Stop The Green Valley Academy in Ogden Valley Utah Petition Available For Signing

Huntsville residents concerned about a school for troubled teens have started a petition drive and could use your help.  The proposed school would be located in Southeast Huntsville although we hear the directors of the academy have a couple of backup locations just in case the Huntsville site doesn't pan out.  It could be coming to your neighborhood next, so pay close attention.

We have placed the petition over in the Petition Center which is located on the right sidebar.  You can also click here to sign the petition and support the cause.

Snowbasin Unveils Development Plans

2400 more units in Ogden Valley!

The Weber County Forum is on the ball with the late breaking story.  Read it before it hits the Standard Examiner's news stands Saturday morning.

Read the latest here:

Standard-Examiner: Snowbasin Suddenly Gets Back Into the Resort Development Game 

Rudi offers his expert analysis along with some savvy and cranky advice for the Ogden Valley-ites.

"Fifty years"? My ass. This new development will be in the forefront immediately.

If Ogden Valley residents thought they had a tough time with Western America Holding (WAH), wait until they get a load of the heavyweight Sinclair Oil, while it jockeys for position to overdevelop its mountain to the hilt.

For those Ogden Valley residents who still desire a rural mountainesque atmosphere, we'll suggest they might consider buying land in Montana... or maybe Alaska. Even Siberia, maybe.

Sadly, with the cowardly buckling of the Weber County Commission, it's likely that the die is cast; and that the bucololic Ogden Valley of our recent memories may soon be no more.

While we are at it, we will put in a gentle plug for one of our favorite Ogden Valley Books entitled "Bargaining For Eden" by Stephen Trimble.  The book is Mr. Trimble's rendition of how Earl Holding was able to acquire the SnowBasin land in the first place with a little help from his friends.   Amazon is practically giving the book away and it is displayed in our left sidebar.

Be sure to weigh in on this riveting late breaking development news from Earl's Lodge.

Powder Mountain (aka Powderville) Update; Let's Talk Extortion!

By Ima Believer

LET’S TALK EXTORTION

Just my opinion, but I think what happened at the WC Commission meeting last night may have been the commission caving in to a well-orchestrated plan of extortion. I’m not a Utah lawyer; fact, I’m not even a lawyer, but I know a little about extortion, and I think we may well have seen it here. Here’s some random stuff from the net (in no particular order):

Answers.com

n, 2. Illegal use of one’s official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority (emphasis added here and elsewhere)

Columbia Encyclopedia

In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear….

Law Encyclopedia

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened…fear, or under color of official right.

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion.

American Lawyer.com

n, Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim’s property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of right….

Criminal.findlaw.com

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1)violence, 2)property damage, 3)harm to reputation, or 4)unfavorable government action.

Utah Code Ann. 76-6-406 Theft by Extortion

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercise control over the property of another by extortion and with a purpose to deprive him thereof.

(2) As used in this section, extortion occurs when a person threatens to:

(b)Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint;….

Utah Code Ann. 76-8-104 Threats to influence official or political action.

(1)A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he threatens any harm to a public servant,…with a purpose of influencing his action, decision, opinion, recommendation, nomination, vote, or other exercise of discretion.

(2) As used in this section:

(a)”Harm” means any disadvantage or injury, pecuniary or otherwise, including disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare the public servant…is interested.

So here’s the deal: it appears that the essence of extortion is a threat to do something, even something the extortionist may otherwise have a perfect right to do, for the purpose of obtaining something the extortionist has no right to have (in this case, zoning density well beyond what’s on the property when it was bought, if the Pronaia boys or their predecessors had taken the time and trouble to look.)

In fact, in some other states, extortion can occur when that threat is made even if the extortionist has a right to the property sought and the right to take the action that is threatened! Remember, it’s the threat that’s bad. Here’s how that works. Let’s say A writes B a bad check. B has an obvious right to the money, and can sue A for it, civilly. B also has the right to go to the prosecutor and file bad check charges against A. What he does NOT have the right to do is to threaten A that he will go to the prosecutor unless A pays the money. That’s extortion.

If, having gone to the prosecutor, B receives an offer from A to pay the money, or even if B receives payment and drops the criminal case, no problem. But if B says to A “I’ll only drop the charges if you agree to pay me twice what you owe me,” that’s extortion. Isn’t this fun?

