centers and villages, as identified in Ogden's General Plan. The ordinance itself, however, does not seem to require mixed use, and could potentially be applied to any parcel of land in the city. The ordinance simply states that the allowed uses in an MU zone "shall be those uses specified in an approved development agreement . . ."
Ordinarily, a "mixed use" zone would be applied only in areas where high-density development is desired. It would include minimum density requirements and other elements to encourage an urban, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Many cities have used such ordinances successfully in recent years to promote redevelopment and economic growth. An example would be Ogden's existing Central Business District (CBD) zone, which was recently expanded to include the River Project.
The records recently obtained from Ogden City also show that Ellison's office played a role in drafting an extensive revision to Ogden's Sensitive Area Overlay Zone ordinance. The revision would remove the current prohibition against building on slopes steeper than 30% within the overlay zone. After a lengthy public hearing on November 1, the Planning Commission tabled that proposal until February.
Another email exchange between Ellison and Lockwood discusses how they should respond to press inquiries about his involvement in drafting the proposed ordinances.
---------------
We invite our gentle readers to read the full press release here. It's chock full of details, documents and links, and paints a picture that isn't very pretty, in the face of assurances from certain of our Emerald City public servants, that the two zoning and planning ordinances which are suddenly and feverishly being rammed down the townsfolks' throats "have nothing at all to do with Chris Peterson, or the Mt. Ogden Park land-grab."
Comments are invited, of course, once you've taken the time to read this blockbuster article, and to fully digest the revealing evidence which is meticulously embedded therein.
Have at it, folks; and don't forget to get back to us with your own 2¢.
Update 12/04/06 11:45 a.m. MT: Don't forget Tom Ellison's Iron County crafted, rurally-designed MU ordinance will be coming up for consideration, discussion and/or approval by the Planning Commission, in the Emerald City council chambers, @ 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December Six (6).
And we dutifully provide a handy Planning Commission contact link, just in case some of the folks would like to contact our appointed Emerald City Planning Commissioners, and register our gentle readers' views re this pending idiocy, in advance of Wednesday's commission meeting. (This updated link is also available in out WCF upper-left sidebar.)
Update 12/4/06 1:34 p.m. MT: The danged best reporter in northern Utah is now onto this story. We link Kristen Moulton's afternoon article here. We also thank one of our 'anonymous" readers for the heads-up.
Update 12/5/06 8:14 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner's Jordan Muhlestein picks up on the Ellision Ordinance (Mixed Use Zone) story this morning, in classic Std-Ex he said/she said style. The Sierra Club's Dan Shroeder continues to press the argument that the proposed ordinance, drafted and submitted by Peterson's "mouthpiece, is specific to the Mt. Ogden Parklands Landgrab, while Andrea Lockwood, Boss Godfrey, and the usual pack of Godfreyite suspects contend that Lockwood's "revised" version is designed to implement improved general planning/zoning policy only.
Mr. Schroeder argues that the two versions are substantially (and substantively) identical, whereas Lockwood claims her version is new work product.
Adding surreal frosting to the cake, Boss Godfrey's minions now contend that the adoption of the obviously project-specific Ellsion Ordinance is perfectly OK, and grounded upon "standard practice" -- i.e., that it's perfectly normal for a city to completely up-end its existing planning/zoning scheme, in order to accomodate a yet uncommitted developer-suitor.
As an added bonus, the Std-Ex has uploaded both document versions to their website, inviting diligent readers to make their own comparisons between another 18 pages of turgid legalese. You can be the judge of whether the proposed MU ordinance is a brand-new approach, or merely a Tom Ellison knock-off.
WCF Compliments also go out to the Standard-Examiner for its fresh new website design (which is unveiled this very morning,) and to Curmudgeon, for coming up with the brilliant "Ellison Ordinance" moniker.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Legal Technicalities and Public Ethics
This morning's Standard-Examiner Letters to the Editor section is a virtual cornicopia of material for gentle readers who are gleefully following the ongoing Peterson/Godfrey Mt. Ogden Park Land-grab saga. Notwithstanding the facts that (1) Chris Peterson is yet to put a firm offer on the table, and that (2) Mr. Peterson's so-called proposal has not yet expanded beyond "glittering generalities," the Godfrey/Peterson "welfare for the rich" scheme has nevertheless successfully set the townsfolks' tongues and keyboards all a'twitter, in a manner not observed within living memory.
