Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

It don't look good, folks. Frank Gryglewicz,Director of Finance, issued this week a Summary of the Updated General Fund Financial Report to City Council, Englewood, Colorado. While April is generally the month that a huge influx of taxes show up in the City budget, this April 2010 shows "Expenditures exceeded revenues by $393,740."

Nevertheless, the financial report was listed as last on City Council's agenda on Monday, and in the end, they simply ran out of time to address it. While a lot of people have been screaming about the Englewood budget,--and being ignored by their Council Representatives,-- the real issue has become obvious. Fiscal Mismanagement. It's a simple lack of leadership in the making of financial policies for the kind of economy Englewood has faced for years.

While Englewood was gladly and deceptively collecting the sales taxes from the City of Centennial, the problem stayed so well hidden that Englewood seemed rich. But Centennial caught on to the sales tax drain, and throughout 2008, formed their own Home Rule City in order to fight back.

Englewood City Manager, Gary Sears, continues to spend wildly as if the funds will come from somewhere, but where's that, folks? And also Mayor Jim Woodward feels entitled, as he expressed in his Monday evening address: I've put out enough of my own money for travel, and I want the City to pay for my retreat. Of course, he wasn't obligated to go to any such retreat he has used your tax money for. He simply wanted to go. The upcoming Breckenridge retreat will cost constituents $900 per council member for one night's stay.

Twelve items of "less than last year" representing thousands of dollars each, were listed in Mr. Gryglewicz' Report. But there is no recommendation to cut back in any area of spending. The silence is deafening because it is not their money that is being spent, and Council members are bought and paid to keep their mouths shut so long as they get their retreats and their power showers.

In this week's Arapahoe County political meeting, Gene Turnbull, a member of the Englewood School Board raucously teased County politicians for the same kind of silence. He stood up and said, "I'm stealing from you, and you are not paying attention." Several people finally noticed his point. Who on City Council has the balls to stand up and say the same thing? Mr. Rick Gillit, from District 4, alone. He is the only one who continues to make a stink about the unreconciled spending practices of City Council and Gary Sears.

Gillit sent out an e-mail to District 4 saying, "Pay Very Close attention to the graph on top of Page #9) Our city had a nearly $450,000 deficit in income in April alone. If this trend continues we will be in deep trouble if we do nothing to change. With this in mind I was "SHOCKED", to say the least, that the Mayor - Jim Woodward, Council Member Bob McCaslin - (At Large), and Council Member Joe Jefferson (District #1) would ask for the city to pay nearly $1,000 each to attend a retreat in Breckenridge Colorado and attend the Colorado Municipal League annual meeting/retreat. Some of you may remember that there was outrage last year on the news about how residents felt that this was a waste of money during hard times. Looks like we don't learn much about what the residents feel!

He continued, "I guess what is most disturbing to me is that we may possibly have to cut some services, salaries, and possible employees if the financial situation does not get better and we are sending people to a retreat that is not required. This is so extremely bothersome to me! The city just spent almost $10,000 in March to send some council members and the City manager to Washington DC for the National League of Cities retreat. Again, a non required trip that has not brought any benefit to our residents and here we go again. Please someone help me understand how we can bleed our city dry during obvious hard times? When will my fellow Council Members say "NO"??? How bad do things have to get before they are pressured to stop spending??? These trips seem like a small amount but they could be the difference of whether or not we cut a position, or some other service."

Anyone in the City can contact Representative Gillit at: RGillit@EnglewoodGov.org or call(303) 246-4780. But because he only represents District 4, he is limited in his power to represent the entire City. That should be the Mayor's Job, and he simply doesn't care.

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.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.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Allow me to introduce you to Jon Cook, seasoned Englewood entrepreneur and developer. Just before Monday's Council meeting, Cook contacted Council Woman, Jill Wilson, and asked to speak with the City. During her Council's Choice section at the end of the meeting, she did her job and introduced him to speak.

A discussion hotly ensued in which Councilman, Bob McCaslin whined about not being warned before the meeting that Mr. Cook wanted to present, and that no-one knew what he planned to say. Then the discussion turned to procedural issues as to whether Mr. Cook could speak during Council's Choice, out of order from where residents are normally allowed to participate. A vote was taken, and Council asked for it. Jon Cook presented to council regarding a incident that occurred, where a representative from the Englewood Community development department made several harassing remarks to Jon Cook and the owner of Colore restaurant.

Colore, is a great little restaurant at Yale and Broadway, staffed by it's owners to ensure the quality of the food and the hospitality to its customers. When I visited there myself this month, I thought, "Now Englewood will give Pasquini's a run for their money."

But the developer, had his tenants, Colore, down his neck after Tricia Langon came with her arrogant ultimatums, "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Apparently, there was no other way she offered to do them.

She was talking about an advertising banner being taken off the building when she slapped her card on the counter. Colore owners responded, "But our landlord told us we could do this."

Her response? "We at the City know all about Jon Cook and we have our issues with him."

Colore immediately ragged on Jon Cook for bringing them into Englewood's domain just to be unfairly treated. After all, as Mr. Cook pointed out to Council, there are storefronts and grocery stores with banners all over Englewood.

Jon Cook ceremoniously handed back Langon's "calling card" to Mayor Woodward, looked at Bob McCaslin and said, "If you have an issue with me, then why don't you call me? My name is plastered all over Broadway with open buildings for lease.

I did exactly what you guys wanted. I gave you the kind of Welcome to Englewood Building you've been asking for. This should be a time of celebration for us...implying that Community Development had ruined it for them.

"But, this isn't the first time Tricia Langon has interfered with us and threatened us," he testified. It is indecent and backwards.

Jon explained many of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to move to the City of Englewood. He also stated that until Ms. Langon is fired, he will no longer be developing properties in the City of Englewood.

City Manager Gary Sears denied that Ms. Langon worked for him or that he had any control over her. He also stated that many complaints come in about various City employees, apparently trying to downplay the incident.

Mr. Cook stuck to his mettle though, and reiterated that he is sick to death of the inhospitable nature of the City. He is finishing up one project and not starting another until the City rascals clean up their acts.

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://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.