Are we getting the picture, here? Now, once again, that may not be the way things work here in Utah, where the law isn’t quite as well developed as in other states, but then again, it may be. Either way, it sure leaves a bad taste when it happens, doesn’t it? And when the Pronaia boys threatened to continue their campaign to establish their town and hold the citizens captive, without a vote, unless the county commissioners gave them more than twice the density to which they were entitled, the commissioners didn’t say: “Hey, that sounds like extortion!” They said: “That sure sounds reasonable to us.”

Wonder what they’ll demand next?

Residential Treatment Facility Proposed For Huntsville

A residential treatment facility is proposed for East Huntsville near the Monastery.  As one would expect, many of the neighbors are concerned about having this type of facility in their back yard.

The Academy directors have already gone before the Ogden Valley Planning Commission for conditional use approval.  The commissioners tabled the issue during their most recent meeting but will be making a decision on the issue soon.

Click here to review the Commission report.  Pertinent data begins on page 49.

 
A meeting is being held Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 7:30  PM  at the Huntsville Library.

Click here to read a flyer with additional information from the Academy Directors.

Another meeting is being held for Concerned Citizens on June 9, 2010 @ 7:00 PM at the Huntsville Library to discuss the issue.  Click here for more details regarding the concerned citizen's meeting.

Predictable Outcome for Ogden Valley

Last night at the Weber County Commission public hearing on Powder Mountain it was no surprise when the Weber County Commissioners voted to accept the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) submitted by the Powder Mountain developers with a unanimous vote. The County Commissioners stated this was just a beginning, with much more work

to be done.

Despite the numerous Ogden Valley residents who spoke sincerely of their opposition to the MOU, citing the General Plan and fairness issues, it was clear in the end, that their well documented and logical points had negligible influence with the Weber County Commissioners.

To be sure, there were supporters of the MOU at the meeting and they spoke of their reasons for support. Most said they were affected homeowners who want to be free of the incorporation threat. They feel caught in a vise between the developers and Weber County. They must have forgot who put them there in the first place.

Commissioner Dearden spoke at length about the poorly written bill (HB466) that was passed in the state legislature and how these things happen. What he failed to address was the fact that when the bad bill was replaced a year later by a revised bill on incorporation, the specific section that generated this entire anti-incorporation uproar was left in place in an intentional and calculated move by the legislature.

Of interest was the presentation of Mr. Pierce of Pronaia when he said that in his investigation of the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) around the country, TDRs have not been found to be successful. Not so much as a whimper was heard from the three Weber County Commissioners despite the fact that these same Commissioners have directed the GEM Committee and others to evaluate the use of TDRs for implementation in Ogden Valley, involving many hundreds if not thousands of hours of study and reports in recent years. Yet the Commissioners had no reaction when Mr. Pierce questioned the value of TDRs. This does not bode well for open land preservation in the future for Ogden Valley.

In addition, it was obvious that the Commissioners are dismissive on the issue of consistency regarding the 3 acre restriction that other developers and land owners have followed in Ogden Valley for the last twelve years.

Mr. Pierce also did his best to lay the blame for problems on the initial Powder Mountain developers (WAH) due to their approach and strategy. While he may have a point, Pronaia’s hands are tarnished as well for continuing to use the threat of incorporation to achieve their goals.

Mr. Pierce may feel this is somewhat unfair. Accordingly, The Ogden Valley Forum challenges Mr. Pierce and Pronaia to drop the incorporation with no strings attached to demonstrate good faith, and to continue this process using the offices of the Weber County Commission and the Weber County Planning Department to work out a non leveraged and equitable deal on the development at Powder Mountain.

Memorandum of Understanding Between Powder Mountain and Weber County Passes Unanimously

Late Breaking News

More will follow, but this evening Weber County Commissioners unanimously approved the Memorandum of Understanding between the Powder Mountain Developers and Weber County.  After deliberation on the issue with Commissioner Bischoff speaking in favor of the MOU, Commissioner Zogmaister made the motion to approve and Commissioner Dearden seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Thanks to Dan S. who provided live play by play blogging during the meeting in the comments section of the Weber County Forum.

