Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

On Monday June 21,2010, the Englewood city council voted to purchase electricity from Ameresco, an energy audit company. The company would install solar panels and would own them, and the city would buy the electricity. But the contract terms show the City has also purchased the solar equipment from Ameresco. The term of the contract is 20 years with a 10 year option. The price is a little higher than current Xcel prices. The anticipated cost to the city the first year is $39,000. There is a 2% increase built in each year for the 20 years for a total cost projected $1,051,000. The City bidded a contract with Ameresco for the energy audit only, not for the services and product which came out of the audit.

Concerned citizens, moved by Mr. Douglas Cohn, have requested the District Attorney's office look into two apparent violations of law, and one ethical violation of attorney/client representation that occurred when the City of Englewood signed the contract with Ameresco.

1. In the Englewood City Charter, chapter 113, there is a requirement that all contracts over $25,000 must have at least 3 bids. There was only one.

113. Competitive bidding.

Before the purchasing officer makes any purchase of supplies, materials or equipment, in excess of $25,000 or as prescribed by ordinance, he shall give ample opportunity for sealed competitive bidding, with such general exceptions as the Council may prescribe by ordinance. Council shall not exempt any individual contract, purchase or sale from the requirement of competitive bidding. No officer, appointee or employee of the City shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any land, materials, supplies, or services to the City, except in case of purchases submitted to competitive bidding or not exceeding an aggregate of $100.00 in any one year. The lowest and best bid shall be accepted or all bids will be rejected. If the lowest bid is not accepted as being the best, such rejection must be approved by Council. Provisions in this Section shall not apply to professional or technical services, or services of regulated public utilities. All invitations to bid shall require bidders to meet the requirements of State Statutes regarding preference of State products.(Amended 3-24-1981; 11-3-1987; 11-6-2001)

Englewood has not "deBruced" this element.

2. In Colorado's TABOR (tax payers bill of rights), a requirement that all multi-year contracts must be completely funded by the signers at the time of the contract, or one year contracts with extensions can be signed is mandatory. Elected bodies must not sign long term contracts which bind future members of that body.

In this case, the city chose the one-year option with extensions. However, the deception is built in: The contract lists a hefty penalty for withdrawal or cancellation at any time within 20 years. The penalty at the end of the first year is $1,051,000; the second year is 19/20% of that number; etc. These terms do not sound like a one year contract.

The ethical problem comes about because of secrecy. The addenda labeled D1,D2,D3,D4 details the termination costs. But there was considerable difficulty in obtaining these exhibits attached to the Ameresco contract. The notes were not included in the version of the contract the City posted on its web site. They were not included with the library's copy of the upcoming agenda proposals or contents of the meeting. And, there was no hearing. Someone had to search Englewood's website for them under "confidential".

This seems not only to be a clear violation of TABOR, and the City Charter, but also a clear violation of an Attorney/client's right to full disclosure and publication process prior to the Englewood City Council's vote.

When the non-disclosure of these pertinent documents was brought to City Attorney Daniel Brotzman's attention, his only response was, "Opps! Someone went wild with the confidential stamp!"

Sometimes, Cities are immune from liability when a mistake happens. In this case, however, because the vote was rushed and was taken without the constitutional requirement for multiple bids and the City's right to full disclosure, the full weight of the malfeasance lays on City Attorney Brotzman's shoulders. His duty was to defend the City, not play dirty.

Mr. Cohn was incensed by yet another secretive vote that depletes his own wallet. Because this is a type of robbery, Cohn filed a police report with the Englewood police department on July 23, 2010. A copy of the police report was included on "council newsletter 7-29-10", which is a private informational letter that is not made public in the library packets to concerned citizens. City Council stated in Study Session that the matter would not be discussed. The next step was to contact the District Attorney's office when the Englewood Police failed to act.

Charges against Brotzman's license may include extortion since he, as a paid employee, negotiated Ameresco's deal with the City by offering a deal to the people without disclosing the twenty year costs and penalties.

"Opps!" is right. "Someone went overboard with the confidential stamp."

