Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

If there’s something we’ve all learned over our political years it’s this. When you wish to sell something, like a fist full of pig’s knuckles, make sure you wrap it in a pretty package. This week the Nation looked at the hard law when Arizona ratified the federal immigration law. Some laws are more simple in that they don’t cause much controversy for politicians seeking to please. This one was bound to be unpopular in that it attempted to seek what was just. Did it miss the mark?

Compassion is important to religious and moral people alike, which is why catering to inclusiveness continues to be a tasty appetizer for marketing laws. The question distinguishes between legal aliens and illegal. But, is it cruel and unusual punishment to oust people from a home, a job and even their families when they are illegal aliens?

Military man, John Miller, says: “There are beautiful people who we all wish the best for, but if you drive without a valid driver's license, in Colorado even, you will be fined and potentially jailed. That's you, me, or anyone else, regardless of our nation of origin.”

A friend of mine, Jose Escobar, who is an immigration attorney working for the rights of the poor, has suggested the State of Arizona made an immoral law because it seeks to punish whole families for what was only “winked at” and was not punishable two weeks ago. It's a matter of grandfathering those who have already relied on the present system of law. Other currently transplanted Colorado residents also decried the Arizona law against their State of origin, saying how ashamed they were of their Arizona governor.

John Miller responded, “I'll just have to say that I've traveled the world and I know what to expect when I'm a guest in someone else’s country. I don't expect or demand the rights of citizenship. And I darn sure will not be given them. I'm not aware of a country that would be as lenient as the US is in this regard. Hard working immigrants take years to acquire the rights of citizenship, their efforts should not be diluted by those jumping the queue. Some things are legal and some are illegal.”

It is immoral when the laws of America frighten people, yet, Miller’s eyebrow raises as he states the obvious, “Are they so scared they're rioting out in the Open? Once you decide you don't have to be law abiding, it's easy to be uncivil.”

I have to agree that’s it’s rather uncivil to demand the world embrace you whether you are right or wrong and at everyone else’s expense. So, the question is put, once again: When policy makers make laws, do they target individual people or do they target justice? And within those boundaries, people show compassion as good members of society over and above the law.

In home rule Englewood, the City Council, as of May 20, 2010,is still debating inclusiveness as a marketing gimmick. Along with the inclusiveness technique, pretty Linda Olson used a non-inclusive technique, well-prepared before the meeting, to try to intimidate fellow council member, Rick Gillit last Monday evening, in order to address volunteerism and enacting a law that would coerce residents in Englewood to volunteer for areas the City chooses to target.

The problem is that Gillit had a family member in Nazi Germany's Dachau, who was murdered there. Over the entrance to the concentration camp, a sign was posted, "Work Makes You Free". This motto was a complete lie, and anyone who relied on it died in unreality.

Just as slaves and prisoners are not volunteers, hiring more City staff to oversee new "volunteer" agencies is not free to taxpayers. Deception is underfoot.

It takes a wise person to see that laws must exist only when necessary, and only for the good of the whole, and that too many laws encroach upon your rights or mine discriminantly.

The place of compassion and volunteerism is not settled under pressure. Nor is it to be funded by government. Government is precluded legally from funding non-profit charities. The City's place is to see to roadways, parks, emergencies, water, utilities and caring for necessary staff. (See the scope of authority given by City Charter) This compares to the scope of power given to home rule cities from Colorado Revised Statutes and the state Constitution. Forming new, paid positions, for charitable aims is simply extraneous.

Ms. Olson's prepared tact of using President Bush's inauguration speech was a pretty package of intimidation and nothing else. Someone with her credentials should know better.

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.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!”

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

What's the difference in a candidate for City Council who attends a crucial City budget meeting, grading a stack of papers throughout, and a child who doodles during Mass?

It's the difference it takes in mental acuity to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. A postman understands this. A pilot understands it. Anyone who works with his hands knows it is possible to process other data, but it is not possible to divide one's analytical attention and process two sets of data at once. Candidate for City Council, Linda Olson, hopes she can downplay the difference by her presence at City Council on Monday night.

How does Olson analyze and grade papers while absorbing critical budget allocations taking place?

Is this how she intends to do business for the people of Englewood if elected?

Doug Cohn and I met up outside the Cohn law offices.

I ask Doug Cohn what his plans are for Council compared to the Ms. Olson's stated intent. He answers,"I want a full service city because that is what we are already paying for."

"The city council makes all its budget decisions without seeing the whole budget," says Cohn. "How can intelligent decisions be made about spending forty million dollars if we do not have all the information? Matt Crabtree just requested a copy of the budget on disc, and the Clerk's answer was that the City doesn't have it computerized. None of us feel that's acceptable."

"Why do you feel the need to access the budget directly rather than delegating to City staff?" I ask.

"I see City Council members as the overseers, the policy makers in the City. We have to know what the line items are before we can study and delegate management of the budget to Gary Sears. There are debits, credits and transfers... I have questions about where millions of dollars have gone, grant funds, brownsfield chemical clean up money, and other strange happenings with taxes."

I say that I saw in the Englewood Citizen, Linda Olson's bio which reads like a professional marketing piece, while borrowing phrases from you, (Cohn), such as "transparency of government."

My observation is that Linda, in less than a month before elections, still fails to find time to concentrate on issues facing Englewood. She may be a nice person, but will she really listen when you have an issue? Will she read her council packet before voting? Or, will she bring papers to grade behind her council chair?

I say to Doug, "Olson states that she stands for your voice and your access to city management, yet her own interest in government shows exactly how much she values the access. Where has she been these last few years on Monday evenings?"

"Hummm... good question..."

..."While your concerns over Englewood foreclosures,forced paving of your driveways, grandfathering issues, property rights, dog rights and sewer fees were being debated in Council, when did she ever show up to listen, weigh in with a perspective?"

"Well, Linda is a very nice person, but she's busy with other things."

"While you seem to be running on some lofty Constitutional issues," I say. "What would you say is the most important Constitutional issue to you?"

"I believe that power follows property rights. Those rights are even more important than free speech. If you gut a guy's financial power to assets, or free choice in how to use that property, what is the purpose of owning property?"

"I've heard there's been an ongoing debate about off-leash dog parks over the years. Do you mind saying anything on that?"

Doug says, "Rick Gillit and I agree on that one. Let's find more spaces around town that can be used as off leash places. Not Jason Park. Dogs will never be given a higher priority than children when we are elected. There is a financial liability there for Englewood, and we have enough irons in the courtroom fires already. Humans must be protected. Government's role is to protect the most vulnerable. Not, special interests."

I agree. Olson lacks interest. How can she be a leader? Maybe she wants some Christmas cash. Even a pretty face can clearly betray a casual, "whatever" attitude because actions still speak louder than words.

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://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://www.englewoodstory.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clever bunch, that.

Homeowners were thereby defrauded of their property rights…elegantly.

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

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

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

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

Are these the words of an idealist or a pragmatist?

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

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

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

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.