Ogden City's RDA board cowed to the pressure of the Godfrey Administration (and the recent St-Ex propaganda onslaught) at tonight's RDA meeting -- and voted 7-0 tonight to tap the city's $3 million credit line, exercise the about to expire River Property options, and to issue $4.5 million in new bond debt, contingent only upon Ernest Health Inc.'s signing of a purchase agreement, with performance obligations which are quite meager by any objective standard.As Comrade Councilman Safsten noted, Ernest Health could sell their interest to a "Chinese Consortium" balloon manufacturer at any moment after the signing, and there's nothing the RDA Board could do about it.
The newly-elected council bent over just like the former gang-of-five, only much more painfully and obviously.
Forget U.S.M.C. veteran Glasmann's earlier "probative" questions asking who the principals are, and whether they have the financial capability to perform their contractual obligations. Forget attracting businesses that will stabilize our community. All that went out the window tonight. When the going gets tough, even novice politicians turn "pro."
Forget the RDA Board's asserting itself as the new power in Ogden City government. The new Board proved tonight that they have neither the brains nor the political guts to ever pull it off.
Two weeks ago, Ernest was asked a few questions, couldn't handle the heat, and then closed off negotiations. This is a standard bargaining ploy, of course.
This week, the RDA Board cowered, became weak-kneed under pressure, and offered to give away the store with no questions asked. It's what's called in Councilman Glasmann's beloved U.S. Marine CorPse a "slow surrender."
The RDA board meekly approved the new debt, relinquishing any claim that the new council/board will ever assert itself against a totalitarian mayoral administration that the people of Ogden voted to reject only two months ago. This -- in spite of a parade of Ogden citizen commentators tonight who advised the Board to "stand their ground."
It's the same old game, only with new political cowards sitting on the city council, I fear.
Three weeks on the job -- and they're already co-opted. It's enough to make honest people gag.
Comments, anyone?
Is there anyone more disgusted with our new council's most recent performance than I?
57 comments:
Just a thought...perhaps the new council are not bending over to Godfrey pressure, but merely have had their eyes opened and see that the Mayor's vision and plans for Ogden are indeed in it's best interest! Kudo's Glassman, Jeske, Stephens!
No doubt about it, Iowa Kid...
The Big Government socialist disease is highly contagious, and has a VERY short incubation period.
Rudi, you say:
...contingent only upon Ernest Health Inc.'s signing of a purchase agreement, with performance obligations which are quite meager under any standard.
There has been talk about Ernest not wanting that piece of land anyway. If it really does not want it, it probably won't sign no matter how good the incentives are. If it left the table because it wanted more, it's not getting it--it's the same deal offered in the first place. If it left the table because it wanted a different piece of land, it will probably stay gone until one is offered to it.
If Ernest does not sign, does this mean there's no opened line of credit, no bonds, no options exercised, nada? With a nine day time limit on whether or not this is going to happen?
If the answers to these questions is in the affirmative, and Ernest decides for one reason or another not to sign, the vote turns into a gesture of goodwill toward the administration and Ernest that really won't be anything more than that and will go no further.
If Ernest does decide to sign, I will find this strange in light of the comments I have heard about it not wanting the land. With the backing it has, I don't think a $2 million dollar break on a purchase would be that much money to it if it didn't want what it was buying in the first place.
However, who knows what Ernest will do? It is unfortunate that our new council members have at present lost the backing of some of their supporters through this vote, who may be viewing it as being somewhat disloyal.
It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. We'll know a bit more about who is telling the truth and who is not when that happens, too.
Rudi has his take on things; I have mine....maybe, just maybe, the former questions asked have been answered to satisfaction and there is no reason to play politics for politic's sake. Just a thought.
Absolutely, Murdock. Very possible indeed.
But if so, it would have been nice for the public to have been informed of that, and how it transpired. Not the nature of the information itself, just the fact that it was looked over and deemed acceptable by the RDA.
Perhaps this could be the topic of an article in the Standard.
Dian: "If Ernest does not sign, does this mean there's no opened line of credit, no bonds, no options exercised, nada? With a nine day time limit on whether or not this is going to happen?"
That pretty much sums it up, although there was also discussion last night about re-negotiating the city's purchase options; so the nine-day limit may be entirely illusory.
Additionally, Councilwoman Jeske asked your question specifically to Ogden City's John Arrington, who assured the board that no loan funds would disburse, unless and until there was a signed agreement.
Moreover, Councilwoman Jeske asked Mr. Arrington for assurance that loan proceeds would be earmarked for the River project alone, in the event of an actual loan funding. Mr. Arrington advised that loan proceeds could only be used for the River Project, and could NOT be co-mingled with the general fund.
Of all the council members, Councilwoman Jeske was by far the most inquisitive and perspicacious.
An aside to Murdoch: I've spoken with two Board members since last night's meeting, and neither of them believes that anyone on the board is in possession of any more information than they had two weeks ago. The requested financials and bios simply have not materialized. The Board's action last night did not occur as a result of being privy to ANY new information.
The board simply threw in the towel, which is my main gripe about last night's Board action.
It does not bode well for the future, I think, if the Board/Council's legitimate question are routinely ignored.
Having not been at the meeting, I do not understand the whole gist of this new situation.
It would be interesting to hear the RDA board's reasoning on this. It is hard for me to believe that Garcia, Wicks, Glasmann, Jeske and Stephens would roll over that easy because of a llittle heat from the Godfreyites.
The most troubling thing would be if they are operating in the old style of secret knowledge and handshakes that was so common with the old RDA board/Council. Was there any public discussion by the board as to why they were voting like they did?
I ainta gonna believe that Glasmann is in bed with Lord Godfrey till I catch them in biker drag making out in the Kokomo toilet, like I did with the Lord and Stu a few months ago!
hahaha Ozboy your hilarious! You freeking crack me up!
I think it all boils down to the administration's basic redevelopment philosophy, Ozboy: The administration doesn't give a tinker's damn about the financial capacity or stability of ANY company they install into one of the Ogden RDA's redevelopment sites.
All they care about is the almighty property tax dollar. Once a new "patsy" holds title to a property, and has put a new building in place, that patsy -- or any successors in interest -- including foreclosing lenders -- are on the hook for the tax on the enhanced value of the property. One patsy's as good as another, as far as they're concerned.
Thus they don't focus on the long-term stability of entities like Ernest, or Fatcats or Gold's.
They couldn't care less if the initial investors succeed or fail, as long as somebody's name remains on the tax bill.
Unlike those of us who look at RDA-driven redevelopment (however reluctantly) as an activity designed to enhance neighborhoods in the long run; the wonks in the administration ignore long-term impacts, and can deal with a few more empty buildings -- so long as they're NEW ones.
My fear is that some members of the Board, in their innocence and inexperience, are starting to buy into the administration's narrow short-term view.
I believe that may partly explain the new Board's surprising flip-flop.
It's the RDA disease at its worst; and it is indeed highly contagious.
A sidebar to Ozboy:
One of the interesting fixtures last night was a television camera, which a WSU telecommunations student used to tape last night's entire council/RDA session.