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

After one of Matt Crabtree's political groups delivered fliers to owners of campers and recreation vehicles, Matthew Crabtree became the target of retaliation. Why? Because one interested citizen packed out a full house against Representative Linda Olsen's intent to disrobe her neighborhood of their vehicles.

Next thing Matt knew, the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, investigated his political group to see whether it complied with the Colorado election statutes. He employed the City Clerk, Lou Ellis, to see whether Matt could be prosecuted for running an illegal campaign.

Clerk Ellis and Attorney Brotzman contacted Mr. Crabtree warning him that his political group was not in compliance with the Colorado regulations for backing a candidate, but that since he had registered it in good faith, they would not prosecute him this time.

The warning was clear. "Either back a candidate, or stick to one election topic. Since this wasn't the topic of your flier, your group doesn't qualify as a political action committee under Colorado statute definitions."

"What does that mean?" Crabtree asked. "You don't have the power to regulate me if I don't fall within the scope of your definitions?"

Brotzman snapped that he could not put the committee name on the bottom of his fliers any more, that he must put his own personal name on the flier.

Brotzman then patiently explained that in Englewood's ordinances, any corporation advertising in Englewood, must not only identify themselves as the corporation, but also add the corporate representative and his or her phone number on the flier.

Crabtree was incredulous. "You mean, you would prosecute Breakfast on Broadway for advertisements or Yard Sellers for posting a sale sign without a phone number?"

Nothing more than a chuckle echoed across the air space.

It is clear that where retaliation comes into play in Englewood, the enforcement of ordinances are selectively enforced.

Matthew found a ticket for alley weeds upon his return home from work that evening.

Don't speak up about your opinion on anything in Englewood, and they will not prosecute you for weeds, or building permits, or raising your political voice.

At study session on Monday evening, Linda Olson, District Representative II, asked, "how can City Council stop this kind of thing?"

At that point, District I Representative, Joe Jefferson replied, "Hold on there. You are in the public eye. You cannot stop it. People have the right to respond to our policies." Basically, Mr. Jefferson was upholding the Constitution's freedom of speech clause and the right of the people to redress government.

Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Is it against the law to be a Town Crier in Englewood? Of course not. Hasn't the NAACP already settled that privacy and freedom of association protects the identity of the members in a group or club? Of course.

The power to regulate does not apply to absolute rights or guaranteed freedoms. Matt and his grass roots convoys may continue to roam freely through their city and campaign however they wish in response to the City's illegal encroachments.

Stink bugs catching the leftovers of the picnic, whether dressed up in black ties and shorty pants or not, are still just bugs to be flipped off.

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

An interesting fact about Englewood's definition of household is that in 2004, Mayor Bradshaw enacted it in violation of the City's official purpose to mirror it's household code with the average of surrounding cities, the size of Englewood.

Instead, Englewood's definition of household became the most narrow of all.

In 2004, the newest legal definition of "Englewood Household" was enacted against Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of having no less than 4 unrelated people, that being defensible by law. This number also mirrored the median of other similar communities. Finally, that number seemed forward thinking enough to include developers' aims to build larger homes.

With City Attorney Brotzman's help, however, the definition of Household is being used to target people hosting exchange students, out of work sister-in-laws, x-spouses, or visiting friends in summer.

In one case, the City prosecuted a boarding house of artists in Englewood, knowing full well that it was a boarding house, but choosing to prosecute it for the definition of household anyway. The City's definition turned out to be too vague to use in the prosecution and it was dismissed secretly (against criminal rules of procedure) that dismissals must be procured only in Open court.

In another instance, an out-of-work family was forced to leave his Englewood sister's home or she would face prosecution for violating Englewood's definition of household.

In Englewood, there is no freedom to have an elder hostel or youth hostel for travelers.

But, Englewood doesn't come right out and actually define the terms of their narrow codes. They cannot do so legally, because of anti-discrimination laws.