Deprived readers in outlying provinces who do not have access a hard-copy version of this morning's Standard-Examiner can find all the latest rantings here, here, here here, here and here.
Actually, some of this material is very good. For those who sometimes accuse the local townsfolk of being apathetic or dull-witted, today's expanded Std-Ex letters section should easily put that accusation to rest.
For the purpose of getting today's discussion going however, we are singling out this Jeanette Ballantyne letter, which discusses a thorny issue we've been pondering lately:
We have no right to 'confiscate' Trails
As someone who has more than a passing acquaintance with the American Law of Real Property, your always-humble blogmeister will venture the opinion that advocates of the view that the general public has an enforcible public easement burdening the privately-owned property east of Mt. Ogden Park have a very solid case.
The pertinent question though, involves the ethics and morality of asserting such a percipient right. Ms. Ballantyne gets a WCF "tip of the hat" for illuminating this thorny issue.
And what say our gentle readers? Should members of the Ogden body politic actively assert their possible prescriptive rights ? Is it OK to do so, because it may be "technically lawful?"
The floor is now open, gentle readers. Let us hear your always wise opinions on this.
You need not feel hemmed in by this issue, by the way. Please feel free to comment on any of the above-cited letters.
Who will be the first to comment?
Deprived readers in outlying provinces who do not have access a hard-copy version of this morning's Standard-Examiner can find all the latest rantings here, here, here here, here and here.
Actually, some of this material is very good. For those who sometimes accuse the local townsfolk of being apathetic or dull-witted, today's expanded Std-Ex letters section should easily put that accusation to rest.
For the purpose of getting today's discussion going however, we are singling out this Jeanette Ballantyne letter, which discusses a thorny issue we've been pondering lately:
We have no right to 'confiscate' Trails
As someone who has more than a passing acquaintance with the American Law of Real Property, your always-humble blogmeister will venture the opinion that advocates of the view that the general public has an enforcible public easement burdening the privately-owned property east of Mt. Ogden Park have a very solid case.
The pertinent question though, involves the ethics and morality of asserting such a percipient right. Ms. Ballantyne gets a WCF "tip of the hat" for illuminating this thorny issue.
And what say our gentle readers? Should members of the Ogden body politic actively assert their possible prescriptive rights ? Is it OK to do so, because it may be "technically lawful?"
The floor is now open, gentle readers. Let us hear your always wise opinions on this.
You need not feel hemmed in by this issue, by the way. Please feel free to comment on any of the above-cited letters.
Who will be the first to comment?
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Damning a Proposed Land-Grab with Faint Praise?
The Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce is "ringingly" on-board with the Peterson/Godfrey landgrab -- or so ace reporter Scott Schwebke says this morning -- in his truly odd Top of Utah headline article.
"Chamber backs gondola plan," the screaming headline declares. "Project, resort touted a "unique economic development opportunity," the Standard-Examiner editors would lead us to believe.
We dunno about that. The following text incorporates the actual language that the Chamber Board reportedly adopted. Somehow we don't see it as exactly coming off as a "ringing endorsement:"
What the Chamber Board seems to be saying here is that they're keeping their eyes and ears open just like the rest of the rational citizens of Ogden City and environs. Like the rest of us, they're obviously still awaiting the nuts-and-bolts details, such as how much it will all cost, and who will be expected to pay for it.
Careful readers will notice that the only ringing endorsements actually found in this ridiculous article are those that come from the pack of usual suspects, -- and NOT from the Chamber Board itself.