I spoke with this young student briefly. He told me he was taping the sessions as part of a WSU class project -- and that he expected his work product to be broadcast sometime soon on Ogden's Channel 17.
Thus there's the possibilty that those of our gentle readers who missed last night's very entertaining event will be able to view it very soon.
I'll keep my eyes peeled and let you know if I can determine firm dates and times for this broadcast.
If any of our gentle readers have information on this...
Please don't hesitate to chime in.
Take a look at this very interesting article from today's Mobile Register:
Prosecutors say Orange Beach mayor, city attorney were given stakes in $3.2 million home by developer
Well said Larsen my boy! However, we should all come together to oppose Boyer's plan to isolate the new mall site from the good businesses on the East side of Washington. These patient folks who have waited for progress, now have flaming brown bags on their doorsteps courtesy of Boyer.
I have given myself 11 hours to calm down over this action by Ogden's newly elected Council.
The first obvious question is:
Why did Glasmann, Garcia, Stephens and Jeske run for office making public statements that they would make the necessary changes to Ogden City government when they did not know themselves well enough to know that they didn't have the backbone to do it?
Why did they even run at all when they intended to go along with the League of Cities master plan to create bigger RDA government beyond the control of taxpayers?
What was the big rush to capitulate to RDA Harmer and Brown and Mayor Godfrey when Bill Cook told them they could extend the public hearing for another week?
A possible answer is that three of the four are political neophytes and didn't realize what the consequences of their actions were but Jesse Garcia cannot claim that excuse.
Another obvious thought is that all of them capitulated to the pressure of the Ogden Standard's editorials and news reporting which has been quite biased and cruel.
It is clear that they have betrayed the trust of all persons like me who supported and worked to get them elected because we believed that they had enough political savy to know what they were doing.
I cannot believe that they would make a personal financial decision without knowing fully whom they were dealing with. They would not make a personal financial decision without knowing all the costs of what they were doing.
I cannot believe that they would make a personal financial decision to climb into bed with just any company without having all the questions answered that have been raised over the last two weeks.
They make me think of a prostitute who is so desperate for a financial deal that she sells not only her body but her soul.
But the obvious answer is that they know they are not dealing with their private funds. They have the Ogden City citizens on the hook to cover their fannies so they skate on the edge.
Maybe they aren't as stupid as they come across.
Another thing that has me most disturbed is that Jesse Garcia is making a very weak Chair of the Council.
Garcia does not enforce Roberts Rules of Order or whatever hodgepodge of rules they are using. He allows David Harmer to jump up every three minutes and take over the meeting. Harmer should be told to sit down and shut up.
Garcia needs to get in control of the meetings. This fisaco last night could not have occurred if he had been in control.
Garcia and the rest of the Council need to pay attention to Bill Cook and draw on his wealth of knowledge when he makes a statement instead of listening to RDA con man Harmer.
We wasted our money and efforts to elect this council. They have completely ignored the message that Ogden voters sent that we wanted Ogden City government shaped up.
Dorothy wake up and see who you are and how you come across. You associate yourselves with a few narrow minded souls (Moyes, Beech, etc) who devote every waking moment to obstruct, vilify, and criticize!
Maybe the new council have gained a broader vision now in office.
You represent a group of fringe, mean spirited, hecklers. You are Ogden's Ciny Sheehan. People like you may make noise during election cycles but please realize you have no effect on policy. Clearly once in office, elected officials see why elected officials do what elected officials do. And there will always be people like you to fill the role of the antagonist, that's all you do!
Do something constructive like Rudi, enev though we aren't always in agreement, he at least works very hard to get the word out to EVERYONE to discuss and debate.
Mr. Iowa Kid:
I am my own person and I say it like I see it.
Well, Steve--one of the things we were discussing here was the importance of information. Had the Mobile city council, or RDA or whatever, been given the information that their mayor and this developer were in business together, I have no doubt that business there would have been conducted differently.
In fact, that's one of the allegations:
Further, prosecutors contend that Sutley and Russo conspired to keep their business with Brown concealed and that they failed as public officials to recuse themselves from discussions and votes regarding the developer's projects.
One wonders if the body dealing with "discussions and votes regarding the developer's projects" even thought to ask if one of their members had a personal interest in these projects. They should have.
You state in your post that the RDA should not have to get information regarding principals and financials when clearing the land for a developer. It makes a difference, doesn't it, when members of the public body deciding these things have a personal interest in the project and stand to gain by it.
That's why I believe that the RDA has a right to know information regarding principals and financials of developers. If they don't, it leaves room for what's currently going on in Mobile to go on here.
Whoa, Iowa KID!
It's amusing that your ilk likes to link whomever you're angry with at the moment..... with ....ME!!!
Thru many years of broadcasting, lecturing, and debating, I've learned that I know I'm always on the right side when I see who my enemies are.
So, thanx for linking me with Dorothy...she has guts, smarts, and knows what she's talking about!
Also, you and your pals, who toss my name around actually imbue me with a lot of perceived power!
That's why the angry yapping mongrels came out so viciously and voraciously over me supporting Jeske! I'd never realized that putting up signs for a candidate (against the mayor's darling incumbent) COULD be perceived by the impotent as a power ploy.
But, WHAT EV ER,, it worked, eh?
Since when, before the new council was in office, did we ever hear that Ernest would be the 'anchor' to the River Parkway Project? I thot classy restaurants and shops were being touted! How does a rehab hosp fit in? Now we have another manufactured 'crisis' by his hizzoner.....we have to have Ernest before the project can take off...or we'll lose our options, etc. Can anyone say Fat Cats and Gold's Gym? How about 'lose it or use it"???? This administration operates in a manufactured crisis mode. Dealings in the dark, no info to the council, after requests for it, and blaming them for doing what they've been put in office to do: take a look at the 'projects' brot before them.
Shame on you nay sayers and mayoral lackeys. The 'word' is, that Brockette wasn't enthralled with that property Godfrey is pushing... that Ernest may prefer being close to a hosp. Why don't you progressives call Brockette, Geiger apparently has his number, and see if you can broker a deal between McKay Dee on their SW side and Mr. Brockette? Also, has anyone seen the explosion of growth in Utah County?? Why didn't Godfrey go after Ikea or Cabela's??? Or, the Wal Mart Neighborhood Market...have you taken a look at the businesses that have sprung up around that store on the 'dugway"? Which city is getting the revenue, Iowa and Larsen?
Don't blame this council for fouling up Godfrey's little plan with Brockette....Brockette even said to the council that Ernest had made NO commitments to Ogden!!! Oh, but you read the SubStandard, don't you, so naturally you couldn't be expected to know the facts.
Steve.....stop already!!! Aren't you sick and tired of yourself being a mouthpiece for this sneak of a mayor?
NO ONE HARRASSED BROCKETTE. You were there taking notes that nite...admit the truth for once.
So much madness in such little time. Hell people, the paint ain't even dry yet.
I'd think that maybe Ozboy is onto something here, as well as Dian and Murdock. Maybe those in Rudi's crosshairs just flat felt like, over 3-4 weeks of research, questions and answers, that things lined up good enough to give this one a try.
