Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

After one of Matt Crabtree's political groups delivered fliers to owners of campers and recreation vehicles, Matthew Crabtree became the target of retaliation. Why? Because one interested citizen packed out a full house against Representative Linda Olsen's intent to disrobe her neighborhood of their vehicles.

Next thing Matt knew, the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, investigated his political group to see whether it complied with the Colorado election statutes. He employed the City Clerk, Lou Ellis, to see whether Matt could be prosecuted for running an illegal campaign.

Clerk Ellis and Attorney Brotzman contacted Mr. Crabtree warning him that his political group was not in compliance with the Colorado regulations for backing a candidate, but that since he had registered it in good faith, they would not prosecute him this time.

The warning was clear. "Either back a candidate, or stick to one election topic. Since this wasn't the topic of your flier, your group doesn't qualify as a political action committee under Colorado statute definitions."

"What does that mean?" Crabtree asked. "You don't have the power to regulate me if I don't fall within the scope of your definitions?"

Brotzman snapped that he could not put the committee name on the bottom of his fliers any more, that he must put his own personal name on the flier.

Brotzman then patiently explained that in Englewood's ordinances, any corporation advertising in Englewood, must not only identify themselves as the corporation, but also add the corporate representative and his or her phone number on the flier.

Crabtree was incredulous. "You mean, you would prosecute Breakfast on Broadway for advertisements or Yard Sellers for posting a sale sign without a phone number?"

Nothing more than a chuckle echoed across the air space.

It is clear that where retaliation comes into play in Englewood, the enforcement of ordinances are selectively enforced.

Matthew found a ticket for alley weeds upon his return home from work that evening.

Don't speak up about your opinion on anything in Englewood, and they will not prosecute you for weeds, or building permits, or raising your political voice.

At study session on Monday evening, Linda Olson, District Representative II, asked, "how can City Council stop this kind of thing?"

At that point, District I Representative, Joe Jefferson replied, "Hold on there. You are in the public eye. You cannot stop it. People have the right to respond to our policies." Basically, Mr. Jefferson was upholding the Constitution's freedom of speech clause and the right of the people to redress government.

Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Is it against the law to be a Town Crier in Englewood? Of course not. Hasn't the NAACP already settled that privacy and freedom of association protects the identity of the members in a group or club? Of course.

The power to regulate does not apply to absolute rights or guaranteed freedoms. Matt and his grass roots convoys may continue to roam freely through their city and campaign however they wish in response to the City's illegal encroachments.

Stink bugs catching the leftovers of the picnic, whether dressed up in black ties and shorty pants or not, are still just bugs to be flipped off.

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.