Dave Hardman is clearly in love with the proposal. Of course, we already knew that. Nowhere is there a mind-numbed gondola lemming more committed to the Peterson/Godfrey landgrab than the slavish Godfreyite Dave Hardman. No well-attended landgrab promotional event ever occurs without Dave Hardman standing up in front of the crowd, with that big "good-ole-boy" grin plastered on his face, preaching about the sheer wonderfulness of the gondola "silver bullet. "
Just for laughs, we hope our gentle readers will read today's Schwebke spin-masterpiece, and carefully compare and contrast the extremely cautious language of the Chamber Board statement with the hyperbolic and frenzied pronouncements of Dave Hardman, Matt Godfrey and Chris Peterson.
If anything, we believe the Chamber Board's own statement actually operates as nothing more than a damnation by faint praise, at this early juncture at least, notwithstanding the mendacious and wholly transparent efforts of some people to spin this story another way.
And what do our gentle readers think this morning?
What is your take on all this?
Update 5/27/06 1:24 p.m. MT: We thank gentle reader Dian a second time today for her diligent contributions to this community blog. The Ogden-Weber Chamber has indeed posted the full text of their Thursday "position statement" on their website, although it is functionally invisible to readers with screen resolutions set to 800x600 and lower (50% of our readers and our humble blogger included.) To read the full text, you may go to their site, and scroll to the right. There you will find a graphic image link.
We've reviewed the full text "statement," and stand by our initial assessment, BTW. Although the statement refers to and incorporates a series of assumptions that might as well have been cut & pasted from the Lift Ogden site, the thrust of the Chamber Board's position remains clear:
They're obviously okay with the basic concept (as are many of our gentle readers,) assuming the assumptions can be proved-out. Still, the Chamber Directors await the all-important details with bated breath, most of which have been INTENTIONALLY withheld to date.
The call for much more information couldn't be more clear -- even from the Ogden-Weber Chamber Directors, who've been mercilessly pushed for weeks by their dipshit "Director," to issue some kind of pro-Godfrey "statement."
Sidebar question: Who the hell is Godfrey-shill Dave Hardman anyway? And how the hell did THIS GUY wind up as the ostensible spokesman for a group of pragmatic Ogden City/Weber County business entrepreneurs like me who put their own money on the line every day, and slave away to make their small businesses work?
So many questions...
"Chamber backs gondola plan," the screaming headline declares. "Project, resort touted a "unique economic development opportunity," the Standard-Examiner editors would lead us to believe.
We dunno about that. The following text incorporates the actual language that the Chamber Board reportedly adopted. Somehow we don't see it as exactly coming off as a "ringing endorsement:"
The board adopted a position statement Thursday in support of Peterson’s concept and initial proposal, describing it as a “work in progress.”What the Chamber Board appears to have done, based on the language provided in the article, is to merely to endorse the fact-gathering public process which the Ogden City Council has previously endorsed. That appears though, gentle readers, to be "just about it. "
“We are committed to continued review and input on the project to ensure the best possible results for all concerned,” the statement says. “The Ogden/Weber Chamber of Commerce pledges to provide accurate and updated information as the project develops and details are refined based on community input.” [Emphasis added.]
What the Chamber Board seems to be saying here is that they're keeping their eyes and ears open just like the rest of the rational citizens of Ogden City and environs. Like the rest of us, they're obviously still awaiting the nuts-and-bolts details, such as how much it will all cost, and who will be expected to pay for it.
Careful readers will notice that the only ringing endorsements actually found in this ridiculous article are those that come from the pack of usual suspects, -- and NOT from the Chamber Board itself.
Dave Hardman is clearly in love with the proposal. Of course, we already knew that. Nowhere is there a mind-numbed gondola lemming more committed to the Peterson/Godfrey landgrab than the slavish Godfreyite Dave Hardman. No well-attended landgrab promotional event ever occurs without Dave Hardman standing up in front of the crowd, with that big "good-ole-boy" grin plastered on his face, preaching about the sheer wonderfulness of the gondola "silver bullet. "
Just for laughs, we hope our gentle readers will read today's Schwebke spin-masterpiece, and carefully compare and contrast the extremely cautious language of the Chamber Board statement with the hyperbolic and frenzied pronouncements of Dave Hardman, Matt Godfrey and Chris Peterson.