Sharon it looks as if Jeske is turning out to be quite a nice gift to Ogden, thank you for your help! The facts are you fall in to the heckler category spoken of in an earlier post. The attention you have received shouldn't be considered "power", rather you are somewhat of a sideshow as it surprizes many that so much hatred, emnity, and meanness could come from such a little old, great great grandmother. The facts are, you fill a role that every city has, and I am ok with that, because while you continue to do what you do, more civilized Ogdenite's are waking up to the need to support the progress that you abhorrer.
Well Hello, Mr. President!
Fancy meeting you here, posting under another new ID!
Your IP address(es) have been noted.
How much fun would it be, I ask, to post your IP addresses on some of these Great Hacker Sites?
Mind your manners, son...
And it's Ms. Littrell to you, sonny-boy.
I also believe you should APOLOGIZE RIGHT AWAY!
Otherwise I'll have my own definition of fun.
Capice?
By the way, please keep calling the news outlets for your "press conferences" they really help our cause. I wish EVERYONE in Ogden could see the kind of riff raff the mayor has to put up with on a daily basis! Plus they give us a reason to show up in DROVES with "YES" stickers. We like the attention.
Rudi if you are referring to me as Mr. President, I am not he! I am merely someone from the other side of the isle (sometimes). Don't you want diversity of opinion and discussion here?
Sheesh...Iowa...I laff at your face. Actually, I did laff out loud.
Now that I have such a huge prosperity....I didn't realize my kids were so prolific...I'll have to learn to sew so I can make all those little boys and girls SUPERMAN and Wonder Woman capes, ....POWER TO THE PROLIFIC!
Wake up, steve, hello.
Getting fundsmentsl informstion on prospective business partenrs ain't exactly the same as a body-cavity search.
Earth calling Steve, over...
The RDA is a good concept in theory, but in practice it often becomes an immoral secret government like has happened in Utah. The RDA boards, as constituted under Utah law, have vast power and usually half vast knowledge as to how to wield that power.
As required by Utah law, the board has to be made up of the council members of the local political entitiy. The board does not have to know diddly squat about business, finance, marketing, real estate investing, development, or anything else for that matter. They are almost always just ordinary citizens serving their communities. That is why it is so fundamentally important for this citizen board to have a professional and highly qualified Executive Director. They are responsible for a multimillion dollar public owned company and they owe it to the public to run things professionally and intelligently, and most of all openly.
They need their own Executive that is not tarnished by past events. One with at least an MBA and ten years of pertinent experience. One who will do all of the necessary and proper due diligence, and report truthfully, simply and without bias to the board members about every asset and proposal that the board has.
The Ogden RDA is generally considered by the State Legislature and most other political entities in the State as the most inept and abusive of any in Utah.
The Executive Director of the Ogden board is an incompetent former slum lord who got his start by maxing out a bunch of credit cards. He has no other business education or experience. Yet he is directing the affairs of a public owned $50 million or so dollar company in a dictatorial manner. It appears that he is withholding important and pertinent information from his board. It appears that he is running this board in the same manner one might run a high priest council.
It is time for the tax payers of Ogden to have a competent manager in charge of our involuntary multi million dollar company. Until this happens, what happened at Tuesdays RDA meeting will happen at every RDA meeting.
HERE THEY ARE! YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS -- TAKE A POT SHOT AT THEM!! THEY DON'T CARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE FEELINGS. THEY ARE OUT IN THE PUBLIC EYE, TRYING TO SERVE THE CITIZENRY AND MAKE OGDEN A BETTER PLACE, SO THEY'RE FAIR GAME!! GIVE 'EM HELL!! THEY KNEW THEY'D BE SHOT AT!
Yes, we did, but I didn't think it would be friends, people whose judgment and advice I trusted, and thought that they trusted my judgment. You can at least rationalize when you take a hit from someone who you know where they're coming from, or someone who doesn't know you, or someone who believes everything that the SE prints. But you can't do that with people whom you thought were your friends. I guess I have to accept that maybe they are "fair weather" friends, or people who are your friends as long as they think they can control you.
I asked questions last night until I'm sure the staff felt like saying, "Come on, Dorrene! Don't you trust us?" or "Oh, Dorrene! Don't be absurb! That's the dumbest question I've ever heard! Do you think we're crooks?" It doesn't bother me what they think, at least I got my questions answered and I hope the citizens in the audience felt a little better about the Board voting for another RDA Bond. No one is happy about that, and Mr. Harmer in answering some of my questions, said what we all feel, when he said that he would prefer to take $4 million and buy the land, clear it, and put a "For Sale" sign on it, but right now Ogden doesn't have $4 million to do that, so we invent RDA projects. It will stop soon, and we will have businesses coming and paying their own way.
After my questions were answered before and during the meeting, and much deliberation deliberation, I voted for what I thought would be best for Ogden. I'm disappointed that those who I thought were my friends, but have so vehemently attacked the new Board/Council members, don't trust me and my judgment. I haven't changed -- I'm still the person, with the same morals, same goals and ideals as the one you supported and for whom you voted. It was a hard decision to make, and one that I wasn't totally happy about, but considering everything, it was the right one.
Oz Boy, I couldn't agree with you more -- the RDA Board does need a professional executive director who has planning experience and a degree. One who knows that he works for the Board, instead of crucifying them in the newspaper with lies.
Steve, elected officials represent the citizens and do have a right and obligation to ask for information from the staff and/or the executive director, and if they don't receive it, they are obligated to do their own due diligence before voting on issues and projects -- we were elected because we knew and accepted that philosophy. I will continue to ask question until I'm satisfied. The staff and executive director had the old Council believing they didn't need to exercise that right. This Board with the exception of a couple of members, does not feel that way. If we don't do our due diligence and a business fails, that sends a message loud and clear throughout the business world that businesses can't make it in Ogden, which is much worse than asking a few legitimate questions. I don't want that to happen to Ogden and make it any harder to draw businesses too Ogden, so either the staff and/or administration answer my questions or I'll obtain the info without their help.
Woe “ hold on there” the smoke needs time to clear. Before the last council meeting the Mayor was postured in a win/win position. If Ernest walked he would publicly blame the new council members but if they stayed he would use it to show the new council who has control. We all became so enthralled that nobody wanted to listen. Ernest had not committed to Ogden. If some how the conversation going back to Ernest from their reps in Ogden could be intercepted I bet the words “ what a bunch of dumb Asses “ has been used a lot. The mayor cohorts Ernest to come to Ogden and build and after a year’s time presents them to the RDA board in a hostile city council meeting. The Mayor is trying to whip the new council into shape and the new one week old council knows that they won the elections because the people of Ogden that are tired of all this crap wants a change. If I were Brockette I would have ask the mayor why don’t your RDA board members know what the hell is going on and why are we conducting business in a public council meeting. Here you are mayor playing childish politics with the RDA board that you are director of. To me it has been the Ernest reps that have been using good manners and that they only remain in Ogden to see what happens in the rest of this Iranian cluster "ah" Fire drill. It is an embarrassment to Ogden. And I hope its finds its rightful owner. In the end I think it will don’t you?
