Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay... and yet, there lingers dismay in the chill at Christmas for all of us.

In the midst of heartwarming carols, well wishes, and merry lights,where can one buy consolation? Do we turn to heaven, pray? Remind ourselves through candles of the all-sufficient God? Many religious communities recognize the power of identity not in the individual conquering the odds, but in communal sharing conquering together. As Dickens' Scrooge found out, the man who dies alone with the most toys does not really claim the prize.

Hence, the debate over government's duty to give charitably was intoned by new councilman, Rick Gillit, District 4, this Monday evening in the face of many Englewood charity requests amounting to $78,000. for many good projects.

While a government entity is made up of the many humans, and is considered a legal individual, in reality, there is no good will to be had from a system outside the animated collection of taxes and disbursement of the budget, and those who control.

In the face of a December 9, 2009 Memo from the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, stating in bold that tax revenues for 2009 were down by 11.1 percent less than 2008, still Council voted to disburse the maximum charitable spending. "Dogs for veterans of war" won out, as did "food banks" and the "Englewood High School", not for much needed school supplies, but for After Prom activities. "Arapahoe House" lost their requisition as did many others. City Council had budgeted $28,000.00 for charitable giving this year out of city taxes, and therein lies the question.

Since it's a religious time of year, let's talk the religion of gift giving in politics. Religious Scotts believe that government spending on the poor is a proper function of government because it is an efficient way to do the magnanimous thing for the needy. Religious Right Wingers ideally believe that they earned what they got and that no one should take it away from them by force (or by taxes). Religious Left Wingers believe more like the Scotts, that it is the duty of the whole to care for the needs of the vulnerable.

Does the earth and all it's primary resources really belong to the Able-bodied, Able-minded, well-financed? Are they Entitled? Or does the earth, the air we breathe, and all that is in it belong to the Lord and we, the stewards, are to manage and disburse, train and marshal?

It may be an age-old question. But City Council at least questioned it's role this Christmas before it voted.

Some Englewood Citizens believe the role of government is outlined in the Constitution and that charitable giving is not permitted. Especially in lien times. Two arguments: What says the Law as well as what says practical. But, in a Home Rule situation, a city can change the rules and throw out bits of the constitution. That's what Amendment XX gives to Home Rule through the Constitution of Colorado. Still, perhaps, the matter should be brought to the vote of the people, some of whom have been forced to pay taxes to support their neighbors while they may be losing their own homes in lien times.

Since Englewood has bought into the legal process of fining it's residents for snow removal, perhaps they would consider putting that money into the funds--already set up in the budget--that gives back at Christmas time in the way of charitable giving not only to non-profits, but also to vulnerable individuals who qualify. This would solve a lot of problems and discrepancies and ethical preferences. Charitable giving would be limited to the fines brought into the city, or through the good will of contributions willingly provided through others, and not out of the general budget.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood

I caught Rick Gillit between Real Estate appointments, and found the man able to close a deal.

"Okay, Rick," I say, "Let's cut to the chase. Your bio in the Englewood Citizen doesn't offer up much about you beyond your private life. Why?"

"Well, there's a lot of negativity going on in Englewood right now and I kind of wanted to separate myself from that."

"Meaning, what? The City's intrusion into private business practices or the debacle on Pearl Street?"

"Aw, come on, now." He says. "I think that thing over on Pearl is an anomaly. The Bartnicks have some nasty people for neighbors. That doesn't mean the rest of the City is like that. Englewood is better than that, and I want to focus on the positive."

"But you agree that diversity should be allowed in Englewood, including boarding houses?"

"Funny thing. I think Mr. and Mrs. Bartnick believe it's about mixed races living together, and that is certainly the way the City Council prosecuted them, but I think the whole thing was more about small egos who were jealous of that house they built. It's a very nice new house."

"One of the things I read about that issue and you was over a year ago. You appeared at City Council on the side of the boarding houses. Why?"

"Bill, again, I felt those students were harmless. They weren't a frat house. They lived with the Bartnicks. They hadn't done anything wrong, and there is the humanitarian aspect that my wife and I believe in, so we supported. But, just last week, I had some lady who sits on the Code Enforcement committee chase me to my car taking pictures of me and my car saying, "I know who you are! I don't want your election crap!" Frankly, the woman's venom frightened me. City council really handled this thing poorly."

I test him. "Gillit, you gotta know it was a single family neighborhood. Concerns are raised..."