UPDATE June 2, 2010 @ 4:00 AM:

The Standard offers an overview this morning in the Di Lewis article:

Residents, developers pack public hearing; lawsuits to be stayed regarding proposed Powder Mountain Town
 Be sure to watch the video on the right sidebar while you are there.  Near the end of the recording, County commission candidate Drew Johnson offers a heartfelt plea to the developers urging them to drop the plans for a town.

On the beautiful and calm Memorial Day before storm tomorrow evening at the Weber County Commission chambers, we will direct our humble readers to this morning's Di Lewis article:

Divided opinions on plans for Powder Mountain

Many Valley-ites are quoted with the majority of those quoted being opposed to the Memorandum of Understanding that will be before our humble group of all-star commissioners Tuesday evening at 6:PM (of course, get there early to get a seat).


From today's Di Lewis article:

Valley residents worry that increased traffic and the development of 2,800 units at the resort will turn their home into a polluted suburb.

"It goes far beyond the community this time," said Eden resident Sharon Holmstrom. "This time, they have the homeowners in a vise from which they cannot escape.
"If a development agreement is not reached, then homeowners are stuck with the incorporation and expense and horror of that. But if they go along with that agreement, then they undermine the general plan for the rest of the valley."
Eden resident Kirk Langford is concerned that allowing higher than normal density at the resort in order to reach a resolution will open the door for future developers to demand density variances.

Langford and Holmstrom, along with many other landowners, lost two-thirds of their development rights in the down-zoning of the valley in 1998.
Now they are worried the move the landowners hoped would preserve the valley will be pointless if the resort is allowed to have more than its allotted development rights for the amount of land.

"I'm for Powder Mountain being developed," Langford said. "I think they should get every single entitlement that they had on the land when they bought it. ...
"But I've watched people go to build one house up here, and if they're a quarter acre short, too bad, they can't build. So why should they (the resort) be able to get 1,600 more (units)?"

It's about fairness, said Eden resident Steve Clarke.
"The thing I focus on right now is the fairness issue that people who own a considerable amount of property surrendered property rights and went from 1-acre zoning to 3-acre zoning," he said.

"I feel like it's unfair for the county to give density to a resort that other people gave up willingly years ago. It's important for the county commission to acknowledge the contribution of these landowners."

But some residents believe the memorandum, with recent changes, might be the best plan they can get to end the problems in the valley, said Darla Van Zeben, an Eden resident within the incorporation boundaries and one of the residents involved in the lawsuit against the county.

The revised memorandum, now available on the county website http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php, limits the resort to one golf course, creates a 1.5 percent fee for improvements and removes the developers' ability to withdraw from the agreement after action is taken on a neighboring development with common ownership.
Van Zeben said those were the issues creating the most worry among homeowners.
Most potential town residents don't think it's a perfect solution, she said, but it's one they can live with.

"There are parts of this deal that are tough to accept, but we're all in a tough situation and this new MOU might just be the best deal the Ogden Valley is going to get," Van Zeben said.

She said they are worried that if the incorporation is ultimately approved, it would allow unbridled development across more than 20,000 acres, rather than controlled development over 4,200 acres.

Because the incorporation petition was possible through a short-lived law, Van Zeben said she doesn't think other developers would be able to demand higher density.

 As a bonus today, we will include several letters to the editor of the June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News.  It is posted below this article so be sure to scroll down.

As an enhanced bonus, we will link to this morning's Weber County Forum Post on the subject:

Standard-Examiner: Divided Opinions on Plans for Powder Mountain

In true Rudi-esque Fashion, he has created a "cribsheet" of various articles that have appeared on the subject in recent weeks.

Before we run off to 'Vegas Baby' to roll the dice on tomorrow's outcome, we will give all a chance to join in our straw poll that is located near the top of the right side bar.

As Ron Burgandy would say during signoff, "Stay Classy Ogden Valley."

Letters To The Editor of The Ogden Valley News regarding the Powderville Hostage Crisis

The June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News was stuffed with letters from residents concerned over the outcome Powderville.