I would like to thank Mr. Larsen because after the numerous times that you have explained it (you even put it on paper for the city council and by request on a other blog.) I think we have all passed RDA 101 now. Where you got the inspiration to know jest what the good citizens of Ogden want and the intent of the RDA statue is beyond me. Think maybe the Mayor is catching on. Would you get with Matt and Bobby G to see if you guys can figure out the location of the enormous crater that all of Ogden’s citizens are going to be sucked into if the city does not become the lopsided business center you envision? “ Jee thanks “J You know there are some folks that think Ogden is a wonderful place now and maybe their is no need to run up a bill that are children and there children and there children will have to pay when you, I and Matt are long gone.
Ozboy you have shone to be an inspiration “ top marks”
It might interest you that some of the city’s near Ogden have part time Mayors. Clearfield, Clinton, West Point, and I think Roy to name a few. Could be an option for Ogden.
Oz Boy, Duke and Dorrene,
YESSS! We need an Exec Dir of the RDA Board! And, Duke, you are right about Ernest. He should have asked Godfrey why the RDA board hadn't been apprised of any of Godfrey's dealings with Brockette. Godfrey's attempt to control the board, as always, only showed him up as the L'il Napoleon and ego-driven 'kid' he is.
How many other businesses have walked away from Ogden because they don't want to deal with Godfrey's sneakiness? How many other 'deals in secret' has he attempted, that honest companies have said 'no thanks', Mr. Napoleon.
Godrey and the Geigers' seem to have the romantic notion that Ogden is just a 'little Park City'. What deals are you bringing us from Las Vegas, daddy?
I just got off the phone with Rep. Neil Hansen. Guess what?! Ogden City Administration doesn't like his HB0113 -- they're sending an administrator to meet with Rep. Neil at 10:00 this morning. I told him that there were a number of people who support his bill in Ogden, and not to let the Godfreyites intimidate him. We want his bill to pass. Guess who else doesn't like his bill? You guessed it -- Gary Nielsen of Gold's Gym called and told him, we don't need more government involvement. Ordinarily, I'd agree, but in this case, Ogden does need government involvment, just like last year's bill that put eminent domain on hold. If we didn't have such a sleazy administration, whose only ambition is to satisfy his mammoth-size ego, then we wouldn't need the legislature's intervention.
Email Rep. Hansen (neilhansen@utah.gov)and let him
know you support his bill. It is still in committee, but he said that he would get it out Monday. Also, go to Rudi's post, "Time to Hamstring the Give Away Artists." He has a link to all the State Representatives so that you can email your representative. For your senator, pull down the appropriate tab at the top of the page, and email your senator, too. That's HB0113 we want passed.
Dian,
I didn't read your linked article but just want to say that Utah has an ethics law that requires mayors and councilmembers to disclose their conflicts of interest in writing each year. I believe they are either required or encouraged to disclose them anytime something comes before them. They are not required to recuse themselves though most do.
However, if, as I believe you said about the article, they conspire to hide their involvement then the requirements in the disclosures would not have helped. Delving into the pricipals of a company while it might be of some benefit should not be a requirement to determine if those making the decisions are involved.
arcritic, as you say, this act of ascertaining the principals and financials of a corporation with which a municipality is working would not be solely motivated by a perceived need to police public officials. There are other factors involved which are looked at to aid in the decision of whether or not it would represent good judgment on the part of the municipality to enter into business with the corporation.
Since there seems to be a belief held among some that corporations are entitled to privacy in these matters, I point out another practice in our particular municipality of Ogden, Utah which is adamantly opposed to some rights of privacy and has an official incentive program to back it up.
This is Ogden's Good Landlord Program.
Here are the terms and conditions of a property management firm which is a member of this program outlining their particular process of ascertaining whether or not to rent to someone:
...we will conduct a background check. This will include a credit check, criminal background check, prior rental history, and income verification.
In the credit check you must have a predominantly positive report. What this means is that you must have more than 50% of your trade lines with on time payments.... Multiple bankruptcies are an automatic denial that would require a co-signer..
...a felony, anything drug related, or "convicted of any crime involving any threat or damage to property or person, nor for any crime which had it been committed on the landlord’s premises would have disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of other tenants." will be an automatic denial...
...The applicants payment history, complaints from neighbors, complaints from management, and any police involvement with the applicant. ...Evictions in the past three years are an automatic denial.
...Income must equal at least three times the full rental amount....
Now. These above information gathering practices are encouraged by Ogden City in the case of landlord and tenant relationships, i.e. private enterprise. Yet, when handed public monies under the auspices of redevelopment, some seem to be advocating a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
This is neither wise nor consistent. We cannot live in this day and age in an atmosphere of trust and innocence, especially if it is based on the size of a corporation and its assets, or upon someone's official position. or upon how much money someone has. Unethical and sometimes criminal behaviors have never been confined to one particular group or class of people. However, and this is very important, this does not mean that all should be treated as if they are of known criminal intent.
Therefore, requesting the very basic financial information on the part of the council, which I have heard was in fact provided to them, was simply part of the due diligence process, and was, in my opinion, much less invasive than Ogden's Good Landlord program, which deals with much less money and property than a redevelopment project, and private money and property at that.
Application of Good Landlord Program
Junior,
Thanks for the heads up on HB0113, it merly requires what should have been written in the lease contrats to begin with.
I would like to see the whole RDA law rewritten. I was amazed when I found that most of the criteria for declaring an area blighted are signs of neglect by the city. To allow streets, sidewalks, sewers to become run down and then declare the area blighted because the city did not do it's job disgusts me.
Finally, Ogden already has too much Comercial property. Just look at all the empty stores. We should be redeveloping the commercial areas, not tearing down neighborhoods
Dian - the so called "good landlord" program was, and is, a lame assed money grab by the morally bankrupt Godfrey regime.
They passed it with some dummied up "studies" and they now justify it with even more vague made up "statistics" that prove it is "working".
The bottom line is that no one can show that this bull shit program has done one thing that it was designed to do. All it does is extract more cash out of the renting class of Ogden.
It turns the landlords into cops and puts a whole new layer of difficulty on the backs of renters and property owners. The drug dealers are still dealing drugs out of the same places. The criminals are still living in the same rentals, The slumlords are still gouging the renters that have few choices with housing. The junk houses, the crack houses, the whorehouses are still in the same places creating the same problems. The only difference is that now the city just rakes off a shit load of cash from the least fortunate amongst us. The slum lords merely pass this extra cost onto those least able to afford it.
To add insult to injury, you have to go to city hall to pay this evil tribute to the Godfreyites - if you are not on a computer with a printer! Seems like Lord Godfrey has decided that ALL business licenses have to be done "online". So when the city goes to the trouble of sending you the bill for the license, they actually only send you a computer code so you can go on line to print your own application! If you do not have a computer or printer, then you MUST go to city hall in person to get on line with their staff to print out your application and give them your tribute. Again, this applies to ALL business licenses issued by the city.
