By Debbie Dew
In connection with the Ogden City/Chris Peterson/Matt Godfrey Gondola conundrum, I found this letter to Tom Ellison and John Patterson from Bill Cook most interesting. It is one of the many documents that surfaced due to the Sierra Club's GRAMA request.
It's dated Oct. 27, 2006:
"Per the discussion that we had yesterday in our Leadership meeting (Council Leadership and Mayor), the Council will be proceeding with the adoption of a resoluion regarding the 'project'. The anticipated date for adoption of the resolution is November 14th. This means that we need your feedback right away (no later than Friday, November 3rd). The date chosen is important given that the Planning Commission is moving forward with public hearings on Nov 1st regarding the mixed use zone and sensitive areas and the Mount Ogden community plan will become very public again in November (according to Greg Montgomery). Thanks for your assistance." and signed by Bill Cook.
There are so many aspects to this letter that point to deceit and betrayal of the Council:
1. Ellison's reply suggested changes that they wanted made to the resolution, and those changes were made to accommodate them!
2. Ellison indicated that they were almost ready to meet with the council, but not in a public meeting. They want to meet "under the radar" so as to not make any "noise." WOW!! More secret meetings behind closed doors! What subterrean scheme have they hatched now that won't bear the light of day? We know that the multi-use and sensitive overlay zoning ordinances were authored by Ellison to accommodate Peterson's project -- What else are they planning to do? Sneakily buy the golf course in the darkness before anyone can stop the give away? If Mayor Godfrey is stupid enough to do that, he would need to move out of Ogden! As strongly as people feel about selling the golf course, I can imagine that life would be very uncomfortable for him and his family in Ogden!
3. Bill Cook in his letter said: "Per the discussion that we had yesterday in our Leadership meeting (Council Leadership and Mayor)." So what does that mean?
a. Were Garcia and Wicks there? Did they go along with the scheme? Did they inform the Council? Are they playing games with the welfare of Ogden? That letter may explain why we are getting mixed messages from Garcia and Wicks. This is very serious and a grave concern in light of all the decisions that will be made this year with their inherent impact for generations to come.
b. "The Council will be proceeding with the adoption of a resoluion regarding the "project". There's the proof that the mixed-use and the sensitive overlay zoning along with that resolution are being pushed for approval to make it easier for Peterson to take control of the golf course! How can anyone say that those mixed-use and sensitive overlay zoning ordinances and that resolution have nothing to do with the Chris Peterson project?!
c. Who does Bill Cook REALLY represent -- the Council? Or the Administration? It appears as though he is working for both sides at the same time! That's a very precarious position! Is he the reason that the Council doesn't seem to do anything proactive? No wonder the citizens are getting screwed and the Council looks like a bunch of fools! Has the Mayor compromised EVERYONE who works in that Municpal Bldg.? It appears that you can't trust a damn soul down there!
d. Stephenson and Safsten tried to justify their votes for that resolution by stating: That many hours had been spent on that resolution and the steps. Excuse me! In life and business, lots of projects have hundreds of hours expended on them only to be dropped when they are not what's needed. Their reasoning is faulty and very frightening whereas they are policy makers for the City. A word of advice to them: "When something is wrong, it's wrong! Spending a lot of time on it, doesn't make it right!" The process with its defining steps is still in place and can be followed -- they are established no matter what happens to the resolution! So really time was not wasted and the best course of action for the City prevailed.
WHERE IS THE LIGHT that Jeske promised us? We really need a light on this Administration and the Chris Peterson project! Look at what was uncovered by the light that the Sierra Club put on the Chris Peterson deal! CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHINE THOSE FLASHLIGHTS THAT JESKE GAVE YOU LAST YEAR ON THE CHRIS PETERSON PROJECT!!
A WORD OF ADVICE: You need to watch Bill Cook and your staff. They almost sold you down the river with that resolution that you had the good sense to table last November. WATCH THEM CLOSELY!
Debbie Dew
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
97 comments:
Interesting points in this post.
Good question about whether Bill Cook represents the Council or the Mayor. Who is he supposed to represent?
My question for the Council and the Mayor and all the administration is who represents the taxpayers?
I also wonder the same about the new City Attorney, Gary Williams or whatever his name is.
Don't miss the Salt Lake Tribune article today by Kris Moulten about Ogden's sexual harrassment charges that don't get answered by the Mayor nor do they go away.
Everyone should put in a GRAMA request for whatever it is they don't understand about Ogden government so that more crap will seep out.
There is so much buried that it make take another 6 years to get answers but they are buried some where deep in the archives.
"Don't miss the Salt Lake Tribune article today by Kris Moulten"
Oh really.
Got the link?
If not, why not?
How can people that must have some integrity and are in the position to really know what is going on in Ogden stomach staying on their jobs in Ogden?
By looking the other way from sexual harrassment they are just as bad as the real perps.
They become participants in the act of collusion and could be brought down when this house of cards collapses.
The word becomes co-conspirator.
That has put a few people at the Point of the Mountain.
Is a job worth that exposure?
to anonymous said:
I read the paper. Get your own link.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, mr. little guy.
Netiquette still comes at a premium, even here at WCF.
Nevermind. If the article exists, someone will find it, with no help from you.
Sad, very sad.
One BIG question that I have, is how much of this sexual herrasment did the City attorney {Norm Ashton} at the time, know about this and why was it not prosicuted by him, and now he is sitting on the bench of justice! boy I thought washington D.C. was corrupt. that is nothing to what is going on here in this little mans world.
Some of the comments/questions in the lead article just posted are a little over the top. Being skeptical and questioning is fine, in fact a healthy thing for the city [state and nation for that matter]. Utah would be a better place for all of us, and so would Ogden, if at least half the cars on the road sported bumper stickers saying "Question Authority!" However, being paranoid, or seemingly so, is quite another.
For example, this: Were Garcia and Wicks there [at the leadership meeting Cook referred to]? Did they go along with the scheme? Did they inform the Council? Are they playing games with the welfare of Ogden? That letter may explain why we are getting mixed messages from Garcia and Wicks.
What generated this outburst was the following from Mr. Cook's letter: "Per the discussion that we had yesterday in our Leadership meeting (Council Leadership and Mayor), the Council will be proceeding with the adoption of a resolution regarding the 'project'. The anticipated date for adoption of the resolution is November 14th. This means that we need your feedback right away (no later than Friday, November 3rd).
Well, the Council already had on its agenda the Discovery Ogden procedure for dealing with a Peterson proposal. That the leadership would be discussing the upcoming vote at one of their meetings is neither surprising nor worrying. A major point of the procedure was to devise a way, in control of the council, to consider a Peterson proposal, and to insure that public input would be a major part of that procedure. Given that, that Mr. Cook, on behalf of the Council leadership contacted Mr. Peterson's representative to advise him that the Council was going forward with the Discovery Ogden process and asking him for feedback quickly seems entirely appropriate to me. That's what I'd expect the Council via Mr. Cook to do. Not much there to get bent out of shape about.
Much more troubling is Mr. Ellison's reply, in which he talks about wanting matters handled in such a way as to minimize public notice and comment. What I find troubling is that the GRAMA request did not turn up a letter from Mr. Cook to Mr. Ellison explain how improper those suggestions were.
Also troubling, as Ms. Dew notes, is the fact that changes to the Discovery Ogden process the Council had outlined that Mr. Peterson [via Ellison] wanted made were made, and made before the proposal came before the Council for action. That is troubling. But the mere fact that Mr. Cook notified Ellison and asked for feedback in advance of the Council meeting I don't find at all problematic.
Nor, by the way, do I think we are getting mixed messages on the Peterson proposal [politely so called, since none as yet exists] from Councilwoman Wicks or Chairman Garcia.
Back to the last statement in today's Kris Moulten SL TRIB article which is the most disturbing.
It states that Dean Martinez statement to the City Council regarding sexual harrassment willl go nowhere because city administrators handle the complaints.
Just which city administrators are these? And why do they keep covering up the abuses/ Why can't the City Council get involved?
It is not hard to learn who the manager is who got an employee of the month award after the sexual harrassment charges came up.
This manager must have a lot on the other big wigs for them to participate in a coverup that puts their jobs in jeopardy.
He represents Ogden in a lot of financial dealings. Who is looking at those deals for indiscretions as far as dollar figures?
The Council certainly has the authority to look into the financial dealings if not the sexual harrassment charges.
The City CPA Arrington should be asked a lot of questions because he has to know about all finances.
The City Council certainly has that authority unless Godfrey has short circuited that right.
Maybe the outside auditors have not been asking the right questions. If you don't ask the right question you don't get the right answer.
to i told you so--
Not only did City Attorney Norm Ashton know about the sexual harrassment complaints but so did Gary Williams, then asst. City Attorney, now City Attorney.
Norm Ashton was City Attorney so long that he knows ALL dirty little secrets about a lot of people.