If anything, we believe the Chamber Board's own statement actually operates as nothing more than a damnation by faint praise, at this early juncture at least, notwithstanding the mendacious and wholly transparent efforts of some people to spin this story another way.
And what do our gentle readers think this morning?
What is your take on all this?
Update 5/27/06 1:24 p.m. MT: We thank gentle reader Dian a second time today for her diligent contributions to this community blog. The Ogden-Weber Chamber has indeed posted the full text of their Thursday "position statement" on their website, although it is functionally invisible to readers with screen resolutions set to 800x600 and lower (50% of our readers and our humble blogger included.) To read the full text, you may go to their site, and scroll to the right. There you will find a graphic image link.
We've reviewed the full text "statement," and stand by our initial assessment, BTW. Although the statement refers to and incorporates a series of assumptions that might as well have been cut & pasted from the Lift Ogden site, the thrust of the Chamber Board's position remains clear:
They're obviously okay with the basic concept (as are many of our gentle readers,) assuming the assumptions can be proved-out. Still, the Chamber Directors await the all-important details with bated breath, most of which have been INTENTIONALLY withheld to date.
The call for much more information couldn't be more clear -- even from the Ogden-Weber Chamber Directors, who've been mercilessly pushed for weeks by their dipshit "Director," to issue some kind of pro-Godfrey "statement."
Sidebar question: Who the hell is Godfrey-shill Dave Hardman anyway? And how the hell did THIS GUY wind up as the ostensible spokesman for a group of pragmatic Ogden City/Weber County business entrepreneurs like me who put their own money on the line every day, and slave away to make their small businesses work?
So many questions...
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Godfrey a Salesman in Proposed Land Scheme
By Jason Wood
Via Standard/Net
Std-Ex Guest Commentary
The full-time, publicly paid mayor of my town is a spokesperson for a private developer. Or so it would seem, if you were to read anything about the antics of Matt Godfrey the last few months.
As a taxpayer and homeowner in Ogden, I expect the mayor to serve as a protector of the people's trust, one who safeguards our shared resources and acts an administrator of city government. Instead, Godfrey fancies himself a private-venture entrepreneur, who spends an inordinate amount of his time as the point man for a questionable land deal.
I've covered county and municipal government for many years and, from what I can gather, the elected chief executive should attempt to shepherd development according to how a community has been planned, or to improve its collective welfare without overextending it financially.
Never have I seen a mayor act like a carnival barker in an attempt to trade a public asset for a personal fantasy.
Our land is the most valuable thing we own in Ogden, and there is likely no acreage worth more than the east bench. Mt. Ogden Golf Course and the trails that surround it belong to us, the taxpayers in Ogden city, not to the mayor. In his attempt to fund what he thinks will revitalize a depressed economic center, Godfrey is proposing to give our golf course and highly trafficked trails away to a business person whom he fondly refers to by his first name. And he is using every available public pulpit to preach the gospel of this golf-for-gondola idea that is doomed to fail -- at our expense.
Not only is he taking on the unenviable role of corporate shill when he should be representing our interests, Godfrey and his administrators are spending city time and money to create the very proposal that would rob us of our golf course and our mountains.
Neither Godfrey nor Peterson can explain why the course wouldn't lose money if it's privately operated, they only say it will be reconfigured and improved. No one can detail these nebulous "improvements" to the course; no one has hired an experienced golf course architect to redesign the holes around these half-million-dollar homes that are sure to flood every spring; no one has looked at the feasibility of extending this mountain course farther east; no one can offer a reasonable explanation of how Peterson's going to get water to fairways and greens above the walking paths that cannot be serviced by any conceivable pump or drainage system; and no one has bothered to raise the issue that once the golf course is zoned for residential uses, there's little to stop this so-called developer from ruining the property or plowing the whole thing under after a year or two when it's found that revamping it is an untenable business proposition.
All we have are Godfrey's platitudes, his patronizing about how change is painful, and that he and his magnanimous partner will change our fortunes with a golden gondola from Wall Avenue to Weber State University.