We have scanned all of the letters and will include them below in no particular order.  We will, however, post the "Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley" first, as it is signed by several of the Powderville hostages.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley
By Dan VanZeben,
Darla Longhurst-VanZeben
Taylor Satterthwaite
Jim Halay
Deja Mitchell
Kathy Dowell
Suzanne Amann
Eden

Community Being Asked to Weigh in on Controversial County Decision on Powder Mountain Development  (note:  this is not a letter to the editor but a cover story written by one of the editors of the Ogden Valley News)

By Shanna Francis

A Bad Deal For Ogden Valley
By Kimbal Wheatley
Huntsville

What Is To Happen To Our Valley
By Larry Zini
Huntsville

Courage Needed To Face Powder Mountain Developer
By Frank Cumberland
Huntsville

A Community Worth Saving
By Laura Warburton
Huntsville

Powdervillains Hold Hostages
By Sharon Holmstrom
Eden

Valley Citizens Should Not Drink the Cool-Aid Offered by Powder Mountain Developers
By Richard C. Webb
Liberty

Unlink Eden Heights development from Powder Mountain MOU
By Steve Clarke
Eden


Don't Sell the Utah Supreme Court Short!
By Sharon Zini
Huntsville

Please Attend County Commission Hearing to Indicate Support Against Powder Mountain Proposal
By Edward A. Adair
Eden

Attend Public Hearing on June 1 - Democracy works best when people participate
By Kirk Langford
Eden

After perusing the twelve letters (probably the most letters the OVN has ever printed in one issue on a particular subject), we were able to break them down into three categories:

• In Favor of the MOU         1
• Against the MOU              10
• Neutral (come together)    1

Comments on Powder Mountain Draft MOU

Submitted by Dan Schroeder, Conservation Chair, Ogden Sierra Club

May 28, 2010

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the draft “Binding Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) between Weber County and the owners of Powder Mountain (WAH). These comments are submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club and our more than 300 members who live in Weber County.

Before getting into the MOU itself, I would like to express our gratitude for your courageous position on the matter of appointing the Powder Mountain Town Council. It is a fundamental American principle that our leaders should be chosen by the people, not merely appointed by a particular commercial interest or by those who own the most land. This principle is enshrined in the Utah Constitution and is supported by the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ogden Valley residents of all political persuasions have now rallied behind this principle, and we have every reason to expect that the courts will agree. Weber County is therefore engaging in the present negotiations from a position of strength

With this in mind, here are the Sierra Club’s concerns with the draft MOU:

1. The MOU fails to protect the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area.

First among the Sierra Club’s concerns is that there is no language in the draft MOU to provide any protection whatsoever to the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area (WMA). As you know, the WMA borders the Powder Mountain property on three sides, and provides critical habitat for elk and many other wildlife species. Earlier proposals from the Powder Mountain owners have vividly shown their intent to place private home sites along much of the WMA boundary. This would threaten the WMA by enabling unauthorized entry, trail construction, motor vehicle use, and poaching. These problems already occur in other remote areas of northern Utah where private residential properties adjoin public lands. The Powder Mountain boundary is similarly remote, making law enforcement impractical.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to prevent these problems. The development plan should include a buffer zone that separates private lots from the WMA, with a trail along the entire boundary that would give law enforcement personnel access to this critical area. The trail might also be used for public recreation, to whatever extent is consistent with the overriding goal of protecting wildlife habitat.

I therefore request that if you go forward with the MOU, you add a provision for a buffer zone and other necessary protections for the WMA. It would be prudent to consult with the Forest Service and the Division of Wildlife Resources regarding the details of these provisions.

2. The traffic safety/impact study should not be delayed.

The draft MOU inappropriately postpones the initiation of the traffic/impact study until many years in the future, after nearly 1500 units have already been constructed on Powder Mountain. This delay would create long-term uncertainty over the ultimate impact of the development on the rest of Ogden Valley, including the question of whether a second access road would ever be built. It is unfair for the residents of Ogden Valley to have to live with this uncertainty for so long. Instead, the traffic/impact study should be completed before any MOU or development agreement is finalized.

3. The MOU would allow Phase 2 to proceed before safety recommendations are met.

Although Section 2.3 of the MOU requires WAH to pay for the traffic safety/impact study and to “begin implementation” of the study’s recommendations before proceeding with Phase 2, it does not actually require that the safety recommendations be fully (or even mostly) implemented. If this loophole is not closed, it will almost certainly lead to unsafe conditions and/or additional litigation.

4. The MOU is an invitation for future litigation.

WAH has already demonstrated its eagerness to go to court to get what it wants. Entering into a “binding” memorandum of understanding would give WAH additional grounds for future litigation, tying the County’s hands whenever it might seek to impose additional requirements that are not explicitly included in the MOU.