Both men both deserve to lose their licenses to practice law because they did nothing for these employees..
You ensure something happens. You insure your vehicle, in Curmudgeon's case, probably a Volvo. And, again, Curmudgeon fails to ask the most base of questions: Why would the council, in their attempt to draft a proposal to protect the public's interest against the prospect of a Peterson proposal that is simply an attempt to steal our land, seek the input of the lawyer representing the very person who is trying to bilk the public out of its said land? This resolution should in no way have been sent to Ellison for input.
Jason:
For the record, when Curmudgeon drives, he drives a 13 year old Ford. And you are right about insure/ensure. Hasty typing between tasks at work has its disadvantages.
As for the rest: I think the downtown gondola and real estate speculation scheme involving selling the Mt. Ogden park lands for development is a very bad idea, will involve the city in a very risky gamble likely to fail and put a serious crimp in the quality of life in Ogden by destroying its largest park area. That said, the proposal [if it ever arrives] has support in the city from not insignificant groups, like the Champber of Commerce, and from the Mayor. If it ever arrives, it is going to get a hearing from the PC and the Council, and it should. Rejecting proposals out of hand with no hearing, no fact gathering by the Council, no discussion would be an unwise precedent to set.
Finally, no one has proposed "stealing" the public lands in Ogden. The mayor has proposed selling them for real estate development. A thoroughly bad idea, but it would not constitute theft. Second: Mr. Peterson has as much reason to expect timely notice and an opportunity to provide feedback to the Council in re: his promised proposal and how it will be dealt with as anyone else. Since the vote was going to affect [however it came out] his proposal, notifying him of the timetable and the need for speed if he wanted to provide pre-vote input was perfectly proper.
For those who missed it in the last thread, here's the link to the Trib article on the sexual harassment allegations.
Regarding the final sentence about the City Council having no role to play, I'm reminded of one of Dian's last posts (December 9), quoting the relevant state law:
10-3-1217. Limitations on actions and authority of council members -- Investigatory committees. No member of the council shall direct or request, except in writing, the appointment of any person to, or his removal from office or to interfere in any way with the performance by the officers of their duties. The council shall not give orders to any subordinate of the mayor or manager either publicly or privately, but may make suggestions and recommendations. Nothing in this section shall prevent the council from appointing committees of its own members or of citizens to conduct investigations into the conduct of any officer, department, or agency of the municipal government, or any matter relating to the welfare of the municipality, and delegating to these committees such powers of inquiry as the council may deem necessary.
Curmudgeon: I don't know if I'd go so far as to say consulting Peterson about the resolution was "perfectly proper." Depends on who decided to send it to him. If Cook made this decision unilaterally, I'd have a serious problem with it. If it was Garcia's decision, then ok. But either way, once the draft resolution was shared with Ellison, it should have been shared with other interested parties as well. Legally, it became a public document at that point. Yet its existence wasn't even disclosed in response to my first GRAMA request. (GRAMA requires that if a document is withheld, the government must explicitly say so and explain why it's being withheld.) I found out that it existed only because they did provide a copy of Ellison's response. It then took a second GRAMA request (and several more weeks) to get the draft resolution. Ultimately, the city did the right thing and made the document public.
Dan S.:
On who made, or should have made, the decision, no argument. I presumed it had been made by Council leadership, but you're right, I don't know that for a fact. Since the whole point of the upcoming resolution on procedure [since voted down] was to devise a way to deal specifically with Peterson's proposal, notifying him was appropriate. Altering the plan to suite his feedback, however, before it formally came before the Council was not.
I was unaware, until now, that the draft provided to him had been witheld from you when you made your GRAMA request [or if I did know it, I'd forgotten that]. That of course was wrong, and adds [justified] fuel to the speculation that some skullduggery was afoot. There should be no "ultimately" about so simply a matter as making a public document public.
I think one of the most alarming things in the Cook letter to Ellison is:
"the Council will be proceeding with the adoption of a resolution regarding the 'project"
It seems to me that it was a foregone conclusion to Cook that the Council was going to adopt this resolution.
He did not say "the Council is going to consider a resolution", he very cleary wrote it was going to adopt it.
Hmmmm, guess the Council is indeed waking up from their long slumber and perhaps suprised Mr. Cook and the mayor. I hope they woke up hungry enough to bite of a big chunk of integrity for the city. We sorely need it at city hall.
Curm: Legally, the city was required to release the draft resolution in response to my first GRAMA request, last November. But as a matter of good public policy, I would assert that they should have gone further. They should have released it to the public (by putting it on the Council web site, for instance) as soon as it was sent to Ellison, in early October. Or at least, members of the Council should have been informed by the staff that the document was public, so they could pass it on themselves if desired. My impression, however, is that members of the Council were told to keep the document a secret right up until it was finally released to me in early January.
Perhaps a lay person, or even a Council member, could be forgiven for not understanding the technicalities of what exactly is a public document under GRAMA. The professional staff, however, should have been fully aware that although GRAMA protects internal "drafts", these drafts become public as soon as they're sent to someone outside the government. In any case, as a matter of common sense, it's obviously unfair to provide a draft document to one member of the public (Ellison) but not to others (Sierra Club, etc.).
Mother,
Woodbury did not own any building in the mall site at time of demolition. They had liens on the site which involved tax increment payments.
The "Woodbury Building" was not originally built with the Mall Building, as we know it. It was integrated into the mall building. Everything the city tore down was owned by the city.
The Woodbury complaint was based off of their ability to get tax increment off of the site. In short, the city's position was, "Nobody is getting anything off of this site unless we start over again."
Woodbury's agreement with the city had to do with tax increment proceeds. It was a "pay me now or pay me later" deal, and the city decided to pay now, so we wouldn't have to pay it later.
Lawyers everywhere are turning over in their graves because of my layman's description of the case, but in a nutshell, that's what the argument was about--in my mind.
Here is the link to the Salt Lake tribune and Dean Martinez....Very interesting reading....If Dean Martinez broke the law then why hasn't Godfrey had charges filed against him. Dean Martinez
Answer is: Those files then will be come evidence in a criminal court case for all to read....Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't file charges.....because it will prove once and for all who really are the liars....
Hey did you get a kick out of all the Ogden City officials that are fighting against Rep. Neil Hansen bill on "TICKET QUOTAS" ....He makes a interesting comment....if Ogden Has no ticket quotas!
Then why are they fighting against bill that out laws ticket quotas? If they the do not believe in or practice in the first place? Godfrey on local TV stated that Ogden Has no Ticket Quota…..How stupid to think we will not catch him in a down and out right lie?
Quote for the day......How Stupid does the Mayor and his administrators think that we the public are?
Only liars think that the stories that they are telling people are believable because they are the type of people that believes their own lies and they in turn think that we think just like they do.....
I see what you are saying it is like a law is being proposed to out law peeping toms in the community…. Then having high city officials show up and say they don’t practice peeping toms themselves, however they think it is ok for other people to practice peeping toms if they want….they just don’t see anything wrong with that practice however, they themselves would never participate in peeping toms themselves…
What screwed up thinking!!!!….this reminds me of watch a few episodes of Chris Hansen’s Dateline “to catch a predator” and some of the rational thinking these predators would use…
The more I think of it: these City Officials are predators but in a different light, they make the citizen become the prey for their miss management of city funds and turn the police department into a revenue machine to pay for pay raises not from taxpayers who are their boss but prey on the people with a ticket quota…
New term for dictionary…
“Government Financial Predators”…..government officials that prey on the public to help bail them out of their financial mismanagements woes….
Dan S:
As I said, there should be no "ultimately" about so simple a matter as making a public document public.
Interested in who "told" the Council members to keep the document secret after it had been sent to Ellison/Peterson. Cook, presumably? Occurs to me that that's the tail wagging the dog. I know the professional staff incorporates the institutional memory of the Council as an institution, and I know as professionals they are expected/ presumed to be up on what's public and what's not and what the law requires by way of disclosure at any given point, that Council members routinely ask the professional staff for information on matters like that. But I would like to think that our Councillors, or at least the majority of them, or at least a few of them, are feisty enough in a situation such as you describe to reply to a "keep it quiet" directive from staff with an inquisitive "why?" Or "but since you've sent it to Ellison, isn't it now public?" Or "no." Or "try and make me." Or "unless you can convince me this is not a public document, I am emailing it around tomorrow and posting it on WC Forum." Or something similar.
I can't believe you people are serious. Today's post is the exact reason why blogs do more harm than good. Everybody thinks journalism simply means throwing out outlandish suggestions. Let's see someone here take responsibility when it becomes clear that these ridiculous statements are at their best untrue and at their worst malicious.
Some of you simply sound foolish. I've noticed Curmudgeon manages to present well thought out arguments, but what about the rest of you?