As a professional skeptic, I have my doubts. But I do have an idea of two people this deal will benefit. And they like to call each other Matthew and Chris.
Wood, an Ogden native, works in marketing. He is a freelance correspondent for the Standard-Examiner covering Farmington and Hooper. He is a member of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course Men's Association.
What about it, gentle readers?
Via Standard/Net
Std-Ex Guest Commentary
The full-time, publicly paid mayor of my town is a spokesperson for a private developer. Or so it would seem, if you were to read anything about the antics of Matt Godfrey the last few months.
As a taxpayer and homeowner in Ogden, I expect the mayor to serve as a protector of the people's trust, one who safeguards our shared resources and acts an administrator of city government. Instead, Godfrey fancies himself a private-venture entrepreneur, who spends an inordinate amount of his time as the point man for a questionable land deal.
I've covered county and municipal government for many years and, from what I can gather, the elected chief executive should attempt to shepherd development according to how a community has been planned, or to improve its collective welfare without overextending it financially.
Never have I seen a mayor act like a carnival barker in an attempt to trade a public asset for a personal fantasy.
Our land is the most valuable thing we own in Ogden, and there is likely no acreage worth more than the east bench. Mt. Ogden Golf Course and the trails that surround it belong to us, the taxpayers in Ogden city, not to the mayor. In his attempt to fund what he thinks will revitalize a depressed economic center, Godfrey is proposing to give our golf course and highly trafficked trails away to a business person whom he fondly refers to by his first name. And he is using every available public pulpit to preach the gospel of this golf-for-gondola idea that is doomed to fail -- at our expense.
Not only is he taking on the unenviable role of corporate shill when he should be representing our interests, Godfrey and his administrators are spending city time and money to create the very proposal that would rob us of our golf course and our mountains.
Neither Godfrey nor Peterson can explain why the course wouldn't lose money if it's privately operated, they only say it will be reconfigured and improved. No one can detail these nebulous "improvements" to the course; no one has hired an experienced golf course architect to redesign the holes around these half-million-dollar homes that are sure to flood every spring; no one has looked at the feasibility of extending this mountain course farther east; no one can offer a reasonable explanation of how Peterson's going to get water to fairways and greens above the walking paths that cannot be serviced by any conceivable pump or drainage system; and no one has bothered to raise the issue that once the golf course is zoned for residential uses, there's little to stop this so-called developer from ruining the property or plowing the whole thing under after a year or two when it's found that revamping it is an untenable business proposition.
All we have are Godfrey's platitudes, his patronizing about how change is painful, and that he and his magnanimous partner will change our fortunes with a golden gondola from Wall Avenue to Weber State University.
As a professional skeptic, I have my doubts. But I do have an idea of two people this deal will benefit. And they like to call each other Matthew and Chris.
Wood, an Ogden native, works in marketing. He is a freelance correspondent for the Standard-Examiner covering Farmington and Hooper. He is a member of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course Men's Association.
What about it, gentle readers?
Friday, May 12, 2006
Kent Jorgenson Rises From the Dead
Option B – A Shared Solution. By Kent Jorgenson
I’ve worked in marketing and public relations the majority of my professional life and always provided clients a variety of options when trying to sell an idea. That doesn’t mean I didn’t have a favorite idea but at least I gave them options. Why don’t we have any options when it comes to the Malan’s Basin, Mt. Ogden Golf Course and Gondola development? Why does it have to Option A or nothing?The reality is that Chris Peterson, the proposed developer of the project is in a position of power because he owns a lot of the land we use for our trails. He is also in a position to become our friend or foe. Why not work with him and build a development that benefits all parties.
Why not allow Chris Peterson to purchase and build a “small” resort development on the south end of the golf course on city land and then link it to Malan’s Basin via Gondola? The development would be privately funded and managed; therefore it would create no risk for the city or its taxpayers. As part of the deal we can require no motorized vehicles be allowed or roads be developed on the property. Mr. Peterson can also continue to fund the development and preservation of our trails.
