Tags: ballot
Considering Proposition 101 Percent
October 13th, 2010Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org
Many government offices, including schools, are urging "No" on 101. Why?
In essence, Proposition 101 would move state motor vehicle registration fees back to 1919 levels, reduce or eliminate taxes on vehicle purchases and rentals over the next four years. 101 would also reduce the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent in 2011 and then to 3.5 percent gradually over time. It would put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. And, finally 101 would required your vote to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services in the future, so your cell-phone, internet and television fees would not go up without an official vote.
If you are against inflation and high salaries for government servants, you should vote yes to 101. If you feel out of control financially because of crazy fees, fines and taxes on basic services, stop letting them take bites out of you.
The government says this proposition is confusing and ambiguous. But, the blue book analysis of the bill is concise. It assures us the impact is expected to be $2.9 billion in today's dollars, ($1.9 billion in state reductions and $1 billion in local government reductions).
Additionally, the bill puts control and choice back into your vote. We all know that government has ways of relaxing any restriction placed on it; we've seen it with TABOR. But at least, this measure compels public servants to ask you first before taking a raise, before seeing your utility bill and phone bill skyrocket when you relied on the two year provider contract. I've never been one to like strangers having a monopoly on my budget decisions.
Government is trying to guilt you into voting no to 101. Because a very small percentage of the fees we pay for telecommunications are federally required to subsidize low income, or the blind, deaf or speech impaired, these fees will likely be paid out of another source of taxation or government funding. Government is not concerned about charity nearly as much as it is about the portions of these fees that line government salaries. You don't have to feel frightened for the underprivileged.
I value my opinion, as you may have noticed in this blog. I would like to keep my personal voice when it comes to taxation and spending.
But, perhaps you like taxation and spending more than I do. Well, good news! 101 does not take away your opportunity to contribute to government as much as you like. It merely gives you a choice in the future when you find that your district representatives do not represent your interests.
Some of my good friends are campaigning for all their worth against 101 saying that it will bankrupt schools. Don't ya just resent fear mongering? What I love about 101 is that K-12 will get the state funding these grades deserve. It will merely force the C.F.O. (Presidents) of Colleges to do their jobs and raise private funding rather than depleting all the State money that should be going to our kids' basic education. It will put genuine competition back into play amongst the Universities. Grades and character will again matter. The market will matter. After all, colleges are private business all too long having masqueraded as "government".
In conclusion, I would urge all those who do not care whether their votes are heard later, to refrain from voting on this bill now. If you insist on being heard on this bill 101 now, I challenge you to continue the right to be heard, and vote yes as an investment... towards your own voice, your own control, down the road.
Clear The Bench Colorado
October 1st, 2010Clear The Bench Colorado--Friday Morning
Dear friends,
If the three unjust justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - stay on in the Supreme Court, they will continue the Mullarkey legacy of ignoring the Constitution. The rulings they promote are called a "progressive ideology", further destroying our rights as citizens of Colorado.
We have very precious few days left until the mail-in ballots drop on October 12.
CEW knows this... and they want to make sure they keep OUR money until after that date.
Big surprise: Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW, pronounced "sue" - because it's what they do) is at it again.
It has clearly been the intention of CEW, since we won our case, and they first filed a bogus filing on May 5, 2010, that it hopes to tie up our resources for as long as possible protecting the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.
On Monday, September 20, CEW filed for a "Enlargement of Time" in order to pay the attorney's fees they've owed us-literally tens of thousands of dollars - since the judge hearing their original "complaint" ordered them to pay up on July 21, 2010.
It's not like they don't have the money. It's not even like they have much math to do.
They are, quite simply, continuing to try and prevent the word from getting out - that quitting Chief Justice Mullarkey's gang of Constitution-shredders shouldn't have a "rubber stamp" to stay in office... FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR TERM.
Unfortunately, campaigns like this don't run themselves. And more unfortunately, campaigns like this don't fund themselves.
We need your help. We need your generous donation of time, effort, and finances in order to win this campaign.
A decision has yet to be reached as to whether or not CEW will receive that "Enlargement of Time", but even then, we still need your help.
In the mean time (and it's hard to say when that decision will be made), we still have flyers to print, signs to produce (and distribute!) and the word to get out.
It is absolutely vital for the survival of our state that we take out the trash this election - this includes those who would rather use our Constitution for confetti than as the guiding principle for their judgements, the highest law of the state.
We must get the word out. And we need your help to do it...
