Michael Moyal Statement

By Michael Moyal

My partner and I are concerned that selective discrimination and arbitrary enforcement pertaining to the Ogden City ordinances have been used against us for the sole purpose of removing our land use rights, our right to conduct a legitimate business in the City of Ogden, and have seriously infringed on our Civil Rights as American Residents and Citizens.

The property at issue is the Ogden River Inn and vacant restaurant building. On November 6th, 2006 we purchased the property containing a business and buildings located at 1825 and 1839 Washington Blvd in Ogden along the Ogden River. Prior to purchasing I made inquiries with the Ogden City Redevelopment agency, who informed me that they not only didn’t have an option on the property, but also didn’t have the money for the rest of the project, and most likely wouldn’t have it for years, considering 24th Street and Washington was their priority. They all wished me the best of luck with my acquisition. My intention was to buy the buildings, get a new business license to operate the Motel, and another new business license to open the restaurant building (which has been vacant for years), as the first Indian restaurant in the City.

In late October the City Planners office directed me to file a petition to rezone the property. On November 1st, I went before the City Planning Commission to inform them of my intention to rezone the restaurant land in order to be able to sell alcohol. I was told that wine and beer sales would be allowed with a provisional use permit and was asked to work with the city planner’s office to get a provisional use permit. I was then told that alcohol sales would likely be rejected and my petition to rezone was “tabled” until the December Planning commission meeting to give me time to work out the details with Ogden City planning division. I went along with their recommendation and on November 27th we submitted a formal site plan to scale, North, South, East, and West elevations and artist renderings of the restaurant site, conforming to the spirit of the Ogden River Redevelopment Project. John Mayer from the City planner’s office told me considering everything was moving ahead with my site plan, Greg Montgomery had asked that I withdraw my petition to rezone the property. John Mayer drafted a letter, I signed it and Mr. Montgomery submitted it to the city recorders office. (Mr. Montgomery, City Planning Division Manager once told me that the only acceptable use for my buildings was to demolish them)

Two (2) days later on November 29th, we received a “Motel Business License Denial letter” based on alleged poor business practices by the Motel’s previous owners specifying business dates from January 1st 2004 to September 30th 2006, all prior to our ownership. We appealed the business license denial the same day and our hearing was set for December 7th 2006, one month after starting our new business. My partner and I along with a couple character witnesses attended the appeal hearing to strongly object the City’s decision.

On December 13th, my partner and I met with Mayor Godfrey of Ogden to discuss openly our business intentions and concerns. Although he appeared to be understanding and after he explained his obligations toward the City and his developer/investors, he stated “you should have expected to pay for the previous owner’s sins!” I strongly disagreed and our meeting was concluded. About a week later, we received an official letter allowing us a “6 month probationary business license”, to clean up the property. Actually, all the code violations given to the previous owner (abandoned/unlicensed vehicles, violations of 90 day ordinance, etc…) had all been addressed and resolved in the first week of our ownership, and the City had so been advised.

On December 15th we received a letter dated December 13th from John Mayer at the city planner’s office informing us of the various conditions to meet in order to proceed with our restaurant site plan. Once the city planner came to review the parking and landscape requirements that we could have easily accomplished, we were made aware of a new, temporary ordinance, a moritorium dated December 19th that denied any new site plan approvals, provisional use permits and building permits for 6 months.

On January 2nd, my partner and I attended the City council meeting and regardless of our objections to the proposed ordinance preventing the improvement of our property (from 18th to 20th, Washington to Wall); and our requests for the building permit required to improve our restaurant building, the ordinance was passed.

Also on January 2nd, my electrical contractor was issued a building permit for the purpose of getting electrical service to our restaurant, now to be an unimproved building with no riverside deck and without the new stucco facade.

On January 3rd, I was contacted by John Patterson from the mayor’s office and asked to meet on January 4th in his office. My partner and I, our attorney, John Patterson, the city attorney, and Scott Brown the River Redevelopment Manager were present for this meeting. In the course of the meeting, many issues were raised and we re-expressed our interest and willingness to consider any options that may help the city with their river planed visions. The City attorney (who once told me that upgrading my buildings would be like “putting lipstick on a pig”) at that time informed us that due to the new ordinance, our only legal use for our restaurant building was as “a vacant and abandoned building”.

Mr. Godfrey had told us that the City of Ogden had planned to lock out the previous motel owners about 8 months ago, but he was advised by the city attorney that the ordinance needed to be revised before such an action could be legal. We are now faced with the very threatening possibility that our entire business operation will be “locked out” within six months, according to the City’s revised “lock out ordinance”. This will leave us with more abandoned/vacant buildings, and no other option but to give in to the City’s arbitrary wishes.

Ogden has either through gross negligence or concerted efforts orchestrated events which have effectively denied us the reasonable economic use of our property and placed our capital at risk. The City’s scheme has denied us the right to use and develop our property with the apparent reason being to enhance some undefined future plan for the area. We followed instructions given to us, which have resulted in denials and delays, and which have effectively denied us due process.

Besides all the issues that I have raised above, I cannot help but to think that should my and my partner’s religious and ethnic backgrounds be more in line with many City official’s expectations, this entire matter might have been addressed in a more civilized manner to the satisfaction of all the parties involved.