Today in the Standard Examiner there was a small letter to the editor stirring the Golf City pot once again. (See Letter Here). Connie Ott (who is a neighbor to Lamont Camp running for council) reminds many of us of the debate and how the majority at the meeting wanted Golf City to remain open space. She demands we think long and hard on who we vote for council and remember Golf City. This letter pushed me to think about Golf City and what this vote really means.
I only played Golf City five or six times, I wasn't a resident of South Ogden when this all happened. However before living in here, I remember hearing rumblings of Golf City and its eventual demise. Since moving to South Ogden many people have been kind enough to explain their versions of the great Golf City debacle. Though I am not fully clear on all the details, one thing I do know for certain: A large group of people (some may say a majority) was against the idea and the council voted the other way.
There are a lot of people still bitter about this decision made by our city council. The last two elections have been marred with Golf City comments and we have seen council members come and go because of it. My blog gets about 30 hits a week with people typing into google: "Golf City, Voting, City Council" and other variations. People want to know who voted, who didn't, what was the closed door meeting about, why were we not listened to, etc.
I don't blame them for feeling this way, this is in part of why I write this blog; to express my feelings about such issues. Interestingly enough, the two people who advanced in the primary were supporters of the change to the Golf City zoning, meaning Jim Minster and Vicki Mattson voted for the zoning change. The one person to vote against it, John Bradley, missed passing Vicki Mattson by 14 votes.
So either the fallout is beginning to dwindle or people don't care anymore. Either way the most important thing to remember is when the people stood up for something they believed in, the council didn't listen. Many of the candidates running are promising you they will listen to your problems and if the majority wants something they will support it. Look deeper into their eyes and see of this is really true. Don't be afraid to ask them about Golf City and where they stand.
Hasn't the Golf City fallout been amazing to watch? Please feel free to comment on your feelings; I think many still need to discuss this issue.
5 comments:
It's interesting that when the citizens had a chance to make the changes in government they didn't. It seems that status quo is more comfortable, no matter how angry it makes them. I'm still not convinced that anything is going to change. Everyone running for Mayor touted being pro citizen and wanting to do what's best for the city. Election results looked to me like the citizenry either decided comfort beats positive change. What's going to be different than the last 8 years? Where are these miraculous changes going to take place? Anyone going to hold our governing body accountable? I dare you South Ogden residents. But you have to do it loud, and make sure your voice is heard...if you dare.
BenJoe. Plain and simple. The entire area around golf city was residential, so if the council would've said no to the zoning change, Ivory would've taken the city to court and won, hands down. This would've cost the cities tax payers even more, towards a losing battle in court. Ivory homes bought the land fair and square, Nancy took a 5mil $ offer over a $750,000, anyone would. Ivory can do what they want with the land. People need to get the facts straight before they start going off. The council was in complete agreeance, leading up to the vote, and Bradley backed down and voted no at the last minute, just so he would have a good vote to please the people with for re-election.
I have to disagree with Jarrod on the point of the lawsuit. Ivory Homes isn't some neophyte home developer. They've been doing this for a long time and they know that a suggestion of a rezoning by a member of the planning commission is not binding. One of the first lessons any developer learns is to get the zoning and permits in order before money changes hands.
And if they had filed a lawsuit, there are enough competent attorneys out there that would love to defend the city in such a cut-and-dry case and add that feather to their cap.
No, the lawsuit was a smokescreen.
Of course Nancy made the obvious choice in taking the higher offer. However, she had been paying taxes for years on the Golf City property at the open space property rate. It was in the city master plan that the land be reserved as open space. If the land has always been zoned as residential or commercial, her tax rate would have been much higher. When the land was magically rezoned, not only did the city lose valuable green space, but they also lost decades of tax revenue. At the very least, Ivory should have been held accountable for the taxes lost in the switcheroo.
I repeat, the lawsuit was a smokescreen.
It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect that the reason why there was little resistance to the rezoning had to do with Ellis Ivory himself. He's a very charismatic and intimidating person. And if anybody wanted to run on the Republican ticket for state representative, he's an important friend to have.
Bradley voted no because it was the will of the people. Whether he obeyed the will of the people because it was the right thing to do or because he wanted to be reelected, I can't say. But just the fact that he voted with the will of the people is more than I can say for the other elected officials.
I disagree, Ivory homes would've won in court. If the council really believed they could get away with denying their zoning change request without an injunction on their decision they would've all said no hands down. None of the council members had anything to gain by saying yes to Ivory Homes except pissed off residents. It's not like Ivory homes would've sold back the land to the city for a fraction of what they paid, if they couldn't get their zone change.
This is a very interesting dialog and I am torn on the issue. However I have to agree with Jarrod that Nancy had ever right to get the amount of money she did. At the same time Ivory Homes has every right do what they did. What it appears to me is the council did a poor job communicating the issue and responding to constituents. At the same time, it appears that John switched last minute to protect him self, for all we know this was decided on during close door meetings. Classic politics in reality, this happens all the time in the legislature. If they group has enough votes to pass something, someone will vote no to save face. However with out facts, I can only assume what happened. I have no facts on what was said outside of council meeting and why John voted the way he did.
As much as I would love open space, I am capitalists and believe everyone has the right to honestly make as much money as they choose as long as they obey the law. No laws have been broken here, only poor leadership.
Post a Comment