It is just one more example of how unfriendly Ogden city is to businesses. Just one more example of why business people that have done business in Ogden look for reasons and opportunities to leave. Just one more reason that I bought property in No. Ogden, and started another business in So. Ogden.
(incidently, I just paid my business license to So. Ogden. The license was a lot less expensive than it would be in Ogden, the application was sent to me so that I could return it by mail, and it wasn't due until this week - as opposed to Ogden's requirement of 1 Jan - or you pay a double!!!) (More business unfriendly!!)
It would be every bit as efficient it the damn city would just send a friggen bill to begin with, then the victim of this extortion could merely drop the tribute into the mail with no further hassle and inconvenience.
BUT NOOOOOO, not in Ogden, when I inquired about this bull shit with the very nice and accomodating Ogden city staff, they told me they agreed that it was bad policy that screwed over the citizens, however it was decreed from the mayor's office that it would be this way! But then Lord Godfrey has never shown that he gives a squat about the citizens and business owners of Ogden. He couldn't care less what hassles his inane policies create with the people of this city. He couldn't care less about the expense and hoops the people have to jump through to accomodate his quest for glory.
Just one more example of how Godfrey and his sycophants have such contempt and disregard for the time and money of the citizens and tax payers of Ogden.
Smoke filled back rooms....I wonder, could it be that more goes on back there than secret handshakes? Could it be that there are "Q & A" periods, wherein researching and studying certain issues occur? What a unique thought? And one other possibility: because a couple of Board members didn't get all the answers to their questions, does that mean that ALL Board members didn't?
From my perspective, it seems that Jeske got it just about right. And I'd encourage the Board to follow Ozboy's reasoning about the Executive Director. Makes sense.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Ogden will neither be changed or saved nor will the people be "sold-out" over the first issue the Board faces. Premature. Way too much speculation, rather than FACTUAL conclusion.
Oh yeah, STEVE! You tried your message on the town and it was unceremoniously and summarily rejected last November. You still don't get it.
The above: my humble opinion only. After all, isn't much of this stuff merely OPINION?
A query:
Just read the contents of the mandated security check prospective tenants have to submit to before renting from an Ogden-certified "good landlord." I notice that any felony conviction in one's past results in immediate denial of a lease.
So, just out of curiosity, where is someone convicted of a felony say ten years ago who moves to Ogden to take a new job, perhaps, supposed to live? Does mandating a denial to all who have felony convictions, no matter how long ago, no matter their record [or lack of one] since constitute good public policy?
Landlords are certainly free as private businessmen and women to conduct what background checks they think necessary, and to deny leases on whatever [legal] grounds they think reasonable. But is it wise for Ogden to mandate that they must deny for any particular reason?
Just wondering.
P.S. Before anyone asks, no, I do not have a felony record and have never been refused a lease. I have however flat refused to pay a fee in order to apply for an appartment lease. That is part of the leasor's cost of doing business, not the potential renter's.
that's an incorrect interpretation of good landlord. it does not prohibit renting to anyone who has a felony within 10 years. such a standard likely would be held unconstitutional.
Just looked at the 'editorial' page of the SE and AGAIN there is not a letter repudiating the vicious attack on the "new" council members by that untrue and awful editorial nearly two weeks ago.
I wrote a letter, which was finally printed, stating the facts of the RDA meeting with Brockette. THAT is the only letter I've seen written by anyone who agrees that the council/board acted in a welcoming but appropriately questioning manner.
Many of the 'con' letters have been written by people who were not in attendance.
How abut some public support for this council in the way they treated Darby Brockette of ERNEST??
Unfortunately, MOST readers apparently do believe everything they read in the SE and hear from the Geiger's, et al, at Exchange Club, etc.
We have an opportunity to hear an alternative to the gondola on Mon..Jan 30th...see "Back to the Future"....that Rudi put on the Forum a few days ago. You KNOW we're going to be butting heads with Godfrey over this gondola, and we would serve ourselves to be well informed about the efficacy of streetcars and how other cities have been revitalized! Please invite everyone you know so we can have a huge turnout for Jeffrey Boothe of WA D.C.
Thanks, y'all.
In response to curmudgeon and anonymous said…
I would like to add to the observations that you have made concerning Ogden’s good landlord program. After reading your comments I thought it might not be appropriate to go on about this subject because this particular rant is about what the council has done but the more I think about it has every thing to do with what the council has done. We all benefit from the wisdom that Dian brings to the table. In this case the thought that the Mayor is likely to enter Ogden into a 7 million dollar obligation that will take twenty or so years to pay off and not even expect at least out Ernest what he expects out of someone that wants to rent a house in Ogden rings true. His position was made when he chastised the council for asking questions that was not in any way as sever of what he expects his non voluntary police landlords to do. So in my book Diane deserves are admiration for her always-astute observations. Curmudgeon your query lends to the fact of what a scholastic and one minded peace of work that Ogden’s good landlord program is. By it Ogden’s administration (that are mayor is head of) infringes on even the very basic business conducted in Ogden. It tells the less fortunate in Ogden that their welfare is not are problem and if you don’t leave we will tax you tell you do. I wonder if the mayor realizes that the three times the rent monthly income clause would disqualify many retired, people that live on social security and handicapped from living in Ogden. It forces small businesses to attend the administrations indoctrination classes to enforce its whims. Do you recall ex councilman Larsen’s comments regarding why Ogden should tear down it’s old buildings because bad people would occupy them and stampede all the shrubbery. Well the good landlord program was stuffed down Ogden’s citizens throat on the bullshit bandwagons persistence that Ogden was being overran by gangsters and drug dealers .I don’t buy into that do you? Ogden’s good landlord program is jest one more embarrassment that the citizens of Ogden have to live with. So it does have to do with one of the many reasons why we have a new council in Ogden and it does have to do with why folks that love Ogden get emotional when their even seams to be a slight setback. We tire of the BS and so desperately need change. How many times just in January of 2006 has the treat of business being run out of Ogden been made. Tell the mayor the damage is already done. It left Ogden because “ are” cities administration and “are” past and present mayors makes for piss poor business partners. That is why wall- mart is in Riverdale, Harrisville and has committed to build on are west side in West Haven. We don’t have any background or real world experience in business and we need to get professional help or all the towns around us will finish swallowing us up. This cannot be trusted to jest are friends that have money. Adventure centers, gondolas and park ways are only band aides of temporary cover and will not in the long run add necessary change. That is why we had to tear down the old mall and we will be tearing down the adventure center, gondola and parkway because new businesses will find like the old ones did. We in are arrogance refused to change.
The chessboard has merely been placed and all the peaces are steal in transit so it’s going to be a wile before the games end. Because of are new council each day brings with it hope. Are patriots will lick there the wounds and return because they are not quitters and Ogden will have a chance to grow. I have not given up on are new council and believe they are Ogden’s best. It jest needs time.
Pretty much agree with Beech and Duke. The Council could use some support in newspaper to offset the anti-council bully type BS that so often appears in its pages. It is disappointing that this blogmaster, most recently, has now taken club in hand and offered a somewhat distorted opinion of the Board's rolling over. Not the case. Seems that these good people are in crosshairs from both sides now; but I think they'll come out on top because of what is REALLY going on.
