Now that the election is over, it is time for Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey and the city council to make decisions on the Mount Ogden Golf Course/Park issue.
For more than two years, Mayor Godfrey has proposed various options for dealing with the golf course. However, he has given major emphasis to two primary options: 1) Simply close the course (let it go to seed), or 2) construct a $146 million major hotel-condominium complex above 36th Street in conjunction with major reconfiguaration of the couse.
Mayor Godfrey has not responded to a proposed "moderate-improvement plan" (Aug. 27, 2008, and Jan. 6, 2009) that would cost less than $400,000. The moderate plan was developed with several hundred man hours of golfer input. It involves re-paving and orientation of pathways for safety, along with some cuts and fills, and modest clearing on fairways to improve playability.
It is a counter proposal to the 36th Street plan that involves extensive land disturbance, extreme cuts and fills, removal of nine acres of trees, and radical alteration of the landscape.
Mayor Godfrey has promoted the 36th Street operational concept to be the only financial and operation way to go, other than closing the course.
This is short-sighted. It is incumbent upon the city council to do an enhanced job of discovery of other options for course improvement, and to look for ideas for better administration, public relations and marketing promotion. Foremost, it is essential that the improvement plan selected be designed to preserve the unique Mount Ogden environmental qualities.
The mayor's "close-the-course" option is undefined and misleading as a concept. The idea that Ogden city could let Mount Ogden "go to seed," so that a natural type of mountainside would return and everything would be all right is not realistic. The option is an incomplete, unfinished proposal.
Many outdoor enthusiasts would be delighted to have a free run at Mount Ogden. The area would be very attractive to the usual array of activities, involving bicycles, motor bikes, all terrain vehicles, hiking, dog running, picnicking, group activities, night-time parties, etc.
The area would soon become very popular and obviously require user control, policing, sanitation, garbage control and watershed protection. Without management, Mount Ogden watershed erosion and pollution conditions would become a mess.
Social problems would materialize. Under these conditions, Ogden city would be looking at a possible sale of Mountain Ogden for residential development and/or for use as a base area for gondola access to private land. Does Ogden city want to give up open space, the trail system, and cultural values at Mount Ogden?
Importantly, the incomplete "close-the-course" option lacks reference to potential uses of Mount Ogden for the best good of the people. What would be done once the course is closed? Does the city have a plan?
Inasmuch as Mayor Godfrey is giving major consideration to the option of closing the course, he should reveal any preliminary plans in reserve for possible future use of Mount Ogden, such as a city park, camping and picnicking, or recreation use under lease arrangement.
Mayor Godfrey's strong push for the city council to approve an elaborate 36th Street plan, or to accept the so-called "close-the-course" plan, is not the right solution.
The city council is challeged to scope more viable options and opportunities at Mount Ogden rather than simply approve the mayor's ideology concept that is not in the the interest of preserving the unique beauty and special value of Mount Ogden.
Hoyle Sorenson is a resident of Ogden.
Comments