Are there some shady people who work for Ogden City? Probably, but to make these outlandish statements about Bill Cook and council members without any kind of proof is wrong and irresponsible.
Per the thinking on this forum, you can come up with any kind of crazy scenario and play it up like it's the gospel truth.
Dan S: Sorry to use you as an example. Nothing personal. Just trying to make a point.
For example: I find it interesting that Dan S. is such a regular contributor here considering his affiliation with WSU. Everyone knows that WSU can't wait to sell their open space. Is Dan S. simply so active against this project because he is really just a WSU decoy? I saw him with my own two eyes at an Ogden City Council meeting where he spoke directly to the Council! It makes you wonder if he spoke with them before or after the meeting as well. Whatever you do, don't trust Dan S. I hear he's a black panther. Why do you think the found of the Black Panthers is coming to WSU? I hear the leader of the Black Panthers is in cahoots with Dan S. and Chris Peterson.
Ridiculous? Nope.
Just par for the course on this forum.
Unfortunately the conduct of Ogden City government is outlandish.
Unfortunately the statements being made are a rather accurate statement of the facts as they exist.
Cookie must be the new person on the scene not to realize this is the way things are in Emerald City.
Cookiecrisp:
Yeah, I guess you're right. Nobody makes any sense but you. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, Cookie, its an open blogsite, which means anyone can post most anything [within the fairly liberal posting rules the blogowner has established]. The alternative is a closely edited site. Both have advantages and downsides.
The downside of a closely edited blog [checking posts for accuracy, logic, supporting evidence, etc.] is that all too easily it can become a one-POV site, reflecting the preferences of the editor[s] and nothing else. Open sites encourage [and generally get] a much wider range of opinion and points of view in their postings. That is good.
The downside of an open blog is that you will get some postings fueled by anger and lack of information, and occasionaly, downright venomously nasty rumor mongering. Still, I prefer open blogs like this one and have had, for the last couple of years, some interesting conversations [for me] with people who disagreed with me profoundly [but civily] on whatever it was we were discussing. I've also appreciated several council members who've occasionally posted here, by way of FYIs to constituents, or to answer questions people have raised. Learned from them too.
What works for me, scanning blogs like this, and might work for you, is this: just ignore the postings/posters you consider not worth serious time, and read/converse only with the rest. But I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater [so to speak] by having WCForum switch to the closely edited model. It would restrict discussion/topics/POV too much, I think. Open forums can get messy at times, and sink into name calling too often. But a little messyness comes with the territory, seems to me. Just ignore the ones you think deserve ignoring and engage the rest.
End of wholly unsolicted advice.
It too bad that the two immigration bills by Glen Donaldson only attacked the illegal immigrations….the root of the problem lies with the people who knowing and willing to hire these people because they don’t want to obey the law in paying decent wages to the legal work force…..Why doesn’t he go after these people….truth…the champagne money that he gets comes from these employers…they now have more money to spend so they have people like Glen Donaldson to divert the attention from themselves to the illegal immigrants…
I have a theory: CookieCrisp is actually Brandon Stephenson.
Reasons: 1. He is such a staunch supporter of the mayor, and doesn’t believe the mayor could do anything wrong,
2. It sounds like him.
3. Who else but a city council member would take such offense and be so blind to the truth about Bill Cook, even when he has the proof looking him right in the face?
It is rather disconcerting to think that we have someone sitting on the City Council who ignores proof when it is put right under his nose, running the City! Is it any wonder that the mayor and Bill Cook get away with the outrageous things that are happening in our City government? The exact things that gave the City three new council members in the 2005 elections! Well, this year is an election year, so we could see more changes in the Council come November. Let’s hope so!
Thanks for the letter, Debbie Dew and Dan S., and for shining some light on our city government. Interesting points on the city's legal department, too. Where is DeCaria? Having lunch with little Mattie? Man! Ogden is due for a housecleaning!!
Maybe in his next bills Donnelson will include the employers who hire illegal immigrants. I know Glenn and he can't be bought. He sees the illegal immigrants as a big financial problem for Utah and doesn't want them to bankrupt Utah as they have done or nearly done in a couple of states.
old timer which states have gone bank rupt from the illegals?
Ahh, Curmudgeon can't quite get his fair and balanced mind around the simple concept that the resolution was drafted to protect the council and the public in addressing the non-existent Peterson proposal, which I can rightly deem theft because Little Matty Godfrey's intent with the crooked land deal is allow Peterson to steal it at a 10th to a 12th of its value; that's fact, and that's fraud. As to the resolution: it in no way should be shared with Peterson and his attorney, because it was originally intended to be a process that would protect the city, should it ever receive a proposal. This has nothing to do with Peterson's non-proposed proposal, it has to do with his attorney's hijacking of the resolution (by virtue of Bill Cook seeking Ellison's input) that's supposed to protect our interests. But thanks for driving American. My Ford is 41 years old, but it really kicks some ass.
As cookiecrisp has correctly pointed out, I'm speculating to some extent regarding why the draft resolution wasn't released to the public at the same time it was sent to Ellison (and to the Council). But it must be extremely common for drafts of documents to circulate between Council members and staff with the understanding that they are not to be released to the public (yet). I don't fault the Council too much for failing to scrutinize this particular document and figure out that since it was released to Ellison, it should be released to the public as well. It's pretty obvious once you stop and think about it, but the Council members don't have time to stop and think too long about every email they receive.
In any case, cookiecrisp, I'd love to hear any alternative theories you may have regarding why this document wasn't shared with the public at the same time it was shared with Ellison. And if you'd care to offer excuses for why the law was broken (when the document wasn't provided or even explicitly withheld in response to my first GRAMA request), so much the better.
Cookiecrisp sounds more like BG who was bot off by Godfrey....after the citizens entrusted him with their votes.
Bill Cook is supposed to work for the council, but by observing him it does appear that his allegiance is to the little man who would be king.
Chavez has also been reworking the law so he can be THE dictator ala Fidel! Sound familiar?
Long live the king...til next Nov.
Sorry Observer 1, that numby piece of work by Cookiecrisp doesn't read like Glasmann. Way to intelligent!
I'm guessing it is Stevenson. Simply because he is bright enough to write that well, and he is also as clueless about the truth, or lack thereof, in City Hall and the Godfrey Administration.
I would like to hear some of his well thought out responses to issues like Matt Jones, Reid seperation pay, Bait and Switch on Mall Financing, Trading the Park for a down payment on the Gondola, and many other important issues. He has been a loyal hand servant to the mayor for as long as he has been a councilman. He has mouthed the mayor's line faithfully, but I am not aware of any of his own original analysis of these important issues. I am also not aware of any instance where he voted against the mayor on any of the hundreds and hundreds of issues big and small that have come before the council.
Please, anyone, educate me if there are instances that I have missed.
Same goes for Safsten by the way.
I have found that the administration has lied to the ogden taxpayers about the 5,000,000.00 for the mall site. not only that, but the council has also lied about the law suit. this had nothing to do with the tax funds and I will give this info to someone that will set the record straight.
How do these guys look in the mirror and live with themselves when they know that they are lying.
You do seem right about the voting. Safsten has voted 'no' on a rare occasion.
Is that vote protection?
Hey, Red....who are you handing the information TO? DiCaria just sits on everything...so where are you going to tell all?
timing is everything and with this info the time and place will be of great importance. and no It will not go to Mark {blow in the wind} decaria.
I only wish that the little guy really had the integerty that he professes and we should all bow down and kiss his ring. I guess that big bubba will have the little one kiss his ring when he goes on vacation to draper.
Jason:
You wrote: Ahh, Curmudgeon can't quite get his fair and balanced mind around the simple concept that the resolution was drafted to protect the council and the public in addressing the non-existent Peterson proposal.... Ah, since that is exactly what I have been arguing [in opposition to those who have forgotten the origins of the Discovery Ogden process and who have been insisting it is all a Godfrey-inspired plot being forwarded by a Council that sheeplike does his bidding], I think maybe you have not read very carefully what I've been posting. But let's move on....
You wrote: the non-existent Peterson proposal, which I can rightly deem theft because Little Matty Godfrey's intent with the crooked land deal is allow Peterson to steal it at a 10th to a 12th of its value; that's fact, and that's fraud. Wow, that's quite a claim. A proposal that doesn't exist and the content of which [as vaguely described by Hizonnah] changes by the month, is an instrument of fraud because the Mayor intends by it to sell public land to his crony at a tenth of its true value. Have you seen an appraisal of the market value of the land involved? I haven't. Do you know what the Mayor is proposing Peterson pay for the city land? I don't. People have been trying to get that information from Hizzonah for well over a year. So far, nothing. If the land is sold, will it be sold after zoning has been changed on it to permit residential development, or before? [That will materially affect the estimated fair market value of the land at the time of sale.] Would it be sold at fair market value [however zoned] or for the highest bid or [whatever this might mean] for the "best benefit" to the city as Hizonnah has suggested? Beats me. Mr. Peterson has not suggested what he might be willing to pony up for the land or part of it, however zoned, either.