Recently, when not-in-my-back-yard philosophers complained about 2 students living in a four bedroom home with the owners, the City reinvented the code for Englewood Boarding houses. Still, they did not define what Englewood's code meant by "related" or "unrelated". After eight months of debate and drafts, the new code was reenacted with the same mistake it had originally. It was too vague to prosecute.

Nevertheless, such residences, as of October 6, 2008, have been legislated by color of law out of all Englewood residential areas and into multi-family zones with apartment buildings or industrial areas.

Since Boarding houses are not permitted to exist in an apartment setting, the purpose of relegating them to the apartment zone is a little obvious. The message is: "Don't Want No New People... Go Away."

What is your personal definition of family? Has it ever changed with marriage, divorce or simply because of the situation someone you love finds themselves? Are you an inclusive person, or do you believe "every man is an island" and should traverse every phase of life without aid of any kind?

Are you one to practice entertainment or hospitality? Many cultures value hospitality above all. One of the most valuable times in my life came when I spent a year abroad, living with a family. In Englewood, by Englewood Municipal Code, this arrangement of hosting a student is illegal and criminal if you also happen to have a stepmother, sister in law or uncle in the home.

Is a Realtor's liability compromised if she sells an Englewood bungalow to an unmarried couple with children?

Perhaps you own a three-bedroom rental in Englewood with more than two unrelated people living in it?

No wonder Englewood's Flood Middle School closed in 2006. A City's duty is to be creative in attracting families, and one of those ways is to be hospitable to nannys, cooks, gardeners and... grandmas. Englewood is too closed minded to appeal to the upper class.

Mother-in-law cottages in Englewood neighborhoods used to be popular and useful. Now, they are illegal. The code works to isolate people rather than promote neighborliness.

Why doesn't the City encourage housing for students attending schools nearby? Instead, it prosecutes any more than two renters per home, regardless of the size of the house.

Students are on the cusp of finding a mate and settling down. It's likely they will stay were they have found friends rather than enemies.

Some people believe that the public officials are all that needs changing, and that the selective prosecutions of such laws will solve themselves.

But, If the law is unjust, is it unqualified to be law? Especially since variances cannot be approved for specified Uses according to zoning rules and the Appeals Committee.

If the neighbors are concerned with loud noises, with weeds, with neighborhood values, or with traffic, why not fight those battles with specific codes addressing those issues rather than by this government defining your family?

In 2004, when the definition of household had it's public hearing, one man testified about weed violations, and another about a neighborhood business with too many trucks.

A third testimony was that code enforcement and the police who were on the same block, turned a blind eye continuously. Employing the definition of household to these issues made no sense.

Does a renter, necessarily just because he is a renter, fail to plant flowers or a garden or mow the lawn? We all know of home owners who allow their properties to fail. The issue isn't really one of relationships at all.

And, since when was it government's business to determine relationships within a home?

If the City wishes to legislate morality, then they should, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Hospitality is a cornerstone of our society. Never more than this time, in global bank foreclosures, housing crises, and business crises, will your family's generosity be remembered, honored.

Except... Not in my backyard.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On February 22, 1010, Dianna Wray Tomasso was asked to speak during the City Council Study Session. Tomasso is a gifted, educated woman who provided her resume to the City of Englewood as her "two cents" in obtaining a National Historic Designation for Englewood's Broadway Post Office. Hear her presentation on ECOG website.

You don't have to listen very long to realize the Mayor and Tomasso had privately shared a letter from the Post Office and discussed the price the Post Office had suggested to pursue a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Deeming it to be substantially unfounded, Tomasso was asked to present her own bid for the project, which she did on February 22.

Whose property is the post office? Does it belong to the City of Englewood, the State of Colorado or to the Private Postal Service? It seems it is the duty of the owner to decide whether they wish for their property to obtain a place on the registry because although there are grants to be had, there are also extremely costly limitations and restrictions to building renovations that the owner may not wish to be subjected to.

It could be a wrestling match. The fact that the Mayor and Tomasso have included Representative Dianna Degette into the mix, suspiciously sets the post office up for a unfair fight by weighing in the interests of the entire State of Colorado to take away its own choice.