"Look. I'm in the real estate business, and so is Mayor Woodward. He knows and I know that single family housing means a house built in a structural style that allows for a family to live there. It doesn't mean someone with a four bedroom house can't rent out the empty rooms to three seminary students. It just doesn't. The City overstepped."

"Then there's that issue like the sign code thing that showed the present City Council was on the wrong side of the law. You're a proponent of free speech. Why don't you capitalize on that?"

"Yeah, exactly." Says, Rick. "But you gotta be sensitive to parents too. It's a touchy issue when pot smoking Alice in Wonderland murals are allowed within the meaning of free speech. You can see why the idea of heavy regulation and government controls appeal to some who don't know how to discuss these things with their kids."

"That pot smoking thing. It's another hot topic for Englewood with medical marijuana pharmacies isn't it?"

Rick grimaces and rolls his eyes. "Yeah, my district 4, at the south end of Broadway is being called, "Broaderdam. That's what I'm hearing as I walk the district."

"What can you offer on that one?" I ask.

"My thing with that is that it's already legal. I'm not gonna argue with the law in Colorado. What I want to do is help protect the property owners who might have their buildings confiscated by the FBI if the pharmacies overstep the law. We don't want to see more empty storefronts all over Broadway."

"Do you have any plans along that line?"

"Sure," says Rick. "And, I think that they shouldn't be zoned in with the pawn shops. They should be zoned like other pharmacies in Englewood...or like liquor stores."

"So, tell me about the dog issues Rick. Seems Englewood continues to argue about dogs year after year. Can you pull the City off of that hill?"

"Absolutely." Rick crosses his arms. "I have dogs. I know they need to run. But we can't have them scaring the elderly or the children, or people with disabilities. They need their own park."

"You're gonna make that happen?"

"2009? Why not? The Council seems to think it's the vote of the majority that counts. The one with the biggest stick. I think the City Council is afraid to step on each other's toes. Wayne Oakley has said outright, I think twice on Monday nights, that he won't vote against Jill or Woodward. I can vote my conscience."

Link: http://coloradocommunitynewspapers.com/articles/2009/07/27/englewood_herald/news/24_tm_cncl_candidates_en.txt

During a study of medical marijuana venders last Monday evening's City Council, information that four existing city approved storefronts on Broadway surfaced. Other proposed venders slated for Englewood storefronts became the hot topic, enough to get a consensus action to establish an Emergency Moratorium.

Douglas Cohn's comment last year to Council regarding real emergencies and false emergencies has come full circle. He spoke during the false emergency moratorium on boarding houses and said, "When I first learned of a City emergency ordinance, I thought that perhaps you were taking notice of the foreclosure crises or that you had found a new way to handle drug houses in Englewood. That wasn't the case, and I have an issue with you folks abusing the City's definition of Emergency and Emergency Ordinances."

Personally? Four alternative drug venders on Broadway certainly seems suspicious, while only a short while ago, other herbal dispensaries were hard fought to win the privilege to exist in the competitive established models of medical fields in Englewood.

I spoke with one man outside of a clinic known as Patients Choice of Colorado. "Mike" was injured riding rodeo. He said the only thing holding his back together is the nuts and bolts. He said he was "dead" in his bed when he revived and that he has seizures from his brain being ripped from his right eye backwards.

Mike said he can tell when people are faking the need for marijuana, and that they could ruin it for all others who use it instead of heavier pills otherwise prescribed. So, Mike is a proponent of City licensure by application.

He believes that an application should sort out whether a dispensary is qualified to prescribe because they would know the answers to certain questions of which strains of the drug help which ailments, and what the various side effects are.

He pulled out his State license to use the drug for medicinal purposes and pointed out that high schoolers and other pleasure seekers could not lawfully obtain marijuana without the license. With a license, all is well. Without the license is quite another story.

Doctors could lose their license, their living, their home and wind up in federal prison, because it is the federal law that takes over when a violation occurs. Buyers would experience the same repercussions. However, Mike's concern is for the building owners who leased their premises to the errant tenants. In that case, the entire building would be caught up and confiscated by the FBI or FTB.

Matthew Crabtree, candidate for Council, and owner of the grassroots website for accessible government, ECOG, also voiced his concern to a group of concerned citizens when he said he had known someone who was a landlord where the tenants were manufacturing fake money out of the garage and paying rent with it. Not only did the landlord lose his rent, but also his rental property was confiscated.

