4/11/05 SGO Neighborhood Meeting - Part I

By Dian Woodhouse

I have compiled the notes on the speakers' part of the SmartGrowth meeting. As always, if any corrections are needed, input is more than welcome. Will do the public comments in a second installment.

SmartGrowth Meeting---Notes

Judge David Roth opened the meeting, and briefly ran through the agenda-- three speakers and then time for public comment. He made it clear that he was not a member of SmartGrowth, and had no vested interest in how this meeting or the issues turned out and had been invited to moderate by SmartGrowth. Those who wished to comment publicly were asked to limit their remarks to two minutes and sign up on sign up sheets at the back. This proved to be a very good way to run things, as Judge Roth could then call on people in order of sign up, which he did five to ten at a time so as to enable them to line up and be ready. This eliminated the dead air one gets at meetings while waiting for people to make their way to the podium, and ensured that everyone who wished to be heard had that opportunity.

Sandra Crosland from SmartGrowth was the first speaker. She began by saying that we were all, in attending this meeting, taking the first step to a positive public process and then moved quickly on to the sad fact that, although we were taking part in a positive public process, there was an elephant in the living room. This elephant was Chris Peterson’s development plans for the Basin and the proposed gondola.

“It is our park at stake,” Ms. Crosland said, and then went on to state that SmartGrowth was a community organization which believed that “informed decisions lead to positive growth.” Thus the SmartGrowth slogan, “Ask Questions.”

Because of her legal background, Ms. Crosland chose to approach the “elephant in the living room” from the standpoint of “reasonableness.” Is it reasonable, she asked, that one involved in buying a home would want to know what it looked like? How much it would cost? Asking questions about the proposed development, far from being “naysaying” is simply what reasonable people would do and is an integral part of participating in the public process.

Ms. Crosland then discussed certain “spin techniques” of which we have all been the recipients lately, and read from a letter to the Standard Examiner which called those opposing the Peterson project “haters.” She quoted, (and I hope I get this right, “If you don’t know the law, attack the facts, if you don’t know the facts, attack the law, and if you don’t know either one, attack the people.” She mentioned that it was a habit of the current administration to “float an idea” until that idea becomes a reality, and that despite these “glittering generalities” we have all heard concerning this project, it was by no means a fait accompli.

Ms. Crosland told the audience that, in looking back on what she had done, she herself was the most impressed with the accomplishments from her volunteer work, and then rattled off a list of volunteer credits which was truly impressive. They included: helping spearhead Ogden’s Nature Center, designing the fairgrounds, serving on the boards of the School Foundation and the Ogden Regional Medical foundation, the victim/witness program,Weber County Pathways, and RAMP. Her very conservative estimate was that she had spent more than 10,000 hours volunteering to make Ogden a better place, and emphasized the fact that in all these projects, RAMP was the only one that involved public tax dollars, and the spending of those dollars by RAMP had been ratified by a public vote.

However, Ms. Crosland said, all these volunteer accomplishments by no means made her unique. On the contrary, those involved in SmartGrowth and attending the meeting were basically the same kind of people--people who had put in many hours building Ogden. Far from naysaying, this was a group of “neighbors asking why,” (applause.) Ms. Crosland ended with a quote from a letter from Spence Havelick, a former mayor of Boulder who visited Ogden recently, to Mayor Godfrey, in which he stated that developing the Basin would be the “kiss of death” for Ogden.

Greg Montgomery spoke next. Mr. Montgomery is the Manager of the Planning Division of the Ogden City Department of Community and Economic Development. If the Mount Ogden neighborhood gets a neighborhood plan, Mr. Montgomery will be instrumental in making that happen. He stated his opinion that the general plan was “a skeleton,” and that the neighborhood plans, one presumes, flesh it out. It was originally the elementary school boundaries that constituted the divisions between various neighborhoods.