In any government building undertaking, a bidding process must be undertaken. Englewood skipped this bidding process entirely. It has it's own historic register of places on which the Skerrit House is listed, and another home at 2734 S. Acoma in Englewood. Neither of these homes cost $5,000 to simply apply for and obtain a historic status. But, a few years ago, Councilman Ray Tomasso disbanded the historical society in Englewood.

Another question one might have is why this $5,000 in payment was granted to Dianna Wray Tomasso in a private study session on February 22, 2010? Aren't policies and unbudgeted changes to the City's finances supposed to be published for a public hearing or sent to the vote of the people? Nevertheless, when Councilman Rick Gillit, confronted the rest of council with what they were about to vote on, City Manager, Gary Sear stated that he had the authority to do it on his own and the fact that he was allowing Council in on the action was simply a courtesy.

Apparently Council did not understand Sear's slight of them and his own undertaking of full power. They all voted affirmatively, minus Gillit's vote.

After all, Tomasso's offer was only available for the evening. The woman had to know immediately or would refuse to weigh in with all her experience and price tag to boot.

Once, again, City Council voted to spend the taxpayers' money without letting them know anything about the issue or the change in budget policy, once again ignoring the Colorado open meetings laws, obviating the bid policy and succumbing once again to Gary Sear's personal power mongering. After all, it was only a matter of $2500, or was it $2800, or Hmmmm. Maybe the City will be stuck with the full $5000 pay check to Tomasso if it fails to raise half from private investors. It's really not Council's money that Council is disseminating any way. It's yours.

Then, City Attorney, Nancy Reid, asked the City to consider another change in its policies. Apparently, the Board of Appeals has been having a difficult time with absenteeism, which prevents a quorum, and short a quorum in light of a hearing, means the parties must wait for at least another couple of months to be heard. The absenteeism of the board members is causing some grumbling amongst residents and developers trying to work in Englewood.

So, Ms. Reid requested that the problem be solved by allowing a faithful alternate board member to step in and fill the quorum space required. After all, he or she has not had a difficult time showing up for every meeting, but not being allowed to vote.

The request, being reasonable, was voted on and passed. Once again, I ask you, is a City policy change of any kind to be presented privately to Englewood Council and voted on in a study session where most residents are not permitted to speak?

Take Note. Voting records and official actions are mounting up.

The only way to change the status quo is to vote differently with better educated persons in the next election, but having just passed one in November, you must wait for a long long time, and who knows what other policies will be enacted behind your backs?

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

New meaning has been given to this phrase during the election period in Englewood. One night last week, City Council challenger’s signs (Matt Crabtree and Rick Gillit) West of Broadway mysteriously disappeared off of their supporters’ front lawns.

When Rick Gillit found his signs posted all in one yard, he called the police for permission to remove them.

When the Englewood Police arrived on the scene, the local high school coach also drove up asking the police not to make out a report because it was just a cheerleader’s prank and was supervised by adults. The police explained that the so called “prank” was actually trespass and theft.

Police also explained to Mr. Gillit that only the persons whose signs were stolen could submit a formal Complaint. Yet, the signs continue to disappear all over town, including Doug Cohn’s in District 2.

A concerned citizen then requested the Englewood Herald to report the underhanded electioneering activities of the present City Council supervising and instigating the thefts and trespasses, then discounting them as “pranks”.

The reason this activity is much more than a “prank” is because challenging candidates are to be permitted equal access to obtaining office. Citizens are to be provided equal opportunity to the issues through advertising or the entire election may be overturned and the funds spent on this election wasted. Being impeded by Council members who have just voted to allow themselves a third term in office, is not just a prank. It goes to the heart of a republic (under law) and democracy (informed voting).

In 35 years, will these pretty young heads and buff wrestler bodies waste away into mirrors of their mentors?

Take another look at these “mentors.” They have just lost an important Constitutional battle against taking of private property. They have been accused of corruption and malfeasance of office.