In late August, we ran a statewide poll, and the results are clear and resounding: across absolutely every demographic (race, gender, party affiliation and location in the state) if the word gets out, 78% of voters will vote "NO" on these unjust justices.
This is, quite simply, the biggest no-brainer in Colorado politics this election.
We have ten more years of guaranteed bad judges with the remnant of the Mullarkey Majority in Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - or two years of (at worst) of an unknown quantity (which can't possibly get any worse).
However, even with the two years of unknown, we do know that:
1. It is simply impossible to be worse than 0-15 in upholding our Constitution;
2. There is the chance it might be "as bad", but we can vote them out in two years rather than ten; and
3. There is the even greater chance it could get better - and we might even get a judge good enough to not vote out in two years. In any case, any replacements will definitely get the message: the people are watching, and WILL hold them accountable to their oath to support the Constitution.
Regardless of who wins the Governor's race, we must Clear the Bench this year.
In order to do this, to get the word out, we need your help. Contribute today - and help spread the word.
To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/ or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237
The math on this is so simple... two years versus ten years.
Getting the word out gets 78% or higher who say they will vote NO.
This is the biggest no-brainer, the biggest bang for your 2010-political-buck; and a powerful reminder of the issues at stake.
Contribute today, be part of the movement!
Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise your right to tell these justices "NO!" to 10 more years of job security with no accountability to the people.
WE THE PEOPLE are here, we are watching and together we can (and will!) send a message to the Colorado Supreme Court - we're not going to take it anymore.
For liberty, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the prosperity of our people and our state- we must CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!
For Freedom,
Sarah Anderson
Campaign Manager, Clear the Bench Colorado
P.S. Please contribute whatever you can today - it's crunch time for producing (and distributing) signs & flyers, which is EXACTLY why CEW is holding on to OUR money!
To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237
Follow the Special Leaders
September 24th, 2010Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/
Citizens' canons appeared on the hillside at the public budget hearing Monday evening, September 20, 2010. The House was filled with various groups of disgruntled citizens who applauded loudly for each other's fiscal observations and causes. Click link items 7 and 10 to hear these 25 various presentations. City Manager Sears went red in the face and stayed that way for much of the meeting. Bob McCaslin engaged one group near the end and argued publicly out of turn with them from his seat to the back row. Although the City's policy since Mayor Bradshaw was in office has been that Council members do not respond to Citizens' comments until "their choice" at the end of a council meeting, Mayor Woodward defended himself out of turn.
Citizens waited to the last hour to hear any responses to their concerns. And, council members falsely placated their issues. I believe Council's attitude is that they are special, and thus they do not need to listen, or respond to Englewood representatives who make the effort to come out.
Council then denied both Jefferson's move to amend Council Bill 32, to take a formal stance against "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61 and 101. These amendments are carefully engineered to employ an entirely new system of funding Colorado's economic priorities. Colorado's ballot initiatives 60, 61 and 101 place fund raising for higher education back in the private sector of friends of the Universities. Raising funds are what C.F.O.'s and presidents of Universities are hired to do.
But, kindergarten through grade 12 basic education will be guaranteed the funding education deserves from the State of Colorado. This funding has typically been diverted to legislators' pet projects such as the development of Lowery's subdivision, R.T.D., sports stadiums and East Colfax...all of which should have been funded privately.
Jefferson and Gillit argued it is not the position of a non-profit government agency to tell the Citizens how to vote on money systems. Jill Wilson then moved out of turn saying, "I don't care. I move to vote on the bill right away, without the amendment." Her motion was shut down however, because Jefferson's amendment was already on the floor. Yet, Council voted down the amendment to Englewood Bill 32, and then voted to approve Bill 32 as originally proposed "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61, and 101 just because they say so.
Isn't it special that Englewood Council members completely miss it, that anything they take a formal stance on while abusing the voices of their constituency will be automatically seen as suspect? We might as well chalk up the entire voting populous of Englewood in favor of Amendments 60, 61, and 101.
When these Amendments win in Colorado, an entirely new economic system, guarantying state funding for schools together with lowering mill levies (taxes) from 7% to 3.5% on your home owner's mortgage will put smiles on faces everywhere. Everywhere, except City Council.
It was the late August study session, topic: fiscal emergency, where District 4 Council member Gillit suggested that the paid stipend of Council is not the real reason council members serve the City, (being only $600 per month). He wondered if council members would be willing to sacrifice their stipends until the City's finances were corrected.