Mr. Peterson, on his own dime, can develop phase one of the project and that will allow the city and its residents the opportunity to see if the concept really attracts outside business investment and tourism to Ogden. If they can justify building the gondola from downtown to the university with hard data, then we can proceed at that time.
A shared solution development would allow Ogden to benefit from a multi-million dollar investment from Chris Peterson, provide Ogden the ability to market something that is unique (an urban gondola), and allow its citizens to retain our highly valued open space and trail network. To me this seems like a win-win solution.
In the meantime, why not follow our current twenty-year transportation plan and recommendations of the recent corridor study (downtown to WSU/McKay-Dee Hospital) and develop an efficient, well used transit corridor using Bus Rapid Transit or vintage/modern street car technology. The third party study indicates the corridor is justified and is a top priority for residents throughout Weber and Davis Counties. The plan already has a funding source in place and federal dollars can be used to help defray the cost.
What if we wanted the system sooner rather than later? Then county residents would need to step up like they have before and develop an additional source of funding. A project like this is absolutely possible to complete in a shorter timeframe than ten, fifteen or twenty years.
The tourists who won’t use a bus or street car to get from downtown to Mr. Peterson’s resort development can be shuttled by private carrier (i.e. limousine or shuttle service).
Everyone knows we need more economic development in Ogden, but we don’t want to sell our souls in the process. We also have to deal with reality and understand compromise is better than nothing. Let’s work together instead of focusing on our differences to create a community we can be proud of and call our own.
Kent Jorgenson, Mt. Ogden Neighbor and Ogden City Resident
Comments, anyone?
Did his short bio leave out his 4-year-tour as a Godfreyite Rubber Stamp... or voter promise flip-flopper?
Would anybody in their right mind trust Jorgenson around the corner with their wallet?
(It's no secret the lyin' sack's running for Mayor, BTW.)
Have at it, gentle readers... heheh!
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Gondolas Redux, Etc.
For those who may have missed the announcement in an earlier comments section, another Chris Peterson "information" session has been scheduled for this afternoon at Ogden's Union Station. Our Lift Ogden pal Bob Geiger took the trouble to notify us of this yesterday via a multi-hued email, which we've copied to our archives session. We've made a semi-conscientious extra effort to preserve the elaborate original formatting; and you can read all about it here.
From the tone of Bob's announcement, reminding everyone "YA GOTTA BELIEVE," it might be reasonably inferred that the Lift Ogden folks are once again appealing to emotion, and trying to turn this event into another pod-people pep-rally. Imagine that.
On another note, another of our gentle readers tipped us last night to a new Salt Lake City Weekly story, which examines the proposed Godfrey/Peterson gondola-fantasy land-grab, through the eyes of a very talented SLCW writer, Shane Johnson.
Inferiority-complex-laden Ogdenites are duly forewarned that the dreaded term "arm-pit of Utah" does come up in this article, so the faint-hearted and civically-insecure should be sure to be seated before they click on this SLCW link. For a couple of added bonuses, click on the SLCW main page, where you'll find a priceless Matt Godfrey caricature, along with another fine off-topic article discussing Huntville's Trappist-Cistercian Monestary.
Shane Johnson's article is a danged fine one though, we think, despite the hackneyed "armpit" (term of endearment) reference.
We're now turning this forum over to our gentle readers for the rest of the day. You can comment about any of the above, or simply treat this space as an open thread.
Who will be the first gentle reader to bare his/her soul today?
From the tone of Bob's announcement, reminding everyone "YA GOTTA BELIEVE," it might be reasonably inferred that the Lift Ogden folks are once again appealing to emotion, and trying to turn this event into another pod-people pep-rally. Imagine that.
On another note, another of our gentle readers tipped us last night to a new Salt Lake City Weekly story, which examines the proposed Godfrey/Peterson gondola-fantasy land-grab, through the eyes of a very talented SLCW writer, Shane Johnson.
Inferiority-complex-laden Ogdenites are duly forewarned that the dreaded term "arm-pit of Utah" does come up in this article, so the faint-hearted and civically-insecure should be sure to be seated before they click on this SLCW link. For a couple of added bonuses, click on the SLCW main page, where you'll find a priceless Matt Godfrey caricature, along with another fine off-topic article discussing Huntville's Trappist-Cistercian Monestary.