Mayor Woodward and Bob McCaslin have been served with an Arapahoe County District Court conspiracy case, together with City Manager Sears and Attorney Brotzman and Judge Atencio. These charges do not depict “responsibility or commitment” but are very serious charges of mismanagement, violating the City Charter and ordinances, wasting taxpayer’s money to ruin individual’s lives whom they dislike or who may have recourse to unseat them, and laziness in training or implementing policies to protect Englewood residents and business owners.

Yesterday, the Denver Post published an article detailing the Constitution does still rule over Home Rule. The present City Council’s choices to take private business property rights was overruled by the Supreme Court. It’s time some shoulders were shaken and some legal advisers were fired. It’s time for a full turn-over of those who govern Englewood as a body.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

If Steve Schalk and Jon Cook have their differences, these developers agree on one thing. With the present economy, and business lagging on Broadway, Englewood’s signs, banners and mural codes need an overhaul. Mr. Schalk (pronounced shock) is the owner of the Gothic Theater and also Moe’s Barbecue and Bowling Alley near Dartmouth. Cook's newly developed business at Yale and Broadway hosts Colore! Italian cuisine.

On Monday evening, Council was treated to an entourage of complaints from unreasonable sign codes to moms, dads and little kids about dogs rushing them and jumping them in parks. Apparently, the city has decided not to intervene in the parks between unleashed dogs and children by putting up fences. They cited expenses for this consensus. But, a father, also appearing as a professional educator, addressed the liabilities the City would incur if even one child was bitten, and they had not chosen to protect humanity above the beasts.

One mother reprimanded Councilwoman Wilson for physically turning her back while an honor student presented a video on unleashed dogs at last Council’s meeting. Wilson apologized and said she was only searching for something in her purse.

Between these complaints, was an attorney representing the medical marijuana industry warning them about their vote on a moratorium and offering his legal aid free of charge to develop appropriate ordinances.

Laurette Barrantine addressed council on their ethical abuse of Citizen seats on boards and commissions stating the conflict is not just one of finance, but of power and the appearances of undue influence. She tried to clear her own name as the Council had previously claimed she had held a seat on Code Enforcement herself during her term on Council. She stated that yes, at first, this was the case, until she recognized there were ethical issues, and resigned from the board. She challenged both the Mayor and also Jill Wilson to take the high road and accused them of defaulting to what City Attorney Brotzman informed them they could get away with.

Another interesting spokesperson was Laura Bartnick representing her household as a Small Group Home, and requesting the Mayor use his trump card to set the City’s reputation aright or else send her an official letter to specify as to what “full compliance” with the City's remaining two regulations would look like. Her boarding house won two and lost two which didn't get dismissed yet the implications of it are still unclear. Her comments included that the City has not been forthcoming with codes or communications over the two years she has been seeking their help. She related to me that the City’s intention has never been to grandfather in their home, and it has been an unending expensive game of chess or cat and mouse.

There is an old adage, “Just when I found the answers, they changed all the rules.”

During Mayor’s choice at the conclusion of a long evening, he responded that it was unfortunate, but because the City was a Manager Council run government form, that his hands were tied as to the municipal court findings, and he could not see how he could help the Bartnick household.

Attorney Brotzman leaned over and whispered loud enough for the audience to hear, “Yes, yes you can.” (Listen to Mayor at bottom of the page).

A spectator commented, “Does anyone know who the Mayor is here? Because it doesn’t seem like he knows who he is or what power he has.”

If Mayor Woodward gets re-elected this year, he will have served more than two terms on council and by the time he is finished he will have tucked 10 years under his belt.

Well, it was almost midnight and Cinderella and I were both about to turn into pumpkins, so I hit the road.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Nuisance, (through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, to hurt) is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance is defined by Englewood Municipal Code.

15-1-1:E.M.C. Applicability and Definitions.
A. The abatement of nuisances in the City of Englewood is hereby declared to be of local concern. It is the duty of all responsible parties including persons, property owners, firms, corporations, occupants, lessees, or any agents or representatives of the record owner or owners, to maintain property within the boundaries of the City of Englewood so as not to cause or maintain an act or condition which endangers the public health, safety or welfare or results in annoyance or discomfort to the public or damage to any property or injury to any person.

