Eye On Englewood

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

About fifteen years ago, Englewood enacted a Special Concrete District. This, despite the fact that Englewood already had about 10 times more districts than other municipalities. What an auditing nightmare! But that is not the focus of this piece.

This piece focuses on the fraud of the concrete district scheme itself. In order to create a new tax, and enact the district, City Manager had to feign a disadvantage. Then, he frightened residents into membership for their own protection. Sound anything like a thug making his mark? How did City Manager Sears accomplish this? By, completely ignoring your property boundaries.

Englewood started insisting that concrete sidewalks needed to be upgraded, sending notices to residents. Englewood insisted that the private property owners would be required to pay for the new cement repairs in full. The City required home owners to pay up immediately, short of buying into the new district. Property owners then examined the broken sidewalks and agree, yes, they need repair, and no, I cannot pay for hundreds of dollars, and furthermore, I don't know how to fight city hall. Bingo! City scored!

Very few residents possessed site plans, and they didn't believe that their trusted servants in government could outright lie to them about fiscal liabilities without being caught. So, over time, more and more private property owners began to assume their shares and payments into the concrete district.

The scheme goes this way: If you agree to buy into the district, then when you sell your home, the new owner automatically assumes the concrete debt, and the new owner has no right of redress within the City. This obviates your First Constitutional Right to redress government. Now, ain't that special?

But this month, a family took the Mayor and City Manager to District Court, because it is a higher court than the Englewood Municipal Court which judge is in bed with certain City officers. This family obtained a temporary restraining order against the City regarding the concrete district. They deserve a gold banner, for resourcefulness, don't you think?

Since purchasing their home in 2006, they had requested that Englewood repair their front heaving sidewalk. Every year, they sent letters, and every year, Englewood refused and ignored them. The problem was that an healthy 80 year old tree had roots that heaved the pavement.

Englewood refused to correct the problem unless the new owners allowed them to cut down the 80 foot tall shade tree and replace it with a sapling. Although the owners suggested Englewood correct the slope of the street which was causing various hazards in the winter at the bottom of the block, by simply raising the sidewalk over the tree roots, Englewood refused. The owners then suggested Englewood make the sidewalk bump out in a semi-circle around the base of the tree, separating parking spaces in the frontage. Again, Englewood refused.

Englewood's letters refused to cooperate with the City's engineering and paving departments or with the homeowners, even though the sidewalk was causing a severe stumbling liability. Englewood refused to perform due diligence for creative alternatives to save the tree by inquiring with an arborist. But, Englewood also abandoned the property to the owners three years ago, saying in a letter that the land at the front of their property belonged to the home owners.

The letter went on to say that if Englewood did cut the tree roots, the property owners would have to sign a letter to assume all future liability in case the tree became unstable in a storm and fell on a house in the neighborhood, due to the City's sloppy choice of actions!

The situation came to a head when the City decided to do whatever it wanted to the tree, the home owners' rights, and the sidewalk, without notifying the private owners at all. Home downers believed they had some rights to know whose property it really was, or who would pay for what, or whether the owners would lose the tree. The owners took the City to Court and won an injunction. They easily proved the City was about to perform some urgent irreparable harm to the tree and the threat of the tree falling on a home as well.

I wonder why they didn't take this further and suggest irreparable harm was about to occur to their right to redress government or their own safety and welfare?

The Judge required the City to hire an arborist and perform due diligence. Because of this situation, I have looked into the Colorado Statutes on Special Districts which do require cooperation with all the parties when there is an easement or right of way privilege onto any given property.

The City's constitutional duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of a neighborhood, as regarding the slope of the street and the health of the tree. Additionally, Englewood was not allowed to recklessly abandon public property to a private residence and then take it back like Indian Givers when it suited them.

The law of right-of-ways is that government may well own the real property, (usually frontage or alley ways) while private residents may own right of way access to their site from both the front street and the back alley. Additionally, utility companies own a right to access their telephone poles or city ditches on any property, whether owned by government or private owners.

Englewood had abandoned their frontage rights to own the real property in front of these residents' site plan in order to sell shares into the concrete district. And these owners had continued to pay. Thus, the City had an absolute duty to repair the concrete...three years ago.

The City perpetrated fraud against its own people in order to gain a financial advantage over residents, like these, to make them pay for the same duty Englewood always held to maintain its own neighborhood sidewalks. Taxes were already there for new concrete. But, after paying for years, the government refused to perform its duty to cooperate with the home owners and do the job properly. The district judge stopped short of telling the City how to do its job

Do you have a "Notice" stating that Englewood will do something on "your property?" You should find out what your site survey actually says from your Title Company, or hire a survey company to mark the edges. The wording on Englewood's Notice may well be deceptive. If the weeds belong to the City, then, the City owns the duty to trim and care for them. What would happen if residents began noticing the City with 14-day warnings to pull weeds, or repair sidewalks? That's so backwards.

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.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.

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://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.