Shane Johnson's article is a danged fine one though, we think, despite the hackneyed "armpit" (term of endearment) reference.
We're now turning this forum over to our gentle readers for the rest of the day. You can comment about any of the above, or simply treat this space as an open thread.
Who will be the first gentle reader to bare his/her soul today?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Sell the park?
By Sandra L. Crosland
Standard-Examiner Guest Commentary
Original publication: Thursday, April 13, 2006
Standard/NET
Like so many American youngsters, I grew up with a soft spot, even a sense of guilt, about American Indians. After all, they had once owned the spacious skies, amber waves of grain and purple mountains' majesty.
Still, they lost almost everything, not because they didn't value it, but because their sense of common ownership rendered them inadequate as protectors of their treasure. If we do not learn from history, we Ogdenites could easily fall prey to this same fate. Our foothills, our park and golf course are our common treasure.
Once we created a General Plan placing the highest value on this asset. Our city has won national accolades because of its convenient public access to our outdoor spaces.
Today public ownership of this treasure is under siege. An aggressive, wealthy developer has joined forces with our mayor in an attempt to convince us that we should sell out our children's most valuable public inheritance.
A spokesman for Lift Ogden has stated that we should help Mr. Chris Peterson develop his land. Mr. Peterson recently bought mountain property in Weber County with trails that had been used for generations. His land is zoned as open space, and he is charged with constructive knowledge that the Ogden community placed great value on the open space designation of its foothills.
Because Utah respects both individual property rights and development rights, Mr. Peterson may follow legally prescribed processes to request a change in zoning that, depending upon the feasibility of his project, might allow him to construct his proposed resort. However, Mr. Peterson has expanded his vision for an exclusive, gated community onto our public property, and this part of his plan stands on different footing. We, the public, are going to be asked to sell the crown jewel of our community -- the open space along our foothills where Ogdenites golf, walk, run, bike, cross-country ski, sled, tube and snowshoe alongside the beauty and solitude of nearby canyons.
Before we acquiesce to such a sale, we should evaluate the benefits and the risks of trusting our park lands and public golfing facility to a developer whose primary goal is private gain rather than public good. If we will sell out ownership and control of this land, 400 homes may fill that space. In your long-range vision for your community, is Mr. Peterson's development the highest and best use for your park land? These are critical issues for all of us to consider. Positive economic development is not simply a "yes" or "no" decision in helping Mr. Peterson.
Worse yet, if we give up ownership and control of our park, what does our city administration propose that Ogdenites get in exchange? The rumor is that we get an urban gondola, which would cost at least $25 million to construct and millions more to operate each year. No one expects that this gondola would function as effective public transportation for our community. At best, the gondola would be a high-risk tourist attraction. At worst, it would be both a community eyesore creating neighborhood voyeurs and a money pit, not only for its construction costs but also its maintenance costs, and incalculable shortfall costs if it does not attract the hundreds of thousands of riders needed to break even.
Would an urban gondola be what you would want in return for the sale of our park? Once again, we, the public, need a voice in crafting our future.
If the sale of the park generates millions of dollars, what is the highest and best use of these funds? After all, much of what has not been done in Ogden has been forgone for lack of funds. Would you prefer to help fund a Latino market, or the Union Station, or pave more of our trails, or provide grants or loans in our historic downtown?
Because this new money would be public, any proposal, including Mr. Peterson's, should undergo a rigid risk-benefit analysis to demonstrate to the public that potential gain outweighs potential losses. Rumors pairing the sale of our foothills and golf course in exchange for an urban gondola sound too much like selling the island of Manhattan for baubles and trinkets of the tourist trade. History tells us who came out on top in that land deal, but the New Yorkers who descended from the purchasers did learn something: At the end of the 19th century, they agreed to set aside a chunk of their city as Central Park. Preserving that park has had to withstand hundreds of challenges. Early on, a small group of wealthy New Yorkers wanted a speedway to race their carriages. Another plan was conversion into an airport. But always the public good has triumphed over the private gain.