Wikipedia says, "Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the 'right of quiet enjoyment' is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed."

When neighbors squabble over nothing, depleting another's right to quiet enjoyment of their land, they risk being taken to civil court for the tort of nuisance. Who wants to be labeled that for the rest of their life? Maybe the devils in Tazmania, but not in Englewood.

15-2-1:E.M.C. Nuisance Prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or do any act constituting a nuisance.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to create, continue or suffer the existence of any nuisance on any property under his control.

Although the City Manager maintains the duty and power to abate a nuisance, someone else's nuisance is not really his first priority. He sits above a private neighbor's hell, untouchable.

15-3-1:E.M.C. The City Manager's Power to Abate a Nuisance in Case of an Emergency.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to immediately abate or enjoin any nuisance existing in the City without following the procedures of this Chapter in the case of an emergency, whether or not such nuisance is specifically recognized by this Title.

There is also a City procedure form abating non-emergency nuisances.

15-3-2:E.M.C. Administrative Abatement Procedure in Non-Emergency Situations.
If, after inspecting the property on which a nuisance is reported, the enforcement personnel who are charged or designated by the City Manager with investigating nuisances declare the existence of a nuisance, the following procedures shall be followed.
A. Photographs and/or videotapes and written reports and findings shall be generated.
B. The responsible party or parties shall be determined.
C. The Code Enforcement Officer(s) shall have the discretion to informally abate the nuisance by speaking with the responsible party. In the event that the informal proceedings fail to abate the nuisance within the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti the Code Enforcement Officer may, at his/her discretion, issue a summons and complaint to the responsible party or shall issue a notice pursuant to E.M.C. 15-3-2(D).
D. If the nuisance has not been abated by the informal process or a summons and complaint has not been issued at the conclusion of the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-2(C), a written notice in essentially the form set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-3 of this Chapter shall be served upon the responsible party by personal service or by leaving a copy of the notice at the usual place of residence or business of such owner, responsible party shown by the records contained in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office or in the County Tax Assessor's Office, or by mailing a copy of the written notice to such responsible party at such place or address by United States mail, certified return receipt. If service of such written notice is unable to be perfected by any methods described above, the enforcement personnel shall cause a copy of the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, or by publishing on the City's official website, or by posting the notice on the property.
E. The notice shall state clearly and concisely the findings of the enforcement personnel with respect to the existence of the nuisance, and the section of the City ordinance(s) that have been violated.
F. The notice shall also state that unless the responsible party shall cause the abatement of the nuisance pursuant to the notice and this Code, the City may abate the nuisance at the expense of the responsible party or may issue a criminal summons and complaint or both.

Finally, there is the option of municipal court. But a Citizen cannot avail themselves of a Citizen's complaint in Englewood's Municipal Court. Head Judge Attencio has specifically and arduously declined to hear a common citizen or to intervene in a neighborhood nuisance complaint.

15-4-1: E.M.C. Judicial Abatement of Nuisances.
A. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, including those specified and set forth in E.M.C. 1-4-1, the Englewood Municipal Court may, upon a finding that a nuisance exists, issue an order enjoining the nuisance, authorizing its repair, restraint, removal, termination or abatement.
B. A responsible party found by the court to have caused a nuisance or allowed the nuisance to be caused or to be continued shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City to abate said nuisance. Such costs may be collected by the City pursuant to Municipal Court order, in a civil action or assessed as a lien against any property on which the abatement was performed as specified in E.M.C. 15-3-7.
C. Prima Facia Evidence. The issuance of three (3) or more notices of violation of this Title shall be prima facie evidence that the responsible party deliberately and wilfully violated this Title and may be punished within the discretion of the court as provided in E.M.C. 1-4-1. This remedy shall be cumulative with all other remedies.

What option does a resident being harassed by nuisential neighbors have? There is the option of a "No Trespass" sign, and the possibility of criminal prosecution for trespass.

