Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the years, Community Development has received a budget of $2,000,000.00 per year. The exact “USES of FUNDS” according to the 2009 budget for the Community Development Department is $1,639,615, that would be $32,792,300 for a twenty year period IF that was the budgeted amount for every year which it probably is not, factoring in inflation, etc..

If this figure has been consistent, they will received at least $40,000,000.00 over the course of the next 20 years. With that money they have developed a fine two story brick strip mall called Trolley Square, which was not thought through sufficiently, -- therefore could not be leased, -- and which within five years time, was demolished.

Community Development also oversaw the demolishing of much of Historic Broadway, the old City Civic Center and Cinderella City.

They received grant money to clean up the brownfill on the backside of Elati and made a deal with RTD for the development of a walk on station. But, Community Development tried to cut out the existing residents' mountain views by inviting loft high rises into the area.

Robinson brick now uses the contaminated land for storing bundles of brick. When asked about the development of this property this year, City Councilman, Jefferson stated that Community Development deemed it too expensive to develop. It might be a bike park, or a retail mall or a hotel for light rail accommodations, but for some reason, the City has become disenchanted with their previous agreements.

They paid professionals for studies on the redevelopment of the RTD Light Rail cleaning and maintenance facility, brought in the station for light rail to Englewood at Hampden, and designed the new transit oriented City Center. This City Center was the recent subject of a video published on the Englewood Citizens For Open Government website. The results of the video show how several deadly marketing choices were made so as to prevent the open offices at the base of the light rail station to receive no access, and thus remain unleased office space.

The study also resulted in the claim that most retailers will not inhabit a retail mall area so small, and that a broader nucleus of retail stores would likely need to be offered to bring in willing businesses who viewed the traffic in the area as viable for money making.

Despite these critiques, Community Development is currently trying on new shoes East of Broadway, at the Swedish Medical PUD site, where they hope to offer a Whole Foods Store in the old Bali’s Gym structure. This idea would likely be a hit for health conscious citizens, and accessible to much of the outside public driving through Englewood on Highway 285.

Nevertheless, Community Development has the Kent Place at University and Hampden to worry about. When they initially cut the deal with the buyers to develop the highly visible property, the City accepted a deal where they would not take the tax monies from the property owners for up to 30 years.

Because Kent Place has changed hands a couple more times, concerned citizens would like to know whether they must continue to face the 30 year deprivation of tax revenues at the hands of the new investor/developers, or if that aspect of the deal was not an asset passed through from developer to developer.

In any case, Kent Place lies dormant, while the relocated Denver Seminary which vacated the premises has flourished in their new Aspen Grove property for three years onwards. Give it another four years, and the property’s renewed soil nutrients should sustain a farm pretty well.

Meanwhile, there is the McClellan Reservoir Foundation whose board of directors are the Community Development and Finance gurus of the City of Englewood. The City recently spent approximately $45,000.00 for a weekend in Las Vegas, marketing this property to the World. Maybe Las Vegas looks like modern Dubai? For that price, it might as well have been a trip half way around the world.

Why would Englewood market this piece of property at such an expense, when it is situated inside of another town, the town which would profit from the taxes of the Reservoir’s development? Why would Englewood agree to pay for the moving around of the dirt on this property, when the City doesn’t stand to gain tax revenues back? If Englewood were a large corporation, it certainly would have enough losses to qualify for great tax shelters each year.

We turn now to Historic Downtown. Why do Broadway’s sidewalks have weeds growing through the cracks? Why are they dirty and unkempt? Why do so many storefronts remain vacant?

The empty lot next to Bonnie Brae Hobbies could be transformed into a delightful, accessible Farmer’s Market in Summer or an Ice Skating Rink in Winter. Why not? It seems the City of Englewood would rather not claim the historical parts, but treats them as the unwanted step-child. Historic Englewood could prove to be a real Cinderella itself, if Community Development chose to throw a little dress on her shoulders.

Could it be that no amount of marketing Englewood’s prime retail space can spin itself as a good deal while Community Development hassles new business owners on Broadway about signage, paint choices, bed bugs, murals, signage, outdoor seating, taxes, and signage? What safety issues are Community Development trying to curb by micro-managing the small business dealers?

Meanwhile important issues such as the parking crises, empty storefronts, brick walls facing the public’s access to City Center, and lack of passageways, bridges, sidewalks to these areas are simply ignored.

For $40,000,000.00 budgeted over the next 20 years, I’d demand a little more attention to detail for my money. That kind of budget could at least clean up the issues that remain before embarking on more speculative deals.

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://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

A couple of items stand up shouting at me from this most recent City Council meeting. The first is a letter from Lance Smith, who is the head of Englewood's building department.

It was distributed to Council that night, obviating its way around the library's reference packet for the public.

The letter said that Englewood obtained a low grade on risk assessment because it's building inspectors are performing too many inspections every day. ISO recommends two daily inspections because a thorough inspection takes a little longer.

Englewood performs as many as ten inspections a day. Mr. Smith reported to Council how their grade confused him seeing as they can perform so many inspections in a day. But, safety inspections are not a race.

Read more »