Reality speaks. Either licensed marijuana dispensaries should own their own storefronts should they overstep their licensed privileges, or the City should draft a law to pre-empt the feds confiscation of the storefront belonging to an innocent party.

My hope, because this issue has already been approved by the State of Colorado, is that Council holds a hearing on the merits of the real Emergency as well as the City's own censurer process and what exactly they hope to protect.

Protecting business economy, private property and City taxes are all well within the reach of city government. Perhaps the new contenders for Council in November 2009 elections, will add protections to property within the boundaries of Englewood's Home Rule so that the wrong person doesn't lose his shirt, or his shop, to the feds.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

John Moore, District 2 Council Representative in Englewood, cut off Candidate, Rick Gillit's presentation this past Monday during his presentation to City Council regarding John Moore’s flip-flop routine on a variety of subjects. John stated that Mr. Gillit’s 5 minutes were up, and that he would respond later in the evening to Mr. Gillit’s “campaign tactics”.

Mr. Gillit complied immediately, though his humiliation was felt by the tense audience. Mr. Gillit did however rebut the glib insinuation that his interest in civil ethics was merely a campaign gimmick. After all, Rick Gillit has been representing the people of Englewood and their concerns with this Council’s unethical practices in budget, code irregularities, open meetings issues and real estate grandfather problems for well over a year.

Suddenly, since he has declared himself as a District 4 Candidate for Change, Mr. Gillit is being shut down or threatened by the City bouncer. A police officer standing by is ready to physically remove any resident who does not finish his or her presentation in the time allotted, and ousted from the Council Room and charged with “Disrupting a Lawful Assembly.”

When Rick Gillit was asked how he felt about John Moore's political strong arming, he responded, "John Moore accused me of using Campaign Tactics. Too funny. I have been presenting for two years and been a candidate for over a year but now he accuses me of using campaign tactics".

The problem with threats and rancor from Council is that no-where does the City Charter or City Ordinances mandate that a citizen who appears to present an issue must be limited to 5 or even 10 minutes. These times are arbitrary and are utilized by Council to Intimidate and Abuse (in the criminal sense) those who express disapproval.

Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-108 defines “Disrupting a Lawful Assembly” this way. “A person commits disrupting lawful assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means.”

In other words, intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting is a required element of the offense. Even if Mr. Gillit had engaged in some kind of campaign tactic, this is not a lawful reason for Mr. Moore to shut him off and close down his presentation so rudely.

In other situations, this same Council has permitted a group of presenters who were unsure of what to say to stand up and give their allotted time over to one teacher, Pearl Street resident Gregg Alan-Pickett, who was used to giving professional presentations. Council allowed Mr. Pickett to present slander against law abiding residents of different color, race and religion, why? (May 5, 2008 minutes) Because he was serving the Council’s particular end to outlaw “Poets’ Rest” a private residence for students in Englewood.

When it came time for rebuttal, however, Mayor Woodward chose to utilize undue influence and interrupt and shut down a foreign student's presentation who resided in the home and stood for Poets’ Rest, why? (September 2, 2008 minutes) Because he was opposed to Council’s intent to remove the residence.

Process is important when reviewing the facts, and hearing out the full concern of a resident is the only fair thing to do. Will the November 2009 Elections in the City of Englewood may be able to unseat the rancor of power that has existed of late?

A candidate who has exercised his own private investigations into facts of the issues might prove to be a dependable alternative to the status quo. Elect Rick Gillit. Electric Gillit!

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

la,lah...Always turns out this way....

While listening to the minutes on the http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/ site, the McCaslin charade about championing the new cat leash law for resident's wayward domestics had me in a fit of tears. Bob's Comments How can the man take himself seriously? Is McCaslin going to run on this Cats-On-Leashes platform?

Then came the discussion on picking up strays and neutering or spading them and letting them go back to their neighborhoods after. "Because of course, they have their purposes catching rodents"... Was that Wayne Oakley?

Jefferson demurred that he was "only concerned about the humane effects of the traps." Jefferson's comments.

Cats are like people in that they cannot reproduce to catch rodents if you sterilize them all...crazy little fact of nature. Is Englewood on a hidden mission to eliminate cats? The nature of cats and dogs are different, is that too obvious to mention?

But, it could be a value for dollar to take your cat's collar off and let the city sterilize it for you. Or, perhaps you are a concerned citizen who believes this secret sterilization is a bizarre budgetary line item in the City's policy expenditures.