7-6F-2:E.M.C. Trespass.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands or property of another knowing that the consent to enter or remain is absent, denied or withdrawn by the owner or the person having lawful possession thereof, or any agent of such owner or possessor; provided, that this Section shall not apply to any reasonable entry seeking information or emergency shelter.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands, property or vehicle parking areas owned, operated or controlled by any other person, business or merchant when the activity thereat is closed, not operating, nor serving the public and consent to enter or remain upon such lands, property or vehicle parking areas has been denied or withdrawn by a person having authority to do so.
C. Notice posted in the window of the businesses', merchant's or person's building or otherwise upon the property is prima facie evidence that consent to enter or remain is absent and has been denied or withdrawn.

Though in Englewood, getting the judge to hear your complaint is another matter. It seems the government of Englewood plays sport, and quite enjoys the obvious outcome of every offensive move. They can accurately calculate the odds. They will always win.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

I will go so far as to say this: Everything in a City is grandfathered unless the City is able to prove some license to regulate it.

O, Where O Where doth such a license cometh from?

In Colorado municipalities, they come from Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Municipal Governments, michies Colorado free legal which limits powers and are given further boundaries through none other than the Supreme Law of the Land, our great United States Constitution.

These laws clearly state that someone's power, presumed authority or "will" cannot legally over-power or control what rights the law has handed to me already. The mass lynchings are illegal because they are not founded in deference, self-respect or law.

It doesn't matter how much sweaty fervor is passionately invoked or what kind of bribe or slander occurs, if it ain't founded in law, it ain't no good.

Last week in the Englewood Council meeting when Bob McCaslin accidentally, or perhaps conveniently left out of the pre-written invocation, "Help us not to control..." I had to chuckle. Well, it just escaped. I didn't mean to be irreverent. But "arbitrary control" is exactly what this Council loves to do to this fair city by their own elected whims.

But just because they are elected and it is hard to get them unseated, doesn't mean that they have legal rights to presume license over all aspects of residential home lives.

Last week at Council, John Moore played the roll of Mayor and controlled the discussion on Hard Pavements himself. He kept wanting to know what would be "grandfathered" as if Council can simply ignore the City Ordinances and Savings Clauses and has utter authority over the private homes as well as licensed businesses. Near the end of the discussion Moore says, "So what are we choosing to grandfather then? Only gravel?"

Stand Up, people! Where is the Council's license to tell you where or how you can park on your own property?

Once an idea gets passed legislatively, then the full burden of proof rests on one defendant's shoulders, inconveniently cited and hauled to the Judge, to prove that the legislation is unfounded. Since it is the legal duty of the municipal judge to presume the law is reasonable, this individual must have a very strong mind with plenty of time available to find out where the missing links are and present them to the Judge or jury accordingly. If he doesn't have these resources, the illegal law can be established judicially, and then it is almost impossible to over-rule.

So the old maxim stands that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

If you choose not to trust your gut, or defend your right to serve, your right of easement, your immunities, your right to real estate, then you forfeit not only the right, but also the law that governs the right. And if you forfeit the law, you betray your fellow man who depends on that same law.

I was trying to stay one step ahead of myself but now I walk on my hands and don’t look back...

"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal [118 U.S. 374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703." See, Yick Wo v. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Submitted April 14, 1886, Decided May 10, 1886,118 U.S. 356.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How do we know what rights we have fundamentally? Consider the Privileges or Immunities clause of the US Constitution. One author has then suggested normal people go to the laws of the District of Columbia to see what's fair there. Another suggests that whatever is fair in all the states is fair in your state.

"It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." (See Above, Yick Wo)

I was really scared that Yick Wo, the laundry proprietor, would only protect those narrow civil rights laws specifically written, but when I went to read that case it was as clear as the blue Colorado skies that everyone in America has the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be parties, to give evidence and to enjoy the full benefit and duties of all laws and policies and access to government and court, and to remain secure in their persons and property.

Neighbors must work hard to subdue your greed, subdue your bias, and subdue being lazy entitled ingrates. Seriously!