The Landlord program is one of those things that the Council should absolutely re-visit, along with a few more Godreyesque issues. Like someone said, Rome wasn't built in a day nor will the politics of Ogden be resolved over ONE vote. There seems to be a method to their madness, if ya ask me.
Mz. Beach -
The SubStandard is censoring the news and public comments on this Ernest deal! They are intentionally not printing any letters that contradict their propoganda on this issue. I personally know of several letters to the editor on this subject that have never seen print in this rag - that is such a sorry excuse for a daily news paper
The SubStandard had a sweet heart deal with Godfrey on their current property at BDO. They ended up "swapping" for it. Their cost was about $750 thousand. Go look at their place, it is certainly worth many times that amount. Who made up the difference? Yep, the tax payers of Ogden!!
That is the reason this rag has been so doggedly loyal to Godfrey and all of his outrageous and stupid money losing schemes. They owe him big time, they are owned by an out of state group that could not care less about the citizens of Ogden.
The editorial "writer" at the Sub is a hack named Porter who couldn't carry the jock of a real journalist! He is a joke, and the joke is on the citizens of this one "newspaper" town.
The only reason they printed your letter is because of the noise you make (thanks) and the fact that they think they already have you marginalized! After all of the "pro" letters, they just had to print at least one retort!
To you and Dorothy and Rulon and Jim and all the rest of the rebels with a cause, I say thank you and please keep it up. Ogden needs you more than you will ever know.
To Rudizink, Dorothy and Almanack, it's amazing how easy it is to condemn someone without knowing all the facts, and how fast people forget that this Council took office with their hands tied behind their backs because of the actions/decisions made by the previous Council. You have your own tunnel vision opinions - that's all they are - and anyone who steps out of that narrow point of view is a neocon no-good politician according to you. Reading the posts here, I'd say you are in the minority - most people are willing to give the new Council a chance, but not YOU, SELF-RIGHTEOUS obstructionists!
Almanack is struggling with the new Council's decision! You don't think the new council members have struggled with the Ernest issue? Maybe that was part of the reason they asked so many questions of Brockette -- because there were questions that needed answering, but the administration failed the Council by not giving them the information they felt they needed. I know Jeske struggled with it -- she voted "Nay" twice before hesitantly voting "aye" Tuesday. She told me that she had checked to see if there were another way to fund the River Project other than using RDA funds, and was it necessary to use RDA funds. She was told in both instances, that the previous Council had made that decision several years ago, and had taken the necessary actions to see that the project was funded with RDA money. It seems to me you are condemning the wrong people. You should congratulate them for making sure that NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNLESS ERNEST SIGNS A CONTRACT WITH OGDEN CITY -- NO LINE OF CREDIT DISBURSEMENT -- NO BONDS ISSUED!
You owe them an apology! There is no excuse for the roasting you gave them! The Standard and Mayor owe them an apology for the lies they told about them. The Mayor isn't man enough to do that and accept that he's the reason that Ernest had NOT signed a contract after a year of working on it. The Mayor had his agenda and was using Ernest so he could start the River Project, but Ernest didn't want to be the anchor for the project, and they wanted to locate closer to hospitals and medical facilities. Ernest saw an opportunity to get out of a difficult situation and save face. The Mayor couldn't admit that he was wrong in pushing an undesirable site for Ernest, so he told the Standard that the new RDA Board members had badgered and were rude to Brockette. People who know these three new Council members know that they don't behave that way.
So let's lighten up and encourage them -- not hammer away at them and make them ineffective Council members. You three, Rudizink, Dorothy, and Almanack, deserve "Fs" in your social and humanitarian skills.
Well now new voice, I do agree with some of what you wrote, but not all. I think that Dorothy, Almanac and Rudi where right on point with their observations. A little aggressive maybe, but none the less correctamundo on their points. This aggressive stuff is to be expected in the blogosphere incidently.
I also agree with you on the net effect of this bonding thing the RDA board voted for that has raised this whole subject. If Ernest doesn't get off the pot and sign up, then no bonding will go forward on this vote. No foul, no harm. If Ernest doesn't sign then it will show what a manipulator and liar our dear mayor really is. If they do sign up, then presumably the bonds will get paid and the citizens won't get screwed for another dumb Godfrey idea.
The real tragedy for Ogden is in the way this whole sorry affair, and almost all of the other RDA projects, have been orchestrated by the incompetent and self important Godfrey and his inner team. Six years, sixty million dollars, and not one single verifiable success! Some dream team the mayor has assembled. Just think, they only are costing us a million a year or so in salaries and perks!! (that doesn't include any secret severance packages that most likely exist amongst them)
The most troubling thing to me, in this particular affair, is the apparent continuation of the behind closed door secret knowledge and dealings thing that got the old council booted. People will not have near as much heart burn over the council's actions if they just give the citizens full disclosure as to the reasons behind their decisions. After all, we are supposed to have a transparent government, aren't we?
I say lets give the new council a chance to show us their true colors. The game is new and they have been ganged up on by the mayor and his very high priced team of hit men that are slopping out of the public trough. I am sure that Godfrey has been putting the full court press on them in an evil attempt to bowl them over and bring them under control.
What's wrong with a little shock-treatment, "New Voice?" This is an internet-based forum, afterall -- and not a Sunday school class. I'll note in passing that Ozboy has made a similar point a few minutes upthread.
And though some of us can be legitimately criticized for undecorous conduct from time to time, I don't believe Ms. Littrell or I (I can't speak for almanack) could ever be criticized for failing to do our homework. We're always digging for more information; and we can't be rightly criticized if somebody is suppressing material facts -- or outright lying.
I appreciated your factual analysis and theory, BTW. It's a pretty good "grand theory." It accounts for Tuesday night's happenings as coherently as anything I've read or heard so far. It explains a variety of disparate facts. I do believe you're possibly on the right track with that part.
Ultimately it comes down to this, however: If any of our public officials are aware of the set of facts that you've set forth here, why are we NOT hearing it from them?
If Godfrey was pushing the Riverfront property, to the exclusion of other/more desirable sites -- why didn't he just come out and admit it?
The same can be asked of Mr. Brockette, BTW.
And what about this whole business of the Board's asking fundamental qualifying questions, and then publically backing down and voting to activate the $3million RDA credit line with no further questions asked? One of the problems I'm hearing about, BTW, is that Godfrey has had most of this requested information in the Administration's files for over six months; yet it was NEVER disclosed to the council.
Another disturbing rumor is that SOME (and not all) of the sitting Board have actually seen this requested information -- but they view it as "confidential," i.e., NOT available to the lumpenpublik.
Don't blame honest citizens who are seeking the truth, when it's obvious that certain facts are being misrepresented, and material information is being suppressed.
For my part, I view my blogger role as the guy who opens the discussion in a free-market-of-ideas atmosphere. The truth will ultimately come out in a forum like this, especially if people like you speak out forthrightly This is exactly what happened with your comment.
It seems to me the enemy is secrecy and lies; not the honest citizens who ask the questions.
If Ogden citizens truly expect to "shine the light" on government, the effort starts in places like this, I believe.
If it will make you feel any better, BTW, I'm in regular communication with some of the folks you're nobly trying to defend, and our relationships are really quite good -- at least in my estimation.
I'll be working in future weeks at the grass-roots level to help roll back the veil of lies and secrecy that so seriously pervades our Ogden City government. I am exceedingly confident that at least a few of our sitting council/RDA Board members are entirely on the same page as I.
Look for some big changes as our new council finds its sea-legs.
Thanx for engaging us, New Voice. Your comments are much appreciated. please don't be a stranger here.
Well, New Voice, you just made me furious.
Not because of your post as a whole, because I do indeed agree with a lot of it and I thank you for writing it.
What threw me was this:
She told me that she had checked to see if there were another way to fund the River Project other than using RDA funds, and was it necessary to use RDA funds. She was told in both instances, that the previous Council had made that decision several years ago, and had taken the necessary actions to see that the project was funded with RDA money.
What? What???
FOUL!
In my opinion, the answer to the question, " if there were another way to fund the River Project other than using RDA funds, and was it necessary to use RDA funds." should have been, "Yes, of course there is, and no, of course it's not. There are always other options available."
The approval meeting for the rec center project was not too long ago. Do we or do we not remember the Council OVERTURNING, OR REPEALING, A PREVIOUS COUNCIL'S ORDINANCE, in order to have the lease money from BDO also diverted to rec center costs, instead of having a portion of it earmarked for infrastructure as the previous council had ordained?
I mean, the answer Ms. Jeske was given was partially true in that it was consistent with the definition and parameters of the project up until now. What angered me about it is that it may have implied that previous actions of previous councils are set in stone and the present RDA has no choice but to follow their mandates.
What happened at the rec center meeting shows us that that is definitely not the case, and I hope the Council/RDA realizes that.
Put it this way---if you want to call it The River Project, and have it under the auspices of the RDA, and carry through with what the previous RDA was doing with it, then you would of course use RDA funds for it.
But there is nothing that says you have to do that. The RDA could get out of it. The RDA could sell it. The RDA could parcel it off and sell it. The RDA could formulate yet more plans. The RDA could approach other entities.
The RDA, as long as it follows procedure and there are no signings, agreements, or contracts it has entered into with potential developers of that land, can basically do whatever it wants by majority rule. It is a sole entity, distinct from the Council and administration, and concerns itself with redevelopment.
Not knowing all of the opinions and leanings of our new Council/RDA members, it is possible that they have all gotten behind the existing project and want to see it go as previously planned. But the thought that our new council and RDA members might be being deliberately misled, or have an imperfect understanding of the powers they have, and that those they are asking questions of are deliberately prolonging that imperfect understanding, is really too much. I hope I am wrong about this and became irritated for nothing.
However, I do hope the Council/RDA does realize the extent of their powers, which are many, and use them to steer us on the right course.
Whatever that may be.
O.K. I guess what I was saying, was: it appeared that the three of you were trying to intimidate or whip the new council into performing the way you think they should, just as Godfrey is trying to do. I rather like the idea that they are their own person, and independent thinkers. The only one that I question who may have given in to the pressure exerted by Godfrey and the Standard is Doug Stephens. Did you hear his comments Tuesday night? He thinks the Mayor and his staff are doing a good job! One short month and he's already caved in! I wonder how long it will take the Mayor to completely brainwash him as he has Stephenson and Safsten. Any one want to make wagers? I'll give the Mayor 3 months, maybe 4 to completely brainwash Doug. I was sure surprised at his comments Tuesday night. Naw, I'll stick with the 3 months.
Dian, I can't answer your question. I don't know what the Council knows or feels, only once in a while do I get some insight as to what is happening from Ms. Jeske.
Let's hope she and Glasmann have a stiffer backbone than Stephens. And I think that they do. At least I have faith in them to do what they were elected to do and what is best for Ogden.
Thanks for welcoming me to your blog.
In a gunfight at some point in time one appoint or the other has to face the fact that the other cowboy’s revolver cleared leather first. As spectators could we have seen that one cowboy had his hand already on his pistol grip? A more experienced gunfighter knows to put his back to the sun so the glare will help to blind his appoint. He knows that if he can say or do something to cause his appoint to become angry or emotional it will cause him to lose focus and taint his aim .He knows if he does not let spectators distract him and stays true to his goals his aim will be focused and most likely his bullet will strike between the eyes. So let us recount what went on in the saloon before the fight moved out into the street.
Results of the 2005 election are that some seats on the city council has changed hands so cowboys with a different point of view have stepped up to the bar and the cowboys that lost needed to step down but in their reluctance to do so steal voice opinion as if they were steal on board insisting lord mayor has been missed judged. Now there were some cowboys at the bar that in the past have shown disgust and contempt but who can blame them for keeping their mouths shut because in the past gunman Mayor had shone to be ruthless. And to prove there point the mayor and his posse got all eyes on themselves by using the RDA and voting to inter into a contract that gave Boyer Management Co. the right to make business decision in Ogden’s future. They did this jest after Christmas and a week or so to go before the new council could take hold. A cowardly punch to the back that would get the whole saloon heckling. Larry miller got privet invite to the circus a further act to gain more attention. “Let us see if you can rope this calf dip shit” was there jest and farewell mooning of Ogden cities voters.
With less than 1 week in office the new council was enticed to vote on new nursing home in down town Ogden. I think enticed because they were told options to obtained ground would be lost and are new tenants will leave if you don’t do this right now. When some of the new cowboys started to ask questions that made scents the cowboy mayor cohorts fellow gunslinger standard examiner to pants the new councilman in public eye. The mayor needs everyone to think it is there ineptness that causes the fight to move to the street. The mayor calms eggs in his basket that have not been laid. There is no line of eager buyers trying to get land options, so time was not at escents and South Health had no commitment to buy land that the mayor had picked in the first place.
So now we are all out in the street high noon has passed and gunslinger Pee Wee Goof free has his back to the sun. His revolver cleared leather first but he will not pull the trigger. He will not pull the trigger because this whole thing is based on lies told for political gain. He knows that from now on it will be harder to tell these kinds of lies because nowadays cowboys are getting smarter. He is afraid to politically murder his self when all the dust settles.
The council now has presents and any comment that has the effect of creating internal division is 100% counter productive and looses focus. We as supporters need to set example. This council is” are “step into a brighter Ogden. Let us in every way we can unite are council. That way Ogden can have a true Mayor – Council form of government and not what seams to be a Mayors whim government.
Reminds me of the movie, "Tombstone." Damn, were those Earp Brothers and Doc Holliday good, or what. They ambled along through until pushed too hard, by BOTH sides, remember, the bad guys called "The Cowboys" and the imposter "Marshall," who "graciously" suggested and represented law and order but took his direction basically from "The Cowboys." Sub-plots galore.
Seems the same fate has fallen on the new council. In the cross-hairs from BOTH sides. But, there's this place called the OK Corral looming ahead. There, the Earps told it like it was and reacted very appropriately by gunning 'em all down, except for the Marshall....that guy didn't show up until the smoke had cleared, but by then his significance had waned and was pretty much by-passed by Holliday and the Earps from then on. He even lost out on the girl.