After this, Matt Crabtree addressed Council with concerns about the enormity of funds given to Community Development.

Mayor Woodward replied (during Mayor's choice at the end of the meeting) that he is offended that he has to explain himself, and is getting impatient with his feet being held to the fire. I found his comments a little catty. Perhaps he hadn't realized that by this time, Council had switched subjects.

It occurred to me how much better Englewood City Council is for weekend entertainment than any other vice out there. Well, maybe you'd best get a few beers before you sit down.

Because then came District 4's candidate for change, Rick Gillet's, articulate complaint regarding Council Woman Jill Wilson's double duty as a member of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee as an ethical conflict
1) for taking a seat that a citizen might better serve on,
2) for using undue influence and her power as a City Council woman with inside information flowing both directions,
3) for the public perception of undue influence.

Responding to Mr. Gillet, Mayor Woodward and Councilman Oakley, each stated that yes, they could see how there might possibly be a conflict, but he and Oakley were hesitant to deprive Councilwoman Wilson from her seat as she is their friend and associate and they believe the best of her. Oakley specifically stated that he believed undue influence was not the same thing as abuse of power. After all, Wilson only gets the same singular vote as the next volunteer board member.

What they failed to address was the fact that Council's interests in reporting on citizens for code enforcement (I)nformation or action by way of (S)ervice has trebled in 2008 compared to the 2007 record of Council Requests, and it has doubled in 2009.

The facts show that Wilson's influence has indeed grown in both directions, not only her opinions to the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee, but also directed from the militant power of Counsel against specific addresses and named residents.

When she asked City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, whether she could ethically vote for herself, he advised her that she could do so as long as she didn't believe she would be gaining anything economically from her vote for herself.

Thankfully, Rick Gillet is a candidate for District 4, up for election this November, because he has the courage to go to bat for a more accessible government in Englewood and are up for November Election. When it came down to a vote of the present City Council, Jill was still sitting on both Council and Code Enforcement. Council discussion and vote.

When I reviewed the 16 pages of Council's Requested Actions from 2007 onward, I realized that this Council has not been interested in drug abuse in the City, home foreclosures, increasing services or benefits to the public, or working on creative avenues to fill the storefronts.

Page after page is filled with hundreds of line items of Council members reporting on Citizens for Code Enforcement issues and requesting legal or police action. Perhaps your address is on this list?

As to finances, there is no special line item budget investigation requested, nor is there a request for background on any special funding or increase in staff salaries.

No-one on City Council asked for legal or civil investigation on the boarding house issue they enacted the new statute and ungrandfathered the current law abiding residents according to whim in 2008, nor did they investigate ways to resurrect the Englewood Parade.

Council did succeed in making residents so angry that on 2/11/08, Council requested information about how to provide security for their own council meetings.

On 3/24/08 McCaslin proposed a (S)ervice to "fine citizens without Court appearances," deeming them "Code Violators" without being given a chance to plead and defend themselves, to have a trier of facts in a fair trial. Bob, it is called the right to face your accusers. It is called "due process."

On 04/07/08 Wilson requests (S)ervice on EEF/EMRF Ordinances.

Recently Council members even requested and voted into approval a designated Code Enforcement person to attend to all of their personal complaints, including evenings and weekends.

On Monday evening, Council brought forward their "bucket" for holding new names on their power trip lists. They voted to extend their term limits from two years to three. Now, in November elections, Citizens get to vote on 12 full years of this Council's personal vendettas against them. By that time, they will hold a very full bucket indeed.

Council Member Bob McCaslin provided a motion for Council Bill No. 30, a bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City of Englewood at the next regularly scheduled municipal election a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 22, “Terms,” of the Englewood Home Rule Charter.

Council Bill no. 30 is a measure to extend the term limits of each council member from 2 terms to 3 terms. This measure was brought forward originally during a Study Session by Bob McCaslin on January 26th.

Are you on City Council's list? Did you get a surprise visit from a Police Officer on or about the 4th of July to warn you not to set off fireworks in the City this year simply because you were on their list from last year? Dum, da da dummmm.

Link: http://www.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?

Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.

Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."

Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.

It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.

The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?

In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.

Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.

In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"

Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?

Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."

Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.

Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?

But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.

But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?

This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.

Link: http://www.EnglewoodStory.com

From the first, Council woman Jill Wilson has decried the variety of garbage trucks crawling down Englewood's alleys each Wednesday. A Garbage monopoly the first subject out of Wilson's mouth after winning her seat on Council, but this attempt failed.