Whatever gets sold out for some selfish or shady benefit today, will come back to bite not only you and your white Englewood neighbors and your white grandchildren, but me and my household too because the rest of us have rights only equal to yours, and then your rights are only equal to mine. You need to stand up like responsible, dutiful adults now. I don't want to take the water slide down with you.

W

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.EyeOnEnglewood.com

After publishing my article on Englewood’s civil rights violations, I was sent the following letter.

Read more »

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://EnglewoodStory.com

WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?

"According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice include actions or omissions in the state that constitute violations of the Fair Housing Act. The following issue [is] shown to be [a] potential impediment to fair housing choice in the State of Colorado:"

Number(14) is "Steering."
here

"Steering is a practice of guiding prospective homebuyers or renters of protected classes (such as color, race,religion, disability, familial status, etc.) to areas with concentrations of persons in those groups." See, State of Colorado Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2005-2010, p 5.

In Englewood, the City Council, City Manager and even the City attorneys not only targeted but endorsed ongoing neighborhood harassment of the Bartnick household for housing four young people of Hispanic, black, Asian and mixed-race origin over a two-year period.

Read more »

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

Perhaps Englewood, Colorado needs a Bill of Rights. There is nothing in the Englewood Charter or the City Ordinances or even the Municipal Court powers to protect the people. It is all wrapped up that the Executive branch, (Staff) the Legislative branch (Council) and the Judiciary (Court) protect the temporary powers, rather than the real residents and long term homeowners.

In a response from Carol Chamber's office of the Arapahoe County District Attorney determined that the word "may" found in the rules for how Englewood must operate determines the infinite leeway the City enjoys. It may, or it may not: completely within its discretion.

Everything in the City ordinances protects actions or omissions the City takes by the word, "may".

When it comes to ethical conflicts or the rights of the residents that employ this staff, the Charter and Code have determined that the residents have little to no opportunity to redress grievances, certainly no absolute right.

This issue can become a dramatic breech of trust between the City and a developer early on in the relationship between the parties given the following scenario.

Permit fees in the City are as arbitrary as they are indecent when a regular citizen who is in the dark as to contractor procedures applies for a permit or license with the City.

A Schedule of Fees associated with building permits in Englewood exists. However, Englewood records show it charged three times as much, a total of $2,990, ignoring the fee schedule which dictates a maximum of $999.00 for this structure's remodel fees.

The Building Department's reasoning? The structure's forecast appraisal totaled over $500,000 upon completion.

The project's owner complains, though, that they had already purchased the existing structure for $200.00 and only the appraised difference between the existing structure and the proposed structure should have been considered. It's a question of exact measurements, and the ability of the head clerk to add and subtract.

The city should have subtracted the present value of the home being incorporated into the final value.

Isn't this kind of public dealing called fraud? Getting something for nothing. Maybe it is only bad faith and unfair dealing.

In any case, there is no return of permit fees available in Englewood. Especially to those who actually rely on the law to defend themselves and make a scene. Especially then.

Some cities have incorporated a Developer's Bill of Rights. This idea protects developers as to vested interests in properties they have spent significant sums of time and money over.

But, what protects the actual constituency of Englewood voters? What holds the feet of their electorate representatives on Council to the fire?

A Bill of Rights would certainly do the trick. America's forefathers thought so, when they incorporated the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and even the pilgrims to incorporating the state of Colorado believed the same so as to develop another famous Bill of Rights specific to Colorado. But, the Home Rule City of Englewood has kept all the power to themselves. And, yet, isn't this is the legal definition of "arbitrary power"?

Arbitrary power is the kind of political power that is based on whims of those temporarily in charge, apart from measurable, objective limitations of law, and the absolute right of redress.

In the 2009 November elections, the people of Englewood will be presented with an opportunity to even the weights of power on the scales of justice. They will be presented with an opportunity to enact a Bill of Rights and their own form of personal homeowner immunity for groundless or malicious acts of the City of Englewood against them.

It will paint a significant stroke to a beautiful sunrise in Englewood's currently repressed horizon.