Given all of those "we don't knows" and "the mayor won't says" and "Peterson hasn't saids" seems a little early to argue that theft is underway, that's all. Particularly since in his latest revised trial balloon, Hizzonah has said Mr. Peterson "may" be preparing a new proposal [tech. point: how can there be a new proposal when there has as yet been no proposal at all?] which will not involve the city selling him the Mt. Ogden Golf course? [What this new "non-sale" proposal might be is anybody's guess. If it ever appears.]
Given all those unknowns, with no proposal yet on the table, no zoning decisions having been made, no offer to buy or sell made, no assesment of market value having been done, and no price mentioned by anyone, it seemed to me, and still seems now, a little early to be charging theft and fraud. Once [if it ever happens] a proposal appears, and an offer to buy [or sell] is made, and a price is floated by someone, anyone, I may well agree... loudly... that a real estate scam is underway. But so far , its all been smoke and mirrors and hopin' an' wishin' and dreamin' [at best]. Long way from justifying a claim of "fraud" and "theft." Yet.
Re: the gondola and all attendant visions:
SIIIINNNNNK 'EMMMMM!
Speaking of the economic development department,while going thru the annual audit for Ogden City I came upon an interesting stat. This department spent $11,499,394.00 last year. On what? if their are any eavesdropping councilmen out there,they could enlighten us. They do control the purse strings don't they.
brown,
I think the council is listening more than you think. Listening, watching, documenting and questioning.
I think the paper trail has begun.
Thanks for further proving my point. You automatically think anyone who doesn' buy into the "Emerald City" "Gentle Reader" lingo is pro-Godfrey, Pro-Council and pro-whatever else it is you are against.
For the record, I'm not a fan of the mayor. I'm also not Brandon Stephenson. Can't a person just have a desire to see a little more objectivity on this board without being accused of working for the city or trying to cover up indiscretions? Geesh!
The tag will show Anonymous, but this posting is from Rick Safsten (really).
I have not been able to be as involved in this string as I would have liked...but here is some quick input.
First, Bill Cook is a man of integrity. I have worked with him for a few years now. He has never done anything that I would regard as "out of line." He answers to the council and particularly to council leadership. Bill Cook works under the direction of the council and has done so admirably and ably since he came to the city. Anyone who thinks otherwise, in my opinion, doesn't know Bill Cook or the job he has done. People can skew the things he has done any way they want, but he acts under the direction of the council. If he is asked to do something, it is the under the responsibility of the council, and he and we realize that.
Regarding the $11M. Not having the same document you saw, I obviously cannot identify what the figures represent. If someone had been in our worksession last night (you are all invited each week), you would have seen some very high figures related to expenditures at the BDO. The Rec. Center is obviously having large amounts of money flowing into it. I have no doubt there several millions flowing to other projects around town. This is reflective of the activity going on in town. What I can say is that this money is NOT coming from the General Fund. It is coming from bonds, tax increment, grants, lease revenues at BDO, etc... The Econ Dev Dept. has alot of money flowing through it. That is not a secret. This will get a rise out of many, but it also is indicative that development is happening in this city. I would rather have millions flowing through an Econ. Dev. Dept in my hometown than have them wonder when the next project may happen.
Issue of Matt Jones: The newspaper article quotes and the "News Release" had alot of interesting information. I have every reason to believe the police department did what it needed to do. I think the police department acted on the facts of the case.
Reid Separation Pay: The council took action on this so it would have more oversight next time. I will admit that it was after the fact. In a perfect world, the policy would have been written differently beforehand. I freely admit that. There are some things you don't realize need to be fixed until there is an issue.
Mall Financing: The mall site has had a very long history with financing from the very beginning in the late 70's/early 80's. The recent Woodbury resolution was a child of just some of the issues we are dealing with now that were instigated way back then. I am sure the previous councils thought they were acting in the best interest of the city just as I believe we are doing so now. Is the mall financing more involved and expensive than I would like? YES. Is it still worth it? YES. How do I know? Because of the development that it is generating and the real estate values of the very real projects it is generating. It is also generating a new face for Ogden which is desperately needed. Can reasonable people argue about the financing? You bet. However, I am confident that we are doing the best thing for the city, including its finances.
rick, you have been there for alot of issues that the public thinks are a really streach fo the law. you as the former chair were in the position to call a check and balance on the reid, mall, matt jones. that then makes you part of the problem not the solution.
On the Anon Post [by Safsten presuming it really is the Councilman]:
Just two comments: (a) On Reid separation pay... the Mayor's arrangement that stepped around the intent, if not the letter, of existing city policy on such matters. The major responsibility for the unethical arrangement lies, in my view, with Mayor Godfrey and Mr. Reid. [Evidence of the Mayor's remarkably insecure grip on the what public requires of elected officials by way of ethical conduct.] The Council did act, promptly, to make sure this would not and could not happen again. Which speaks well of the members at the time.
(b)Mr. Cook: Mr. Safsten is correct, of course that Mt. Cook reports to and answers to the Council. What Mr. Safsten's comment does not address is the two matters revealed by Dan. S.'s GRAMA request --- what it turned up and how it was handled. First, no indication that Mr. Cook in any way objected to or disagreed with Mr. Ellison's recommendation that the matter be dealt with in such a way as to minimize public knowledge and public comment on it, that it be arranged to fly "under the radar" so to speak. We are left then with only two possibilities, neither of them encouraging: either Mr. Cook did not find anything untoward in Mr. Ellison's suggestions himself, or the Council, having been shown Mr. Ellison's letter advising secrecy, found nothing wrong with the suggestion. I don't see another possibility, but would be happy to have one pointed out if I'm missing something.
Second issue: the failure to provide Dan S. [under his initial GRAMA request] with the draft of the "procedures" policy that Mr. Cook sent to Mr. Ellison for his feedback. It became a public document, I think, as soon as it was provided to Mr. Ellison who is not an Ogden city government employee. Dan S. [and we] are still waiting to learn why making this public document public took yet another GRAMA request and took weeks. These do not seem to me to be unreasonable questions to ask, and [until they are satisfactorily answered] they will continue to call into question either Mr. Cook's propriety in the matter, or the Council's, or both.
The document refered to is the final audit. Came out in Dec.06. It shows the $11.5 M coming from the General fund. The mall,Bdo and River front all have their own funds.I would hope the council would do due diligence breaking this down so I won't have to grama the specifics myself. Not to throw stones Mr. Safsten,but don't you get the feeling that the public trust has truely deteriorated,in recent years.
To make it easy, find page 36,Ogden City Corporation Statement of Revenues,Expenditure and changes in fund balances-Governmental Fund.
My observation of Bill Cook is that if the Council asks the right questions he will provide the answers.
However, if they don't know the questions to ask he is not about to volunteer anything to put them on the right track about what is going on.
If he truly works for the Council he should give them guidance.
Why isn't anyone asking about Ogden City's Foundation which was the entity that Scott Brown used when he bought and sold the American Can building to the man in Steamboat Springs?
Foundations are tax-free organizations that are not in the business of buying and selling bildings.
This transaction should cost the City its tax-free Foundation.
What does Safsten want to tell us about this maneuver?
I agree with the observation by longtime skeptic above. I will go one step further to say that if a city council person asks a question that he (Bill Cook) either doesn't know the answer to or that he (more likely) doesn't want to answer, he just ignores the question or changes the subject. You even see that during city council meetings but you can also see that in written communications that came forward under the GRAMA requests. He is no friend to the residents or the council, he's the ultimate politician that swings in the wind in which ever direction that he feel that his bread is buttered.
It about time we get rid of this type of life long political city official, he contributes nothing other than protecting his own position. If you ever saw the movie "Cone Head" (1993)with Dan Aykroyd and other actors from Saturday Night Live, there is an INS agent named Eli Turnbull that is played by the actor David Spade. Bill Cook reminds me of this guy in the movie.
From Rick Safsten (really),
“I Know A Little” apparently doesn’t.
First, the Ogden Community Foundation (that’s the name) is not a part of Ogden City government, nor has it ever been. Where did you get the idea that it did? Several people in city hall are on the foundation, but also people from the community. The foundation members are not paid nor personally benefit from their membership on the foundation in any way.
The most recent donations to the Foundation were turned around to benefit the public elementary schools here in Ogden. Our budget when we started was $0. The purpose of the Community Foundation is to help the community. The foundation has been involved in the American Can Building which has facilitated good things to happen in that building and the parties who most recently owned the building.
Foundations buy and sell buildings all the time. I suggest that you put in the phrase “Foundation buys building” or “Foundation sells building” in Google and see how many hits you get. This is normal. The foundation doesn't just sit there waiting for things to happen. The basis of this foundation is to benefit the community. You or anyone else is welcome to donate to it.
My understanding is that this is not an arms length tax ex-exempt foundation for several reasons:
Mayor Godfrey runs it and Stuart Reid at one time was on the Board and after his termination Ogden City top level management are still being put on the Board.
Again according to my understanding - only one of the non-City employee Board members is from Weber State University and one from Bank of Utah (or was at the time of my info).
Mayor Godfrey has used Ogden City personnel to run the Foundation which is why so many of the personnel got behind in their regular jobs.
Mayor Godfrey has also solicited every City employee for donations.
The Foundation is not an arms-length separate function of Ogden City government. It is being run like part of Ogden City government.
I suggest the Council have your outside auditors and and a tax-attorney not a City employee give the Council a rundown on tax law pertaining to Foundations.
Don't depend on Google for your answers.
Councilman Safsten,
Where can I go online to see a copy of the Foundation's by-laws and last audit report?
Also a list of Board members.
Your response could put these comments to rest.
"Information" about the Ogden Community Foundation is posted on the web.
It is described as follows:
Affiliation (defines the organizational grouping) - This organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Deductibility Status - Contributions are deductible
Foundation Type - Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public.
I went to this website and it brings up more questions than it answers.
Nate Pierce is shown as the person running the Foundation. He hasn't been with the City for awhile.
I could get no information that was worthwhile without paying a fee of $9.98 which I hesitate to do because I do not believe the information is up to date.
Please give pertinent information with your own answer to the questions.
Now I am curious about Ogden's Foundation.
The name on the website is Ogden Community Foundation but there is only generic info about what a non-profit is.
The news article regarding the sale of the American Can Building by Scott Brown did not use the name Ogden Community Foundation.
It would appear that the Board of the Ogden Community Foundation is made up of the Ogden City Mayor and Ogden employees which hardly qualities for an arms length tax-free Foundation.
Mr. Safsten, please enlighten us all.
I am with "longtime cynic"-
What business does an Ogden City RDA employee named Scott Brown, who just happens to head up a department, have doing negotiating the sale of American Can to a guy in Colorado for the Ogden Coumunity Foundation?
Maybe somebody who thought they were being really smart wasn't really very smart at all.
It looked to a reader that Scott Brown was getting all the credit for having sold the building.
Was he on the Board at the time??Is he an independent realtor.
Go back and read the Ogden paper's report on this transaction.
Then give us a Councilman Safsten version of the facts.
From Rick Safsten,
(My regular moniker is not working--don't know why, so I am having to login as "anonymous." I’m assuming that those that don’t use their real names are ashamed of who they are and don’t really believe in what they are saying. I commend those that use their real names.)
The Ogden Community Foundation has never had Scott Brown on its board. In fact, I have never seen him at any of our board meetings. The allegation that the mayor runs the board is false. He holds no leadership position. The board has city employees, me, and at least 3 community members at my last count.
Scott Brown in an employee of the Ogden Econ Dev. Department which manages much of the RDA transactions. The American Can Building is in an RDA Project area. I would hope that Scott Brown is involved in any transactions involving this building. The successful transaction facilitated one of the largest outdoor products manufacturing company in the world to relocate in Ogden. If people see treachery in this, I won’t be able to help them.
I am amused at being chided for a foundation getting involved in real estate transactions. Isn’t that what some are asking us to do for the Union Station Foundation? Do they get the same paranoid treatment in their efforts to purchase the Shupe/Williams land as the Ogden Community Foundation in dealing with the American Can Building? Where does it say a Foundation cannot buy and sell assets?
Put another battery into the flashlight.
If you can't see the conflict of interest you have as Board member for having an RDA Ogden City employee involved in buying a building through the Ogden Community Foundation then we are worse off than I had recognized.
As a Board member please get your website up to date with current information.
Also, you have a conflict of interest to even be a Board member since you are a sitting member of the City Council.
A true arms-length Foundation has independent members. You are definitely not independent.
Anyone giving the present Board a donation may very well have their donations not recognized as true donations.
Wise up and quit jeopardizing potentional donors.
You don't have a clue.
On the current kerfuffle:
Well, so far, no one has offered any claim the the Foundation has acted illegally or unethically [except for the claim that non-profit foundations can't buy or sell property, which is not true]. If anyone has any such claim of unethical or illegal activity on the part of the foundation, backed with evidence, then he or she ought to make the claim and provide the evidence. Absent that, this seems at the moment like a whole lotta heartburning over... well, so far, over not much approaching nothing. [Sorry, but "Mayor Godfrey [or add another name] is involved so it must involve something illegal" is evidence only of someone's dislike and distrust of the Mayor. Now, given his past performance, his weak grasp of ethical conduct to be expected of an officeholder and his penchant for disembling,, I don't much trust him either. But without something specific being charged with respect to Foundation activities, seems we're mostly spinning our wheels on this one. Not liking members on the board of the foundation is not evidence of skullduggery.
However, Mr. Safsten's statement "I’m assuming that those that don’t use their real names are ashamed of who they are and don’t really believe in what they are saying" is not evidence that those who do no post under their true names are either ashamed of their posts or that they don't believe in what they are saying. City employees, by way of example, may not feel as free as Mr. Safsten does to state their views under their own names, nor may employees whose company heads have strongly endorsed the other side of an issue than the employee, just to offer two examples. Mr. Safsten has on occasion [rightly] spoken against people on WC Forum making unjustified and unsupported claims. When he starts assuming those not posting under their own names must be ashamed of their views and/or hipocrytical about them, he does the same thing he complains about in others.
Mixed Use Ordinance Withdrawn From Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for Next Wednesday
The Planning Commission, at its coming meeting this Wednesday, was to consider two ordinances, one a revision of the current Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance, and the other a Mixed Use Development Ordinance. Just learned that the Mixed Use Development Ordinance has been withdrawn from the meeting agenda because work on the draft has not been completed. So Wednesday's meeting will consider only the revision of the Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance.
Thank you, Curm
Well Curm, looks like Montgomery finally came to the stark realization that Ellison's mixed use will not fit too well anywhere in the city other than for Chis P.'s (non)proposal. I can only hope the more intelligent members of the planning commission will update the sensitive overlay zones without eliminating the 30% slope prohibition,as that to is clearly only for the benifit of the (non) proposal.
Why do you think the Ellison MU was written?
DUH!
abner, I'm only refering to the fact that had not the public overwhelmed the commission during the comment portion,Mr Montgomery as well as the commission where going thru with the adoption of both the mu and sensitive overlay.For some of the commission this was sight unseen,I know because less than half of them were at the first work session for these changes. I would also like to add that it was much latter that it seemed to come to Montgomery that the mixed use(or lack there of) he had been pushing would cause all sorts of problems with the River prodject. In other words,they were rushing this thru, and still seem to be.
I might also add,some of the commission is still saying that the (non)proposal is not germane to these issues and went so far as to explore ways to control(stop) public comment.One even suggested that we public in attendance could aid them in this effort. This all took place at their last work session.
Bill C.,
Thank you. That sounds troubling that the PC wanted to stop public comment. Is that because they just want to move past this nonsense? If so, then that is welcome news!
Peterson's vision is germane, it seems to me, because that's the whole reason any of this zoning has come up.
I heard a man bring up the gondola the other day in a meeting that I was also attending. He said.."I think it's kind of going away".....meaning the whole issue.
abner, we could only wish. the Mayor is plugging away, the next almost sure bet to put Chis P. to bed would be to continue the 30% slope prohibition. With that in place he could never build 500-700 homes,depending on wich prelimary design you're looking at.Without the large number of homes, he could never get any of this off the ground. In my humble opinion.
I agree...so do we have willing citizens to speak up again?
I spoke with a member of the PC this last week, and was told that the reason they want to harness public comment is that they don't want another meeting that ends after midnight, and they feel that they won't receive any NEW input -- just a replay of the last two meetings. He said that he had a copy of Bill Cook's email to Ellison and Patterson, but he still thinks that the sensitive overlay and mu zoning ordinances have nothing to do with CP's project. In my opinion, he's about as blind and dim-witted as Stephenson and Safsten. I hope there aren't too many like him on the PC. I think Atencio, and the last two appointees to the PC are open-minded, but the Mayor has done a good job of stacking the PC in his favor. It's for sure that Janith Wright, Blaisdell and Hyer are in the Mayor's corner! I don't know that much about the other three, but I get the feeling that a couple of them are for CP's project.
Knowing Mayor Godfrey, I don't think that he will let Chris Peterson back out now -- the Mayor has said that Ogden will have a gondola, and he won't let CP make a liar out of him. We all know that he can't stand to lose. I can't buy the rumors that the gondola or the CP project are going away.
Wednesday night's PC meeting will be one that we won't want to miss!
Be careful of the transfer development rights concept within the proposed new sensitive area overlay zoning ordinance.
The concept of a TDR's, as their called, is to allow the developer to squeeze more homes into a specific area as an offset for not developing another area, thus averaging out the density. With the Peterson’s plan he will offer Ogden City the face of the mountain as an area that he would promise not build on as a trade off for being able to build in higher concentration else where. But as we all know it’s darn near financially and physically impossible to build on the face of the mountain anyway. So basically he not offering us anything that he could build on anyway or use or for that matter that Ogden City could use; he’s just found a way around our current zoning and spacing ordinance. But not wanting to leave any dollars behind, the developer also wants to be able to build on slopes of greater than 30% with this new tighter spacing allowance. This is just plain dangerous for both the new residents and those downhill of them.
TDR's have the potential to allow excessive higher levels of housings and/or condo concentrations in our foothills than we currently allow within the city and would allow developments on slopes of greater that 30% until the developments ran right up to the face of the mountain. The developer would then claims that the slopes that go straight up the mountain would be the offset for the spacing that we normally require between developments and open space for those houses or condos.
Hopefully the new ordinance will not allow for these TDR’s or if they do, that they have very strict restrictions on their use.
Any additional development on our foothills should require a complete review of all of our existing systems (water, sewer and storm water) first to ensure their ability to handle the additional volumes before any developments are allowed. The cost of these system upgrades verses the benefit of the development should be factored into any consideration as to whether a specific area of the city should be further developed.
As an example, the city’s storm water run off system is already taxed to its limit; it will be a very expensive fix involving the entire city system not just the Mt. Ogden Park community neighborhood. Would the proposed development ever offset these costs not to mention roads, water, and sewer just to name a few? The Planning Commission is called that for a reason, is it not?
On the Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance:
Several things to be concerned about. First, the draft that will come before the PC Wednesday eliminates the restriction of building on slopes in excess of 30%, and substitutes a procedure which permits building on any land provided the developer gets a study done on the property asserting that it is safe to build on it [not likely to slide, no seismic problems, etc.]. There is also, I think, a requirement that the city will run the study past the state seismologist. The concern is that developers under the new ordinance can and will go "study shopping," until they find a firm willing to produce the desired outcome ["safe to build"]for the people putting up the money. There is a developer in the legislature currently pushing a bill that would ban any community from banning construction slope limits at all, and critics are raising exactly the problem of "shopping" for studies that would permit building no matter what.
That developers might not perhaps be hiring the firms particularly qualified to do the studies, that it might be in their interest to hire less qualified firms, has already come up, in Draper. SL Trib has the story here. Makes very interesting reading.
The Transfer of Development rights matter is not a plain black and white issue. The tool can be used to good ends as a way to preserve open space. There are circumstances in which clustered development makes a lot more sense than sprawled development on single family lots. And there are circumsances where it doesn't. As usual, the devil is in the details. If a developer is permitted to use, to take an extreme example, land that is sloped 89% [unbuildable by any even semi-sane standard] and transfer his building rights on that land to permit denser construction elsewhere on the property, the tool is being abused. Which is why we need to look carefully at whether the proposed ordinance has defintions of buildable land on which construction rights might wisely be transferred.
After the making public of Mr. Cook's note to Mr. Ellison and Mr. Ellison's reply, only the wilfully blind continue to claim there is no connection between the ordinances now going before the PC and the Peterson non-proposal. One would expect, at the least, honesty in this discussion. I could respect someone who said "I like the gondola and Peterson ideas, I think the public land should be sold to him and should be developed as residences, and yes, I favor these ordinances because they will make that more likely to happen." Whoever argued that would be wrong, I think, in his assessment of the non-proposal, but I couldn't fault his honesty in the public discussion. But to claim, after what Dan S. GRAMA request forced the city administration to reveal, that there is no connection is... well, ludacrous.
Your suggestion that only buildable rights be transfered for buildable rights is an interesting thought. I feel if that was a consideration it should be for immediate and connected property. Not for property at different locations such as Mt. Ogden Golf Course in trade for Malan Basin or some other location.
It also causes me to think that if the developer gets a variance for over 30% slopes then he can claim that the high degree slope is so to speak like property. Something that it clearly is not and another reason to be careful of TDR's.
Thank you, Anonymous and Curmudgeon for telling us about TDRs and how developers are getting around the studies required by the sensitive overlay zoning ordinances. We could bet our bottom dollar without fear of losing it that the ordinance being proposed to the PC does not contain any of the restrictions mentioned in your posts since the author of it is Tom Ellison, and he is going to make it benefits Peterson.
That article by the SL Tribune was very interesting. Thanks, Curmudgeon. I suggest everyone take the time to read it. I only hope our Council members are as wise and caring for Ogden as the Draper Council members are for Draper. I've copied a little bit of it for those who won't look at it:
"'The thing that overrides everything we do has to be the safety of our community,' said Councilman Peter Larkin. 'I don't have a comfort level that would allow me to move ahead with an approval . . . until I know our public is safe and our community and city is fiscally protected from the devastating effects of what a potential landslide could do.'
"UGS senior geologist Francis Ashland said that with few exceptions, all landslides in the past 20 years have resulted from reactivation of pre-existing slides.
"'The timing between residential development and landslide movement has been short,' Ashland said. 'And movement has occurred at many sites where the developer's consultant concluded the landslide was stable.'
"Councilman Jeff Stenquist wants the city to require additional geo-technical studies 'by people who specialize in this area.'
"The part of the proposed project that worries council members the most involves construction of a detention basin they fear could physically and financially jeopardize homeowners by dumping additional fill atop already unstable land.
"Stenquist said recent landslides in Cedar Hills, Morgan County and St. George have caught his attention. He says that even if the land moves just three inches, foundations could crack and homes could become unlivable.
"'It's apparent we're going to get sued over this,' Stenquist said. 'But this is both a financial and a public health and safety issue.'"
With the land moving around Country Hills Drive, and the main fault of the Wasatch Fault running through the land that Chris Peterson wants his gated community, approximately 600 homes at the last proposed plan presentation, built on, the City Administration, staff, Planning Commission and Council definitely need to do some serious consideration of what they approve. With so much at stake, are the property tax dollars that this development would bring to the City worth the risk of lives, citizens' financial well-being as well as the quality of life that will be affected by the rest of the City's residents? This is not a simple sensitive overlay zoning ordinance that the PC is being asked to approve Wednesday night -- serious thought should be given to the possibility of sending it back for some drastic revisions without Tom Ellison's input!
Oh, "Uninformed Stiff," you asked:
"Good question about whether Bill Cook represents the Council or the Mayor. Who is he supposed to represent?" (Mr. Cook was HIRED by the Council, and he is paid out of the Council's budget, he is SUPPOSED to work FOR them, but I am of the impression, that he thinks that they work for him by the way the Council operates.)
"My question for the Council and the Mayor and all the administration is who represents the taxpayers?" (Uniformed Stiff, I can't answer for the Council, Mayor, but as the Declaration of Independence states: "a government OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people" as your elected officials the Mayor and the Council members are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE TAXPAYERS! Although I've heard the Mayor say, "You elected me to make decisions for you," which I interpreted to mean that he doesn't think that he needs to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about, he will vote as he thinks best.)
"I also wonder the same about the new City Attorney, Gary Williams or whatever his name is." (Gary Williams is his name, and he represents the Mayor.)
Hope this helps you understand how our City Government works -- like a dysfunctional family.
Debbie Dew:
You wrote of the Council members and mayor: "My question for the Council and the Mayor and all the administration is who represents the taxpayers?" (Uniformed Stiff, I can't answer for the Council, Mayor, but as the Declaration of Independence states: "a government OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people" as your elected officials the Mayor and the Council members are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE TAXPAYERS! Although I've heard the Mayor say, "You elected me to make decisions for you," which I interpreted to mean that he doesn't think that he needs to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about, he will vote as he thinks best.)
Well, on this particular matter, the Mayor is correct. He was elected. By the taxpayers [voters]. Twice. He was elected as the chief executive officer of the City, and his primary job is making decisions in accord with what he thinks is best for the city. The taxpayers [voters] get to render a judgement on how well he has done that every four years. They can and will speak this coming November.
Same with the City Council members. They are elected on a platform, of sorts, but once elected their job involves their using their best judgement on all the issues that come before them, in light of the information they have [much of which most of us who do not read all they read and attend all the meetings and work sessions and conferences they attend] do not have. And every two years the taxpayers get to render their judgement on how well half of them have done that job.
The problem with complaining that, after having been elected by the taxpayers, they are "not representing the taxpayers" when they do something you disagree with or think is a bad idea, is that nearly everyone in the city is a taxpayer and so claims to represent the taxpayers. That includes people on both sides of every issue.
Where the Mayor can be faulted, on this score, I think, is here: he has repeatedly claimed that the people of Ogden are for his loopy downtown gondola to WSU and for the Peterson non-proposal [whatever it is this week]. He has no proof of that, and he's made it plain he does not intend to ask or to seek public approval first.
But in the American system, elected officials [absent impeachment, conviction and removal for criminal conduct] are elected to exercise their best judgement for the full term of their office, whether the public agrees with how they exercise that judgement or not. In fact, some of our most courageous leaders have acted, clearly, against the public's wishes in whys that, in time, most people have recognized was wise and the right thing to do. The Founders of the nation absolutely did not intend to create, nor did they create, a political system in which the wishes of the majority at any moment on any issue should prevail. In fact, they went to considerable lengths to make sure momentary public majorities would not prevail automatically.
[I really don't like it when people post stuff that forces me to support Mayor Godfrey. Puts me right off my feed. .]
Well, put the oat bag on again Curm.
Yeah, some elected the liittle guy (NOT I)...so what? Does that mean we suffer in silence for 4, 8 (egad, MORE) years while the little dictator decides our fate?
Of course not....OF, FOR and BY the PEOPLE...not OF the Mayor, FOR the mayor and cronies, and BY the mayor and sycophants.
Draper's Council is looking OUT FOR the people...that's the way our Council (all of 'em) and the PC should be making decisions.
Debbie Dew is correct when she states that the PC should send the senitive overlay zoning back for revisions 'without Ellison's input'.
Also, wake up Council...and hire an exec dir who actually works for and with you!
Curm,
You don't have to support the mayor. The mayor said one thing to get elected and then is doing something else. On more than one issue but for an example relative to the Peterson proposal;
Specifically he was questioned by the Sierra Club on his stance relative to our open space before the election and indicated that he would not allow development of it. Now his position is a 180 degree from that. Had I thought and I'm sure had others that he real position was as it is today, then I would not have voted for him. I feel this one position alone could very well have cost him his election. His integrity is questionable.
Crum, life has taught me that things in life are not all black and white; they are usually some shade of gray. So is the case with the mayor, yes he does some things right but he does more things wrong. I feel that he is impatient, inexperienced, lacks self confidence and as such turns to others for guidance and support. Personally I feel his advisors are giving him bad advice and he needs to expand his list of people that he seeks advice from, but that's another point.
Point is that you try to make everything black and white on each specific issue. That is where most people get beat in a debate over something like this Peterson proposal. The other side provides just enough fact (probably all that they have) in the proposal or it’s legal, political or business approach that you end up supporting from others criticism, in an effort to look objective, that you end up marginalizing your own efforts in the bigger picture debate as well as others. It’s one thing to want to be fair in a debate but when the other side is constantly providing dis-information or shooting from the hip interspersed with fact, there comes a point when you have to call the whole information string for what it is, BS.
This is where I think you’re missing the point; you don’t have to prove that every person’s position that challenges the other side is valid. I can assure you that the other side is not doing that and they are definitely throwing a lot of BS our way.
You don't have to support the mayor, if he or his project supporters care to challenge a point raised then let them, you don't have to do it for them.
Mercy:
Did not suggest for a moment "suffering in silence." And I've posted repeatedly here, and elsewhere, and to Council members, on the unwisdom of Hizzonah's pie-in-the-sky at the expense of parks and pockets proposals.
Debbie Dew asked who represented the taxpayers in Ogden. I merely pointed out that the Mayor does and the Council does, because the taxpayers elected them. Maybe the voters choose badly in some cases... in my view they certainly did... but the voters did choose. The taxpayers put whatever power the Mayor has in his hands. Ditto for the Councillors.
By all means, speak, write, lobby the Mayor, the Council, the Planning Commissioners to convince them of the foolishness of Hizzonnah's pie-in-the-sky support of the Peterson non-proposal [version 2.3 I think we're on now, but I haven't read what the mayor said yesterday yet, so by now it may be version 2.4]. Convince the Council to excercise its oversight authority [where it can] to rein in Mayor bad judgement and excess. If you're not already doing that, you should be.
And perhaps, come November, we ought, all of us, to put a lot more effort into finding out who the candidates are, and what they are likely to do in office, how good their judgement is likely to be. Asking, maybe, a lot more questions before we vote. Because, painful though it is to admit of the Mayor, we elected him to office. That's how he got his hands on the levers of municipal power. We put them in his hands. No way around that, ML. No way.
On a related note: I wonder how many of the people no upset by the Mayor's machinations didn't vote at all last time round. I have not idea. I just wonder.
Curm,
I agree completely with your comments above relative to who we should be voicing our comments to.
This blog is a great place for community dialog but those participating need to carry their thoughts, concerns and positions relative to the issues at hand on to our elected officials. They should also encourage those with similar views that aren't participating to do the same.
Anon:
If all I was concerned about was Hizzonah's loopy gondola/gondola/real estate scheme with Peterson, I'd agree with you. But from my POV there's a lot more involved here than just the Lift Ogden nonsense he's bought into. City governance, more broadly considered; public involvement, more broadly considered; choosing our officials, more broadly considered.
I know full well how duplicitous Hizzonah can be, and we know as well now that he planned the gondola/gondola scheme before he was re-elected, he just forgot to mention it during the campaign [which of course nobody believes, and rightly so]. None of which relieves the electorate from the responsiblity of having reelected him. [What was the turnout of eligible voters in the last mayoral election? If it crested 50 percent, I'd be astonished.]
So part of what I'm arguing for, along with stopping the risky and high cost to the city foolishness of the gondola/gondola scheme, is an awakened electorate and a more serious approach to municipal elections and municipal government. [Sorry, I've been a political ativist most of my adult life, and I am kind of professionally obligated by my work to think about American government, how it works and doesn't, and, maybe, how to make it work better.] So part of what drives my posts on Ogden City government goes, for me, beyond the single issue before us at any given moment.
As for even-handedness and fairness... well, for me, it's not a matter of appearances [trying to appear even-handed and fair. It matters to actually be both. If I am going to thump Hizzonah when he's wrong, and I have and will continue to do that, from my POV I don't have any choice but to defend him when I think he's being unfairly criticized. I can't do one without doing the other. Not honorably, anyway. Or so it seems to me.
Curm,
Just ponder two commonly used and applicable phrases;
1. Won the battle but loss the war.
and
2. Can't see the forest through the trees.
Then reread my post above.
Uniformed Stiff, I don’t want to confuse you so I am making a correction to my post last night – I used the wrong word – the Mayor can’t “vote” – he just does what he wants. It’s the Council who “votes” and I do believe this current council is better than the former council at listening to public input. It seems that most of the members try to listen to the people.
Curmudgeon, it was not I, who asked "Who represents the taxpayers?" It was "Uninformed Stiff" who asked, and I was answering him, perhaps a bit too sarcastically, but more times than not, the Mayor's actions are a slap in the face to the taxpayers/citizens of Ogden. As for the percentage of registered voters who vote, I believe the highest percent of Ogden voters to vote in an election was 28% since they started keeping a record! Which is appalling! That is one of my soapbox subjects! As a citizen of the United States, it is a person's RESPONSIBILITY, DUTY and OBLIGATION to study the candidates and where they stand on the issues and then exercise the right for which millions of American soldiers have fought and many have died. We owe it to them, to ourselves, and to future generations to exercise that right and to vote. People are being lazy when they say, "My vote won't count," or "I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils." Sometimes that's right, but it's better to vote for the "lesser" than to have the more evil one elected. And your vote does count! I've know several candidates who have lost an election by one or two votes. The average voting per centage is between 16 and 20 percent of the registered voters in Ogden who vote. So I guess we get what we deserve because we don't vote. Those who don't vote, let others decide who their elected leaders are and they don't have the right to complain about them. I'm proud to say that since I turned 21 (the voting age at that time), I have never missed voting in a general election, and have only missed voting in a few primary elections. So, Curm, I have a right to complain about Godfrey because I didn't vote for him either time.
It is also the voters responsibility to hold the politicians to their word.
That is what is going on here.
Anon:
Ah, I see where we disagree. I think. You are suggesting that being fair-minded and even-handed is not a successful strategy in political disputes [which is also what's going on here.] You could not be more wrong.
Nothing, but nothing, makes fair-mindedness and even-handedness incompatible with hard, effective, gloves-off campaigning. Nothing. In fact, one of the things that irks me most about my local political party is its reluctance to take the gloves off and fight, its reluctance to take stands on local issues... any stands at all... out of fear I suspect of annoying a voter. Any voter. Not standing for much of anything locally as a result. Now that's a formula for defeat.
I think political parities, especially out of power ones, exist to ask awkward questions of officeholders, to take stands on controversial issues, even when public opinion might seem to lean the other way. It's called leadership and it's what successful parties do. I'm trying to convince my guys we ought to try it. Not much luck so far, but working on it. But none of that involves in any way abandoning even-handedness and fairness as a standard for campaigning. In fact, it requires it.
Debbie:
My apologies for confusing a bit of your post with Uninformed's.
You wrote: I have never missed voting in a general election, and have only missed voting in a few primary elections. So, Curm, I have a right to complain about Godfrey because I didn't vote for him either time.
Two points: first, I was not suggesting you were among the non-voters. I was just wondering how many people complaining today about the Mayor or a particular Councilmember were not among the voters last time round.
As for your having a right to complain about Godfrey because you didn't vote for him: well, you'd have the same right if you had voted for him. Or if you didn't vote at all. He's [to borrow a phrase from Richard Nixon, who just naturally seems to come to mind when I think of Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey for some reason] Mayor of "all the people." Had you never voted in your life, you'd still have a right to complain loudly. It's still your government and you still pay for it, vote or not. I was just curious about the numbers, that's all.
Curm,
You got it all wrong. Unfortunately I can't spend the needed time correcting your misunderstanding as to what I'm trying to say because of other obligations that I have at this time.
I will take responsibility for not being able to effectively communicate my meaning and I hope to clarify my meaning to you at another time. Sorry.
Anon:
OK. Apologies for misreading you. Did enjoy the exchange, tho'. Political junkie to the end....
Standard Examiner Stays on St. Anne's Story
Kudoes to the SE for keeping after the St. Anne's story, though Godfrey Administration flack Mr. Patterson probably wishes they hadn't. The story, well worth reading, can be found here.
Seems that the Board of St. Anne's has now sent the Council a letter saying they have taken no position on moving the center to 12th Street, since no one has approached them with a proposal from either the Council or the Godfrey administration. Members of the Council are miffed, because they claim [only Ms. Jeske quoted in the piece, but others have complained as well] that Mr. Patterson misrepresented St. Anne's position on the matter to them, causing them to tell the city's lobbiest at the legislature to try for a million bucks to help with the move. Mr. Patterson in the article thows a minor hissy fit, claiming he properly and accurately informed the Council and he does not intend to be a whipping boy for them on this, presumably because they were not bright enough to understand what he was telling them. [Now there's a sound basis for building good rapport with the Council: tell them something they, as a body act on and then blame them for not being smart enough to understand what you told them when it turns out what they thought you told them was not true. Where does Godfrey get these guys? ]
In his defense, Mr. Patterson offers a letter from the the Director of St. Annes, saying that the board had authorized him to discuss a move with the administration, and that he thinks they "would" approve of it if they thought it in the best interests of the Center and its clients. That's a long way... a very long way... from saying St. Anne's is in favor of the move, which, the SE says, is what Patterson told the Council.
My my my.... the Godfey administration at work, so to speak. Asserting solid support on the St. Anne's Board for a proposal nobody's made to them yet. Hmmmmm... isn't the Godfrey administration in some trouble with the Council already over a proposal that nobody has made yet that the administration is strongly in favor of? Something to do with gondolas and golf courses, wasn't it?
Did any of you know that Rep. Neil Hansen has a bill in government operation committee tommorrow that will let people register on election day. It seems to me that he is the only one that is really trying to help the voter out. How many people move after registation is closed and then are closed out of the election? Great Idea Rep. Hansen I hope it passes and that Republicans won't kill it!
Mother:
Neil is one of the few local Democrats I know who is unafraid to actually take a stand on local matters of some controversy. When some Ogden police officers held a press conference in the parking lot of Mt. Ogden Park in re: the Mayor's ticket quota and separate standard for evaluating police [with the famous truck and sign present], Rep. Hansen was there, speaking in support, on the record. When I attended one of Mayor Godfrey's evening by invitation soirees designed to explain to the invitees how the gondola/gondola real estate specualtion scheme he favors would make the lame walk, the blind see, the poor wealthy, put a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage and reduce Park City to a ghost town as the glitterati abandoned it by hundreds for Ogden City, Rep. Hansen was there to laugh out loud now and then, and to ask awkward questions. And in the legislature too he stands up on things that matter, like raising the minimum wage and reducing barriers to voting. [Yes, his bill will help those who move at awkward times and so find themselves disenfranchised, but I suspect it will benefit more folks who didn't plan to vote, didn't register, and then during the stretch run to election day hear some Republican candidate for Mayor or state senate or governor or president or what have you say something so blood curdling dumb or mean spirited, that he or she suddenly becomes motivated to cast a vote for sanity. The Hansen bill would permit such to register and so to vote. Which is why, I expect, his bill will not make it through the Republican House or even out of committee. ]
Hell, Hansen's one of the few Democrats I know in this town who seems to enjoy standing up, making some noise now and then, and asking embarassing questions of people in office, who thinks politickin' is not only a noble calling but a lot of fun. Good on him. We need more.
Great letter to editor in today's SE...also Mary Hall's commentary is superb.
Rudi, you should have linked these. Are you away today?
Link to Mary Hall's op ed piece on what a good mixed use ordinance for Ogden should like like is here.
All of Neil's bills are aimed at helping people. He cares about EVERYONE! How it would it be to have a mayor who thought of the taxpayer/resident first?! I know from personal experience that when someone, whether they're a constituent or not, goes to him with a problem, he immediately takes action and does whatever he has to help them.
Last year while the Legislature was still in session, I understand that Neil met with the city council to explain a couple of his bills and why he sponsored them. Godfrey sent his whole A-Team to do battle with him. I was told that Neil held his own and even made Harmer look like an idiot. Neil called them on the wastefulness of the lawsuits that were being brought against the City, and I understand that Harmer denied that Woodbury sued the City. According to him, the city paid them sooner than they had planned, they weren't paying off a law suit. OH, WHAT CRAP!! I understand when Jeske asked Harmer about the loan that the city took out with thousands of dollars of interest that taxpayers are expected to pay to pay Woodbury as ordered by the Court, he just said, "So?" How infantile! He's been around the Mayor too long and beginning to catch the Mayor's bad habits.
What I'm worried about is that Jesse Garcia will run for mayor and split the votes again so that Godfrey (Heaven forbid he runs) wins again. Jesse isn't electable -- he has too much baggage: (1) He's hispanic, (2) He's a Democrat, (3) He is not a strong leader, and people walk all over him. Everyone, please encourage Jesse not to run for mayor.
Neil also knows where a lot of bodies have been hidden -- he used to work for the city, and he would be the one to restore ethics to Ogden City government.
If three, or more, enter the race, there will be I think a primary election and the two leading candidates run it off [provided no one candidate has better than 50% of the vote in the primary]. Isn't that how it works? So a third candidate in the race, or a forth, will not necessarily guarantee anyone a victory by splitting votes.
John lists "he's a Democrat" as one of Councilman Garcia's weak points. So, by the way, is Neil Hansen.
Hansen and Garcia went against each other in the last mayor primary. Hansen lost because the fire fighters union threw in with Garcia.
The fire fighters are the strongest individual political force in Ogden. Especially in the more people oriented elements of our political landscape. (Yes Curmugeon, I mean demo's)
Garcia's weak run for the ninth floor, along with his other aforementioned baggage was the only reason Mr. Godfrey was re-elected. He only won by a narrow margine at that!
I am hopefull that the Fire Fighters get behind a more electible candidate this next time. They are pretty smart fellows and I am sure they have learned a bit from this. Especially considering how shabbily the Mayor has treated them since he has been in office.
From everything I have seen and heard about Mr. Hansen, I would certainly vote for him if the election were right now.
In addition to his other good qualities, he seems to be a very pleasant and jolly fellow. This could be a wonderful contrast to the dour, miserly and mean spirited little fellow that now occupies that vaunted perch on the ninth floor.
OZBOY!!! WELCOME...I've truly missed your erudite and, often so witty, epistles.
Neil is a man who would have a welcoming and honest administration. Could we handle that??
Garcia is finally beginning to speak up and be a leader for the Council. I think that is a valuable position, and Garcia would be letting us all down if he left that important position and ran for mayor.
Realistically speaking...Garcia is not electable. There is a huge segment of Ogden voters who will not vote for him. That's a fact.
He better serves our commuinty be staying on the Council....after 14 years, he also knows where a lot of bodies are buried. With a mayor like Neil, Garcia may feel emboldened to come forward with the locations of a some of those bodies.
I hope the firefighters remember a little over a year ago when the budget was passed. Did Garcia fight for them? NO! As I recall, when Jeske was trying to get that ordinance that discriminated against the firefighters and police, Garcia acted against her and voted against the firefighters and police a 2nd time. GARCIA DID NOT SUPPORT THE FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE in negotiations last year!
I feel that Garcia is not a strong leader. He did not defend the Council's position strongly on SB 229, the Civil Service Commission Bill last year. The only things that I've seen him strongly defend are the ILLEGAL immigrants from Mexico! To me and others he is breaking the law by abetting and aiding LAWBREAKERS!
Do we want ANOTHER LAWBREAKER FOR MAYOR?
New comments are not allowed.