He began with a brief history of planning in Ogden--the first study that was done was in 1983. The general plan finally came to completion in 2000-2001. The way the process in the neighborhood plans would work is that first the issues of the neighborhood were defined--the style, kinds of problems, sidewalks, lighting, things of that nature. Many discussions were held to collect this information, and after this, a steering committee was established to draft a plan. Once the plan was drafted, more neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the draft, and that is basically the public process.

Mr. Montgomery then zeroed in on the “elephant in the living room,” (although he did not call it that,) and stated that his opinion was that the most successful neighborhood plans did not happen when the neighborhood was facing a controversial issue, as the Mount Ogden one is. Plans made during times of controversy oftentimes turn out to be based on that controversy, instead of upon the other issues of concern.

From here, he discussed the public process that would have to be undergone to have Chris Peterson’s project go through with the projected land sale, and said that it was important to understand that there was indeed a process that involved the public.

First, before the land could be sold, the general plan would have to be amended, because selling this land is contrary to the goals of the general plan. Amending the general plan requires that public hearings be held.

Secondly, the park is not only a local park, but a regional park, and was at one time dedicated by the city council as a park. So that too would have to be changed.

Third, the land is zoned as open space, and therefore a zoning change would be required. (He threw in here that the land at WSU Peterson wishes to buy is already zoned residential, so no change would be required there.)

Fourth, Malan’s Basin would have to be annexed into Ogden City, the plan has to be amended for that, and a public process is also included there.

Mr. Montgomery ended by saying that in his opinion, right and wrong land use is a matter of perspective. Two things are taken into consideration---Is the projected use safe, and what is its value. No one, Mr. Montgomery said, agrees on everything, but public hearings in this matter do have to occur.

Fred Aegerter was the final guest speaker. Mr. Aegerter was involved in the Jefferson neighborhood plan in Ogden, and later, was instrumental in the formulation of “Involve Ogden,” Ogden’s general plan. He began by stating that he, like Judge Roth, had no vested interest in the issue, and proceeded to talk about how Involve Ogden came about,.

It happened because, in 1997, the Ogden City Council had requested that the Ogden City Department of Community and Economic Development be audited. One of the results of the audit was that the department was told that it had to finish Ogden City's General Plan. A consultant was hired. The public process was undergone, with the steering committee comprised of a broad spectrum of Ogden residents. This committee was given the consultant’s conclusions and then began holding public meetings.

Mr. Aegerter spoke in glowing terms about Ogden’s “incredible spirit of volunteerism” in getting these things going. In February of 1999, a series of five meetings was held, and people volunteered for a huge public outreach effort to get people to these meetings to voice their concerns.

The facilitators of these meetings were local citizens, and because of their efforts, 500 ideas came back to the planners. (One of the recommendations, incidentally, was that the Ogden City Mall should be looked at very carefully before the decision should be made to knock it down.)

The planners took the comments and divided them into goals having to do with time--- immediate issues requiring immediate resolution, issues that should be resolved within eighteen months, short and long term, and then a catchall group comprised of issues that we should keep in the spotlight and work on continuously.

After this part of the process was complete, it was time for the Ogden City Council to approve the general plan, and here the process stalled. Council approval took ten months, mainly because, Mr. Aegerter said, the City Council wanted to be absolutely sure the goals in the plan could be implemented and that the promise represented by the plan could be realistically kept.

Mr. Aegerter ended by saying that the general plan is not a panacea for all challenges, and that it is not a silver bullet that will solve them. The importance of it is that it identified issues that were important, documented the peoples’ concerns, is a learning tool for those interested in the city, and provides a direction regarding land use and where the spending of public money should be focused. The plan, he said, should be updated roughly every three years. (Don't know if this updating is a mandate from somewhere or just a suggestion.)

Anyone, by the way, can read this plan on the Ogden City Website. The problem with it is that it has many divisions, and each division is a separate PDF. But for those interested, and willing to go through the downloading process, the link is here: Involve Ogden

Stay tuned for the public comments.