And, speaking of movies, where's Larry? Anyone seen him or heard from him, besides those 2 sheepherders over at Broke Back Mountain?
Larry Miller isn't comin any time soon. In fact he isn't going to "show" at all!
You can quote me on that.
When the 60 days are up we are going to be treated to the next chapter in the Boyer authored story of Pee Wee's great adventure center. This one will be on finding a new theater operator to replace Miller after he tearfully regrets that he is not going to "do" Ogden after all. (This is the same Miller who recently treated us to a lecture on being a bunch of losers if we didn't believe in the new mall!)
When a principal in a real estate deal gets as quiet as Miller has, the deal usually takes on the actions of a flock of geese....it's flying South.
Miller is too much of an entertainer/showman/developer to not be out extolling the virtues of his 12 screen complex and pumping up the jam.
BL, I think and have thought for eons, is right on with this one.
Yeah, where the hell is Miller, the risk taker? He chastised us for taking too much time with the mall and not taking risk until now. Does the Mayor really "know this guy?"
Good questions. And do we even know when the deadline is? I think it was sixty days from the day Boyer signed the agreement. Either that, or sixty days from the time the RDA approved the Boyer contract. I don't know which one, and I don't know when Boyer signed, either.
Does anyone?
When is zero day for the contract with Boyer to be nullified, (? That was my understanding,) in case Miller doesn't sign?
Dian
I think the "60 days" that Bonnie referred to starts after 90 days from when the deal was signed which was 13 Dec 05.
It is covered in section 5 c of the "Development Agreement" It says that Boyer has 90 days to sign Miller or some other theater operator. If they don't, the RDA has the option to pull the plug on the whole deal. If the RDA chooses that option then they have to give Boyer a 60 day notice. Any time in that 60 days Miller or any other theater owner can opt in and effectively stop the RDA cancellation of the agreement. In other words the whole thing hangs on Miller, or a substitute, coming on board in the next few months. And they can string it out to the last day if they want. About 13 March will be the first 90 days when Boyer either has a theater contract or not. 13 May would be the second 60 days within which they can still deliver a theater deal and keep it alive..
It becomes moot if the RDA does not choose to nullify the whole deal in the event Boyer is unable to deliver a theater operator. In other words, this whole project could still go forward without a theater?
The Gym - Bowling Alley has already been committed to and is presumably under way. If there is no theaters would the Gym be feasible? If there is no theaters is the mall feasible? Did Godfrey's million dollar brain trust think this through before they jammed it through the lame duck council? I sure hope so, they are after all pretty smart guys.
Seems like the theater - Gym - children’s museum combo is what was represented as being necessary for the critical mass required to pull this off. The mayor's whole sales pitch on the mall was centered around this combination of facilities. He repeatedly stressed the need for all three. No where have I ever heard the million dollar team address the potential of doing the project without a theater complex.
What if Boyer or the RDA pulls out? Will the Godfreyites still forge ahead and build the Rec center? Is it possible that after this 4 year ordeal of incompetence that we will end up with a big ol' white elephant of a Rec Center sitting right smack dab in the middle of the giant Matt's Mudd hole?
I sure hope not. I have a certain contempt for the mayor and his six year reign of incompetence. However, on this mall deal I am extremely hopeful that it all goes as planned and the crowds appear and down town Ogden comes back to life. There is nothing I would like more than to admit that hizzoner was right about this whole mall project.
After reading these two contracts I am not that optimistic. They are two of the more lopsided agreements that I have seen. Boyer has almost all of the control on every aspect of the entire project for many many years into the future. They have many loop holes to either bail out or to put the screws to their partner the RDA (Ogden citizens) I would be embarrassed to have been the negotiator on the city's behalf in these agreements.
However, not all is bleak. The upside of the agreements is that they take control of the commercial destiny of down town Ogden out of the incompetent hands of politicians for the rest of most of our lives. So lets pray for Boyer - that they won't bail out and that they put together a great project that really works.
Nothing like giving somebody enough time.
Thanks, Ozboy. That's very clear. And I agree with you that the terms of the entire deal, from my memory also, hinge on those three things being present. In fact, I think I remember Boyer saying that the theatre was absolutely necessary for them to succeed, and that they could not do the project unless it was there.
I don't think the city itself is in the position to go ahead with anything, and that includes the rec center. I may be wrong about this. But my understanding was that the whole project, including the Rec center, became under the control of Boyer at the time of that signing. Meaning that Boyer is in charge of contracting construction, setting timelines, etc. My understanding is that with that signing, it is no longer possible to spit parts of that project off. Is that correct?
It looks like signing that deal before all the parties were locked in might have put us right back into limbo on this. Basically, what it looks like is that if one component of the deal balks, everyone else is in effect frozen for the next four months. And that is not a good place to be in.
We all hope that something gets underway down there soon.
Dian
I do not believe that Boyer is in charge of building the Rec center. That is an RDA responsiblilty. It is dealt with in the "Development Agreement" Section 5 b. It requires the RDA to commence construction of the Rec Center BEFORE Boyer starts the rest of the mall.
Also, Boyer doesn't have to start until 120 days after the RDA completes a bunch of work outlined on Schedule 1 of the Agreement. Unfortunately I do not have a schedule 1 in the copy I have. My guess is that it includes finishing the parking structures and other site preperation.
These two contracts incidently put a huge on going burden on the RDA to perform a whole lotta stuff - to Boyer's satisfaction and at their sole discretion!
There are many options through out these two contracts where Boyer can take a hike - at their sole discretion. There is precious few places in said contracts that the RDA can do the same!
That was what I'd thought originally, Ozboy, that the rec center was not Boyer. But then, something around the time of the rec center meeting led me to believe that it was, and I was surprised at this. Now you are saying that by contract, it's not. Hmm.
I Know that RDA funds were to be used to build the Rec center, because this was one of those things where we were told that we had to use those monies for that purpose or we would lose them. I suppose I concluded that the monies would be at Boyer's disposal for the contracting and building.
Whatever.
You know, in thinking about the mind-set in that project, where all things are contingent on all other things, this is really strange. This whole idea that one's business will succeed or fail based largely on whomever is next door or around the corner. I think that's odd. I think that places too much dependence on outside factors, and actually communicates that one's business is not strong enough to stand on its own.
Actually, this way of looking at things is very similar to something Brockette said in the RDA meeting, that his business plan included other entities around him and that this was something his plan mentioned as being critical, almost, to his success.
It would be very interesting at this point to get an official statement or signing from Larry Miller as to his intentions, wouldn't it. Brockette too, as a matter of fact.
Boyer, Miller, Brockette and Chris Peterson have done nothing but pretend to have an interest in our community. In reality, they only have an interest in our tax dollars for their projects. If Hansen is successful in passing his bill, they'll be SOL---No tax dollars for you....take your projects somewhere else or manage your own risk in Ogden. We're not you insurance policy for business failure! Due Dilligence is a good thing regardless of what they say.
New comments are not allowed.