Is there a lesson here for Ogden?
Crosland lives in Ogden. This thoughtful article was brought to our attention by an alert reader, and is re-published here with the author's consent.
Standard-Examiner Guest Commentary
Original publication: Thursday, April 13, 2006
Standard/NET
Like so many American youngsters, I grew up with a soft spot, even a sense of guilt, about American Indians. After all, they had once owned the spacious skies, amber waves of grain and purple mountains' majesty.
Still, they lost almost everything, not because they didn't value it, but because their sense of common ownership rendered them inadequate as protectors of their treasure. If we do not learn from history, we Ogdenites could easily fall prey to this same fate. Our foothills, our park and golf course are our common treasure.
Once we created a General Plan placing the highest value on this asset. Our city has won national accolades because of its convenient public access to our outdoor spaces.
Today public ownership of this treasure is under siege. An aggressive, wealthy developer has joined forces with our mayor in an attempt to convince us that we should sell out our children's most valuable public inheritance.
A spokesman for Lift Ogden has stated that we should help Mr. Chris Peterson develop his land. Mr. Peterson recently bought mountain property in Weber County with trails that had been used for generations. His land is zoned as open space, and he is charged with constructive knowledge that the Ogden community placed great value on the open space designation of its foothills.
Because Utah respects both individual property rights and development rights, Mr. Peterson may follow legally prescribed processes to request a change in zoning that, depending upon the feasibility of his project, might allow him to construct his proposed resort. However, Mr. Peterson has expanded his vision for an exclusive, gated community onto our public property, and this part of his plan stands on different footing. We, the public, are going to be asked to sell the crown jewel of our community -- the open space along our foothills where Ogdenites golf, walk, run, bike, cross-country ski, sled, tube and snowshoe alongside the beauty and solitude of nearby canyons.
Before we acquiesce to such a sale, we should evaluate the benefits and the risks of trusting our park lands and public golfing facility to a developer whose primary goal is private gain rather than public good. If we will sell out ownership and control of this land, 400 homes may fill that space. In your long-range vision for your community, is Mr. Peterson's development the highest and best use for your park land? These are critical issues for all of us to consider. Positive economic development is not simply a "yes" or "no" decision in helping Mr. Peterson.
Worse yet, if we give up ownership and control of our park, what does our city administration propose that Ogdenites get in exchange? The rumor is that we get an urban gondola, which would cost at least $25 million to construct and millions more to operate each year. No one expects that this gondola would function as effective public transportation for our community. At best, the gondola would be a high-risk tourist attraction. At worst, it would be both a community eyesore creating neighborhood voyeurs and a money pit, not only for its construction costs but also its maintenance costs, and incalculable shortfall costs if it does not attract the hundreds of thousands of riders needed to break even.
Would an urban gondola be what you would want in return for the sale of our park? Once again, we, the public, need a voice in crafting our future.
If the sale of the park generates millions of dollars, what is the highest and best use of these funds? After all, much of what has not been done in Ogden has been forgone for lack of funds. Would you prefer to help fund a Latino market, or the Union Station, or pave more of our trails, or provide grants or loans in our historic downtown?
Because this new money would be public, any proposal, including Mr. Peterson's, should undergo a rigid risk-benefit analysis to demonstrate to the public that potential gain outweighs potential losses. Rumors pairing the sale of our foothills and golf course in exchange for an urban gondola sound too much like selling the island of Manhattan for baubles and trinkets of the tourist trade. History tells us who came out on top in that land deal, but the New Yorkers who descended from the purchasers did learn something: At the end of the 19th century, they agreed to set aside a chunk of their city as Central Park. Preserving that park has had to withstand hundreds of challenges. Early on, a small group of wealthy New Yorkers wanted a speedway to race their carriages. Another plan was conversion into an airport. But always the public good has triumphed over the private gain.
Is there a lesson here for Ogden?
Crosland lives in Ogden. This thoughtful article was brought to our attention by an alert reader, and is re-published here with the author's consent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved