Std Ex Guest Commentary: Who wins with all these proposals?

Sunday, October 16, 2005
By Jay Hudson
Guest CommentaryGuest Commentary

There was a time, before the Olympics, that many of us felt Ogden could benefit from Earl Holding's vision of Snowbasin's future. Some began to wonder when a low-level, logical Trappers Loop road between Morgan and Pineview Reservoir was ignored and a more expensive, high route was pushed through to favor Snowbasin at the expense of the taxpayers. We became more skeptical when Mr. Holding's pledge to build a connecting road to the resort at personal expense was scrapped for one paid by the taxpayers.

It became more obvious that Ogden may not significantly benefit, over the long haul, when traffic was directed around Ogden and the old Snowbasin road -- accessed through Ogden Canyon -- was closed during the winter.

The public hearings about the land swap sought by Snowbasin resulted in a proposal by the U.S. Forest Service for 200 acres, which was deemed sufficient to accommodate the Olympics. A congressional act later resulted in a land exchange of 1,300 acres -- without an environmental impact study -- for a four-season resort yet to be developed. Earl Holding had become the king of the hill!

Now we have a proposal from Mr. Holding's son-in-law, Mr. Chris Peterson, for a four-season resort on the west side of the mountain, including essentially the same user services of skiing, eating and lodging.

* Just why did Mr. Holding ignore the west side of the mountain?

* Was it simply a bad idea?

* Is Mr. Peterson still beholden to Holding, or has he taken up direct competition with his father-in-law?

* Will Mr. Peterson be able to cover the costs, or will he have the same approach and success as when he was at Snowbasin in transferring private infrastructure expenses to the taxpayer without an environmental study?

* Is the acreage currently under Mr. Peterson's ownership sufficient, or are we in for another land exchange?

The public and our elected representatives have to put their thinking caps on and start asking some hard questions of Ogden's Mayor Godfrey -- who has shown a distinct favoring of the proposal -- if we are to protect the historic free access to the west-facing, undeveloped front of Mt. Ogden, and the taxpayer's pocketbook.

For instance: Just how many people will pass up the Olympic-venue skiing for the limited opportunities on a west-facing slope? Which location will the Convention and Visitors Bureau primarily support, and will either of the resorts pitch in on the costs? Will new hotels be built based on the possibility of limited west-facing skiing, or will Mr. Peterson make a living off students and locals on a shortened season exacerbated by a warming climate?

If the land associated with this new resort is approved for annexation by the Ogden City Council, what rock-solid evidence will be used in the decision? Developers, bless their hearts, have a tendency to sell ideas to planning commissions based on the need or greed for taxes to the detriment of style, sensible architecture, walkable communities, infrastructure needs, history and the environment. Would incorporation be welcomed by the county (where the land now resides)? Or does anybody care who gets the taxes?

Should the taxpayers be concerned that Weber State University public land could be used for a private enterprise in the hopes that a new hotel-management program be developed? Or are they worried that the whole idea may create a new Weber Hotel Management University? Is the city ready to shuck the Mt. Ogden Golf Course to assist in the development of a landing spot for a gondola to Malan's Basin on the ruse of saving taxpayer money and maintaining the existing fee schedule under private ownership?

Somewhere on the bottom of the list is the concern for the nationally recognized trails system on the western face of Mt. Ogden, which was created at the behest of a former mayor and used regularly by Mayor Godfrey. What will the effects of Mr. Peterson's upcoming proposal be on years of volunteer work by more than 3,600 volunteers of the Ogden Trails Network (not Weber Pathways, as stated in a Standard-Examiner editorial) who literally dripped sweat on their blisters to build the trails about which the city so justifiably brags?

The questions continue, and the answers are nowhere in sight. Because we already have a king of the hill, my first inclination is: What possible purpose could this singularly local jingoism attain except to buttress a costly second king of the hill? Becoming just a prince may alone lay low the land. It is noted that some of the runners for the City Council race -- with its obligation of city stewardship -- have, without facts, voiced their backing for this unknown Xanadu. With facts elusive and Lift Ogden publicly stating it is reluctant to show its hand, it would seem logical and prudent that probing questions should be asked now and final strategies held until transparency is evident. No one wants to be dandled on the knee of slick promotion, and ignorance of facts is thin armor against poor community decisions.

Hudson is a longtime community volunteer, retired hospital president and was an assistant for special projects to former Ogden Mayor Glenn Mecham.