Oh, the reciprocal uproar!
No-one felt the condition of public welfare warranted a personal sacrifice. Councilman at large, Bob McCaslin, summarized council's consensus denying Mr. Gillit's suggestion, when he shouted, "I deserve this money and much more, too!"
Yet, Englewood Council continues to give money to charities, spend weekly for catering their own food for meetings, they include hefty salaries of two City Managers in the budget year after year, and refuse to settle legal disputes with citizens in an amicable way prior to engaging in the big bucks of trial.
Englewood's City Council voices are special indeed. Just as special as the wind from the inside of an old bagpipe.
Matt Crabtree? Mayor Jim Woodward?
October 25th, 2009Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com
A Halloween yard decoration witch crackles at my knees. “It only takes a few little beggars to spoil the stew!"… I am meeting up with Matt Crabtree on his early morning campaign rounds in Englewood.
“So Matt, with only seven percent of the vote in at Nancy Doty’s office, I thought I’d track you through the leaves and see what good you might offer for the people of Englewood.”
Matthew Crabtree’s open face begins to shine in the chilly open morning sun.
“I hope I can bring some.” He nods and smiles.
“What have people been saying to you on the campaign trail?”
“Well, it’s definitely been interesting,” he admits. “I put my contact number on my door hangers during the very first weekend, I got some hate calls where people would say to me, ‘I know you’re a right-wing conspiracy nut and I hope you lose!’ Then, they would hang up anonymously without even given me a chance to respond. That was unnerving.”
“Are you a right-wing… whatever nut?” I ask.
“No.” He says emphatically. “Actually, if you look at the political parties, I align with my opponent, Woodward, but political parties should not be the issue in a municipal election. Non-partisanship input should be heard on the issues.”
“Okay, let’s start with the only issue Englewood put on the ballot this election. Term issues. Isn’t City Council hoping for a third term? If you get in, wouldn’t that issue also work to your advantage?”
“I was sitting in the audience the night the City voted to add that to the ballot. I almost laughed when I saw the Council vote yes on it. Personally, I believe that adding another four years to their terms is just a third-world prank of dictators.”
“Wow. Third world? Why?”
“Well, it doesn’t help any political geography when there is no change over. Our country’s presidents don’t even get any more than two terms in office. It only reflects our Council’s small-minded attempt to maintain control. So no, even for my benefit. I just don’t believe a third term is a good idea.”
“You’ve done well for being the underdog, Matt. I certainly see a lot of your signs all over, Matt, and I saw your bio in the Englewood Citizen. It looked authentic and focused. Good for you. Anything you wish to add to that?”
“Well, I think all three of us, Rick Gillit, Doug Cohn, and myself are running on similar issues. And we need to get all three of us into Council to make the change over.
“Accessible government, will re-instill trust. A cut in budget spending in the right areas will bring about true value for taxes. I want to bring in more businesses to Englewood and work with people to achieve a better community.”
“Right now the Council has sat on their hands too long. They put requests from residents and businesses into a holding pattern.
“None of them have received any training from the City on the code, or how their roles interact with Colorado law. They have no idea how to research their own code or come up with creative and timely direction, so everyone suffers.
“It’s one thing not to require legal knowledge when you get elected. It’s just not acceptable to continue in that ignorance year after year. They have a job to do. It’s not just a social board. We can’t afford to have them remain ignorant year after year.”
“Hey, must be trick-or-treat in Englewood!” I laugh.
Matt clears his throat. “I’ve watched people actually cry in front of Council, begging for relief, and Council sits there enjoying the power they hold over them. That’s their response. The Mayor did not even know his own job description two months ago when a resident was asking for relief. The City Attorney had to cut into the Mayor’s response, and correct him… ouch!”
I agree. A Mayor should know his City code and his own job description. But, my feet are beginning to hurt and Matt still has ground to cover, so I ask, “Anything else?”
“Well, I think it’s backwards for Englewood to cut out the people’s parades, theater events, social items like fireworks, festivals and concerts as a means to cutting the budget.
“Those kinds of events create community. Great signage creates an interesting community. Community creates tax revenues. I want to be pro-active, not a small-minded micro-manager of someone else’s business.
I say, “Oh, did you hear that Mayor Woodward has some flyer out there telling people to call him before they vote for Matthew Crabtree?”
“Ha-ha, Yes I did. Someone I know in District One took him up on that offer, and called. ‘You know what Jim said?… He said the Appellate Court had overstepped its authority in Englewood and that is why Englewood lost the signage war on Broadway!”