She's back at her favorite topic however, with this month's Englewood Survey. The survey is being mailed to a percentage of town residents to obtain feedback on a variety of issues, garbage trucks included.

Monopolies have always seemed innocuous to the one who is holding all the power. If they earned it, why not?

Read more »

Link: http://www.englewoodstory.com

Last year, in the commemorative week for the Constitution, while City Council was at table to vote on a highly unusual Bill 38, Series 2008, the new Englewood boarding house ordinance, Mayor Woodward spoke up.

“Mayor Woodward said I find it ironic that the second item says 'whereas it is of the greatest importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution in order to support, preserve and defend the Constitution against all encroachment' -- and it goes on. With what has been going on over the past few months, it just kind of hit home.” [He does not specify how it hits home in this case]

He, living as a man without his children, does expound in the September 15th minutes on page 14.

“I certainly believe that R-1 Districts are single-family residential districts. That’s what they were intended to be, that’s what they were prior to the UDC, that’s what they typically are…they are for families…. I tend to believe that… again, as I stated, boarding or rooming houses in future R-1 zone districts are not appropriate.”

Apparently, Mayor relies on an interpretation that single family districts should include him without encroaching onto the Constitution, but they should not include others without children, living in another big 4-bedroom home. Perhaps he believes homes are for appearances, but not for living in.

His definition of “family” fails to include himself. It is all very confusing, as is his understanding of constitutional rights.

Previously another Mayor, Olga Wolosyn, commented during the same commemorative process that the Constitution was “an elegant document.” Both comments give pause for reflection. Mayor Wolosyn’s because she was a known patron of the arts in Englewood, and to her the Constitution was a stylistic commemorative art piece.

Mayor Woodward’s thought processes gave him pause before he did a bad deed. The act that Council was about to undertake seemed wrong to Woodward, as it did to Council Member Oakley.

Thus, Constitutional nods appeared to cause Council to repent of their sins, go back to the drawing board, and correct the errors apparent. Woodward and Oakley presumed it permitted the boarders in the targeted boarding house a safe keeping from eviction.

Woodward admitted, “In this particular case, I do believe that there should be a grandfathering of this particular [unrelated family] that we know of.”

Untold to the Mayor, a new plan had already been drawn up by Council Member Joe Jefferson, the budding attorney in the group. In a calculated slight of hand attributable to the “tyranny of the urgent,” it was proposed the same evening; like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This proposal afforded a new grandfather condition for the targeted boarding house owners so that they could have an exception to the new boarding house rule if they could prove to the City Manager that they had obtained a final inspection on their home.

To the average citizen, the condition appeared reasonable, and a certain group of concerned citizens celebrated over beers that night.

Only the City itself and the boarding house owners were privy to the truth: In January, 2008, eight months earlier, the City had flat refused to act on their duty to provide a final inspection to the homeowners.

Though pleaded with, in person and by correspondence, the City Manager and a quorum of Council members had already conspired to interfere with fiscal relationships between homeowner and bank; homeowner and sub-contractor’s wages due.

The Catch 22, under the guise of Constitutional goodness and fairness, was that the City, having breached its duty to homeowner’s holding permits (contracts), now made the homeowners liable for the City’s breech in court.

Clever bunch, that.

Homeowners were thereby defrauded of their property rights…elegantly.

My question is: the authors of the Constitution, were they political idealists or did they actually compose a document to compel safety and freedom from tyranny?

When I consider the carnage in those forefathers’ existence, those who had lost fathers, brothers, sisters and mothers to political wars in the name of Catholicism, who had escaped raids, wars, beheadings, survived starvation, endured separation from loved ones, embarked on meager little ships as human cargo from Europe to American soil, then having a third of their survivors perish during their first Winter—all this, for what?

They traded all to ensure the dearest possession of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the opportunity to own and work their own land free of tyranny. They went so far as to provide it for even their enemies. Justice for all.

There is a famous story about a woman asking Benjamin Franklin what kind of government the authors of the Constitution had give the people. Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

Are these the words of an idealist or a pragmatist?

Are the words of the Constitution something to be exploited by Englewood’s government during Constitution Week by people who have no concept of the weight of the words on their shoulders?

Sometimes people get elected because they are crowd pleasers. They seem harmless until they are given responsibility, because they have not yet learned vested wisdom.

The molestation of the highest law of the land is not the defacing of a figurehead, but the degradation of everything our forefathers sacrificed for.