Anonymous Comments Will Be Removed

Anonymous posts can be confusing and hard to follow with several users posting anonymously in the same thread. Please create a User Name/ID when adding to our comments section.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

No Decision on Powder Mountain

No decision was made by the Weber County Commissioners at last night's meeting in Ogden. Powder Mountain presented their new proposals which included an increase of 1800 acres to add to the original rezone request. In addition, they demanded an increase in units (dwellings) from 2800 to 3950 (not including the 900+ units slated for the Cache County side of the resort). It should be noted that Powder Mountain has never resolved the issue of the second permanent access road and said last night they would "address that issue when they felt it was necessary." It appears that Powder Mountain will be calling the shots on public safety and traffic regarding Hwy, 158.

The purpose of this is clear, Powder Mountain is playing a shell game with the density numbers by adding more acreage and at the same time demanding an increase to 3950 units (a 41% increase in dwellings)! The additional acreage dilutes the technical density calculation, but does NOTHING to address the serious road safety issues or real time density (dwelling) numbers that will increase for Ogden Valley.

You have to admire the chutzpah of the Powder Mountain people. They are trying to hold a gun to the head of the Weber County Commission and Weber County citizens by threatening to go forward with the incorporation petition if they don't get everything they want, including the additional units beyond what they asked for originally.

We in the Valley have news for Powder Mountain and Weber County. Bring on the Incorporation! It is very likely that a Federal Court will see things differently on the incorporation and the denial of the civil rights of Weber County citizens due to the ill advised HB466. A Federal Court case could tie up the process for years and during that time, Powder Mountain can sit on its assets.

It will also be pertinent to bring into any lawsuit the conflict of interest issue involving a still sitting member of the Ogden Valley Planning Commission. Such action will expose the failure of both the Ogden Valley Planning Commission leadership and the Weber County Commission to take definitive punitive action regarding the conflict of interest facts after an obvious betrayal of public trust by an appointed commission member.

Larry and Sharon Zini

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on! I will love watching Cooper, DeCaria, Zogmaister, Dearden and Bischoff testify under oath why they have ignored the facts of a clear conflict of interest regarding Jamie Lythgoe when she was working both sides of the street regarding Powder Mountain. It is called negligence and failure to support the public trust.

Anonymous said...

The sham by Dearden was just for show. He realized that in March it appeared that the Weber County Commission was viewed as not caring what happened with Ogden Valley (he was right on) so he put on his one on one dog and pony show and look at the result, they want more!. These are your elected representatives, and they do nothing to look out for the people. Remember that on election day, vote against the incumbent. It is all about money and development. I hope there is a lawsuit, we will all enjoy seeing these people under oath.

Anonymous said...

As I was listening to Brooke Hontz provide us with statistics during the public hearing last night (7/8/08), I began to wonder if Powder Mountain may be playing games with figures when comparing their proposed development density (.62 units per acre) with other resorts (Tamarack, Jackson Hole, Telluride), coming in north of 1.0/acre. Most ski resorts in the U.S. do NOT own the land where lifts and trails are located. Instead, this land is typically leased from the the US Forest Service. I would like to know how Powder Mountain arrived at the density figures quoted for these other resorts, as 100% of Powder Mountain is privately owned, instead of leased from the USFS. Comments or input, anyone? If this is the case, this is not an apples to apples comparison.

Anonymous said...

"We have the best government money can buy. "
-Mark Twain

Incompetence and greed that's what we have on our hands.
All hail the powers that be....

Anonymous said...

What an insult to the intelligence of the public. The developers want to trade a couple of undevelopable cliffs for additional density. There was nothing new germane to the central issues of density, dangerous road, water etc. County officials should be outraged by the intimidation tactics of the developers. Lets get the law suits going and stop the circus of listening to these pandering, deceiptful presentations by the developers. I will willingly make contributions to the legal challange.

Elmer Fudd said...

Hey everybody! Take a gander at this:

Powder Mountain Update: Open Letter to the Weber County Commission

Anubis Ra said...

Thanks to Dan S. for his clear explanation on the danger of Hwy. 158. One can only hope the WC Commissioners consider his points along with the other conditions recommended by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission. They appointed these people to look out for Ogden Valley!

frankc said...

I barely made it through the "Whereas" clauses of this piece of garbage before I threw up my hands and concluded that not even these creeps can seriously believe that our County Commission would accept it in anything close to its present form. A couple of observations:
1)This thing has the stench of Greg Curtis's law firm all over it. It is as if they made a list of all the pro-developer legislation they have ramrodded through in the past few years and included all of them.

2)It is fairly obvious that the creeps viewed Commissioner Dearden's overture as a sign of significant weakness, thus generating this hopelessly overreaching "proposal."

3)No further time should be spent analyzing it. It was obviously submitted in bad faith, and should be rejected out of hand. If the creeps think they are on such firm legal/moral/ethical/equitable ground, let them initiate the next action.

4)The Weber County Commission, if it believes (as it should believe) that HB 466 in unconstitutional (as it clearly is), should refuse to become a party to the deprivation of its citizens' constitutional right to equal protection, and should deny the incorporation petition on that basis.

mcvtwnqu