“You gotta be kidding.”
“No. I’m not. City Council, in my way of thinking, should be servants of the law. Not the other way around. The present Council thinks they can do anything they want just because they are “Home Rule".
“I actually believe the Constitution is still alive, that Colorado statutes regulate Home Rule and that Englewood’s City Charter holds the limits for our code. If our codes come up against those laws, then they are wrong, and I hope to lighten up the load legally on our businesses and residents when I’m on council.
“Well, I hear you are making friends on the campaign trail. Keep going to those neighborhood parties and just enjoy the process buddy. I gotta go to work.”
Matt shakes my hand firmly. “Me too.” And shouts at my back, “Have a happy Halloween, Bill!”
Judicial McFoolery
September 4th, 2009Link: http://www.EnglewoodStory.com
With sentencing still scheduled for October 9, 2009, for City Councilman McCaslin to have circulated the petition for Judge Atencio's inclusion on the November ballot to the Bartnick's neighbors on Pearl, who were witnesses in the case, seems like a clumsy attempt for payback, and perhaps unethical. If the Englewood judge is elected again, his salary is set over $121,000.00 annually.
On Thursday, August 13, 2009, witnesses for Englewood prosecution foiled the City’s plan to validate the prosecution of boarding house owners. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, testified that the boarding house amendment “was not returned to Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval, because only major modifications or amendments to the code are returned to the Commission for review.”
Langon also testified that despite the Council’s October 6, 2008 enactment of Ordinance 55, (Boarding Houses) such residences are not businesses, but regular residences. They are not home occupations, and they do not require a license.
The jury was then released early, with the judge and prosecution both recommending the legs of the boarding house ordinance be dismissed in favor of the Bartnicks, and remanded to City Council for review.
Defense immediately went to the throat of the validity of the Ordinance because the Englewood City Charter, Section 58, declares that ALL modifications or amendments to ordinances must revert to Planning and Zoning for study and recommendation, even if the City Council chooses to disregard the recommendation. This is to prevent hasty enactments which often fail the test of justice.
The role of the volunteer citizens’ Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain legal council on proposed zoning codes as to fair housing, equal access and other zoning issues, while civil engineering counsel can ascertain measurable densities and standards. Hasty decisions also circumvent justice simply because they feel like a hard pressure sales job. Only time can allow that kind of intimidation to subside in favor of common sense.
The City circumvented its own Charter many times in the making of new Boarding House provisions, but this was the instance for Defense Council’s request for a directed verdict Thursday afternoon.
Judge Atencio taken aback, hemmed and hawed, and then declined his power and duty to declare summary judgment finding accurately that “what Defense is asking cuts to the heart of the ordinance”. Judge then determined “to allow the jury to decide the facts.”
The electric moment of truth was over. What was left of the material facts is unclear, as Tricia Langon had also admitted to the Bartnicks having pulled proper permits for zoning, but that under the new ordinance, parking areas require paint striping. Striping is an interesting dilemma if, unlike the Bartnicks whose back parking area is paved, the homeowner’s parking is unpaved. Keeping paint on dirt parking might prove to be an expensive year around feat for Englewood residences.
August 14, 2009, the jury, unaware of the previous days’ electricity, was sent to deliberate. They found the Bartnicks guilty of a shell of an Ordinance.
The implications of the Englewood verdict relate not only to setting City precedence for ungrandfathering pre-existing properties into newer codes, but also as to human rights and property ownership, the right to freely associate in the privacy of your own home with whomever you wish. If a neighbor accuses you of being unrelated, so be it.
What City Councilman, Bob McCaslin, was unable to accomplish for his friends, Ron and Robin Noffsinger, through Council legislation,
he turned up in the middle of Pearl Street to celebrate Saturday morning after the verdict was won through judicial McFoolery.
McCaslin's zeal short-sighted his actions linking the Englewood City Council to the very neighbors who had listed their names as witnesses against the so-called business. These neighbors each signed the good-old boy petition for re-election of small town political Judge. This is the same Judge who had refused to recuse himself earlier in the case.
Matthew Crabtree, challenger for the At-Large Council position, stumbled upon the judge's petitions for re-election, thus the confirmation of the City Councilman's conspiracy with the neighbors and the judge, when the clerk gave them to him on September 2, 2009.
The Judge is running unopposed this November. McCaslin is not up for re-election until next year.
XML Feeds