Conclusion:

While an informal MOU might serve as a useful guide for future negotiations, I am not convinced that a binding MOU would be in the best interest of the County under any circumstances. Instead, I would urge you to bring forward an actual development agreement that spells out the County’s requirements in much more detail.

Should you nevertheless choose to go ahead with this binding MOU, I urge you to amend it to address the concerns described above.

Sincerely,

Dan Schroeder

American Legion Ceremony to honor the Veterans of Ogden Valley

We at the forum would like to wish everyone a Happy Memorial Day weekend.  Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service.  Please remember our fallen soldiers while out roasting hot dogs in the rain this weekend.


Be sure to make time to visit one of our local cemeteries on Monday to participate in the American Legion's ceremony of honor.

Here is more information on this important event submitted by Clay Poulter

On Monday May 31st. The American Legion Post 129 Ogden Valley will be conducting our annual ceremony to honor the Veterans that are buried in the four cemeteries in the Ogden Valley. Times are as follows:

Liberty @ 9:00 am
Lower Eden @ 9:30 am
Upper Eden @ 10:00 am
Mountain Green @ 11:00 am
Huntsville @ 12:00 pm
Luncheon @ 1:00 pm

Canyon race kills teen / Cars try to pass on each side of van with disastrous results

From this morning's Standard Examiner:

A high-speed race involving high school-age kids turned deadly in Ogden Canyon on Thursday afternoon.
One 16-year-old girl from Ogden is dead. The male driver of the car she was riding in sustained serious injuries and was taken by helicopter to an area hospital.
Police are looking for another car that left the scene of the fatal crash, said Lt. Phil Howell, of Weber County Sheriff’s Office.
All involved in the accident appear to be from the Ogden area, and all are younger than 18 years old.
The three survivors are hospitalized in stable condition as of late Thursday, Howell said; deputies were not yet releasing the identities of those involved.
The accident occurred about 2:30 p.m. in Ogden Canyon near the Pineview spillway.
A black Acura and a red Honda appear to have been racing westbound through the canyon, Howell said.
“They both tried to pass a van that was already in the roadway, on either side of that van. One of the cars, a black Acura, lost control and drove off the south side of the roadway and crashed into a tree,” Howell said.
The Acura was likely in the westbound lane, trying to pass on the right side of the van, before losing control.
The impact of the accident partially knocked down the tree and blocked the road, Howell said.
The male driver was extricated from the vehicle and flown by helicopter to McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden.
“One female passenger was dead at the scene from injuries,” Howell said. “Two other (female) passengers were able to get out of that car and were driven by a private vehicle to the hospital for treatment.”
Police are looking for the red Honda that left the scene of the accident.
“We’re investigating leads to identify that vehicle and occupants,” Howell said.
“Our deputies and (Utah) Highway Patrol are investigating the accident scene and doing those kinds of calculations to estimate speed and distance and all of those factors that are involved in the accident.”
The road through Ogden Canyon was reopened at 6:50 p.m. after the accident scene was cleared and deputies completed their investigation.

Click here to view the story on KSL.com

Amy Wicks meets the GEM Committee

Amy Wicks, one of the two candidates for the Weber County Commission seat B this November was the guest at the GEM Committee meeting at the Huntsville Town Hall last night.

Amy said she works for a private firm that provides support to abused children. She has also been elected to two terms as an Ogden City Council member.

Amy appears to be a straightforward, self confident candidate, and easily fielded questions on many wide ranging subjects about Ogden Valley and Weber County.

Ms. Wicks stated she is a supporter of private property rights, but also of long range planning and zoning. She indicated she is not a supporter of Eminent Domain where government agencies can simply take peoples’ land when they deem it is appropriate.

When asked about Ethics Reform, Amy stated it is needed in Utah and she does support meaningful ethics reform for our legislature.

She was asked her opinion about the MOU Powder Mountain has before the Weber County Commissioners. Amy said she did not see any compromise on the part of Powder Mountain in the MOU.

Amy was asked about the difficulty of running as a Democrat in Weber County. She responded that she has been mostly nonpartisan in her political career on the Ogden City Council, and it is difficult to get the financial campaign support needed running as an independent. She plans to address most issues with a nonpartisan approach.