This video cleverly takes out-of-context statements by Susan Van Hooser, distorts their original meaning, and then claims that the statements are false. If you watch the video closely, you’ll see that none of its claims have merit. Here is a point-by-point analysis:
1. Van Hooser states that city council members cannot legally meet to discuss issues without a recorder to take minutes. She is clearly referring to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (Utah Code Title 52, Chapter 4), which defines any meeting of a quorum of the city council as an open meeting where minutes must be kept (and advance notice given). The video falsely states “there is no such law”, when in fact there is. Van Hooser doesn’t mention the quorum requirement in the video, but her statement has been edited to remove the context so there is no evidence that the full statement was misleading in any way.
2. Van Hooser states that “we have no retail downtown,” expressing an often-heard sentiment among Ogden residents. Although the statement isn’t literally true, the broader point is that more retail is needed downtown because the existing retail businesses are specialty shops that do not sell most types of general merchandise. In a similar spirit, Mayor Godfrey has frequently said (especially when promoting his gondola proposal), “We’re not on the map.”
3. Van Hooser says she’s “not sure that Ogden City needs to be the financier of everything that happens at the Junction.” The video then twists this statement into “the candidate says Ogden City financed everything at the Junction.” In fact, she never said that. However, it is true that Ogden City is the largest financier of the Junction, having invested approximately $40 million of public funds so far.
4. Van Hooser says that at city council work sessions, department heads provide information to the council. Then, in a separate clip, she says “there’s never a department head sitting there to answer a question...” This sounds like a contradiction, but we can’t be sure because the context is missing from both statements. In the second statement, especially, it is impossible to tell whether she is talking about city council work sessions or something else entirely.
5. Van Hooser refers to “businesses that have been here forever” that “didn’t receive money from the city.” The video then states that the city has loaned more than $3 million to small businesses in recent years. However, there is no contradiction at all between these statements. The statistic is irrelevant to the point Van Hooser was making, which is that certain new businesses are being given favored treatment compared to older businesses.
6. Van Hooser states that “most golf courses are not really profitable.” The video then gives a few local examples of allegedly profitable golf courses, including the city’s El Monte Golf Course. Again, there is no contradiction here: “most” does not mean "all", and Van Hooser would undoubtedly acknowledge that there are exceptions. Most golf courses, in fact, are closely associated with country clubs and/or real estate developments, and probably would not be profitable as stand-alone operations. As for El Monte, the city combines its finances with that of Mt. Ogden Golf Course, so there is no reliable way to tell how much money either of them is separately gaining or losing.
7. Van Hooser states, “Our golf course is tied to our open space; it’s one third of the open space of Ogden City.” This familiar statistic is based on the Ogden City General Plan, which inventories 606 acres of city parks and recreation areas. Of this total, the Mt. Ogden Park complex (including the golf course) covers 209 acres, or slightly over one third. The video quotes, without documentation, a much higher figure of 2,519 total acres of open space. This figure, if it is based in fact at all, would presumably have to include county, state, and federal lands, as well as school playgrounds and private cemeteries--none of which are owned or controlled by Ogden City.
8. The video claims that Van Hooser “refuses to debate on Ogden City’s channel 17.” In fact, Channel 17 could have filmed the very debate that is shown in the video. Van Hooser declined a debate invitation from Mayor Godfrey’s office, because she did not consider it appropriate for the mayor to be in charge of a debate.
9. The video claims that Van Hooser “gave incorrect information 8 times”. In fact, the video shows only seven instances of allegedly incorrect information, and as explained above, none of these instances hold up to close scrutiny. This video is nothing but mudslinging by an anonymous coward who refuses even to step forward and take responsibility for it.
(This rebuttal was written by Dan Schroeder, with no input or authorization from Susan Van Hooser. I stand by the factual claims in this rebuttal and welcome inquiries from anyone who wishes to dispute them.)
