Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Has anyone noticed housing and property tax assessments continuous rise? Yet, Englewood School attendance is low, so low an entire school in Englewood closed down a couple of years ago. The only legal way to raise property taxes is by public vote or in proper relation to the school enrollment.

Yet, City Manager Gary Sears continued to budget and spend as if the ceiling was merely foggy. Absolutes do not pertain to him, because he is absolutely above the law.

The official spokesperson for Englewood government, Tom Munds, reported in the Wednesday edition of the Englewood Herald, front page: the "gloomy picture" Manager Gary Sears has finally owned up to. The problem is, Sears is not cutting the budget in his own salary or benefits, or those of his top cronies.

Instead, the Englewood Herald cites that Sears proposed "transferring about $600,000 from other city funds, and reallocating the Long Term Asset Reserves to the City's general fund!" Is anyone screaming about this theft?

Not Mayor Woodward. Not a peep from that fearless leader is heard. The only place Woodward responds is in the additional targeting of many various City services such as street repair, Parks and Recreation, the Summer Concert Series, and the Art Shuttle. Then, Woodward is reportedly moved. "I don't think eliminating the Art Shuttle is a wise place to cut spending because a lot of residents depend on it."

Nevertheless, Mayor does not ask that employees take several more furlough days, nor does he suggest that the heads of department salaries are actually cut rather than merely frozen.

Tom Munds again reported in the same edition of the Englewood Herald that a Code Enforcement Advisory Committee special meeting is scheduled on the ordinance governing the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles in one's own driveway.

Back up. Munds writes, "The turnout was sparked by a flier indicating the council was about to take action to pass more restrictive rules. However, about half the people left the July 19 meeting when Mayor Jim Woodward said no council action was anticipated on the issue."

Yet, special meetings have been scheduled to quickly address the issue. Munds admits the advisory recommendation could be to leave the rules unchanged, but that the City's Code Enforcement Officers have been told not to enforce the current rules. Apparently, the City's newest ordinances do already encroach onto private driveways, and the residents who packed out City Hall on July 19th should not have been so easily dissuaded by Mayor's downplay of the situation.

Considering the discrepancy in Mayor's wages to City Manager's wages, Woodward certainly has been accommodating. The problem is, Mayor is not the only person being taken advantage of. His job is to protect the people's resources and welfare, oversee that government administrates Parks and Recreation and street maintenance to the fullest extent, and insure Englewood's future Assets are not raped.

This is a public emergency, and it did not happen over night. District Four Representative Gillit has been harping on the fact, continuously shut down by the rest of council, as was the infamous Laurett Barrantine's (District 3) vocal tirades on the matter. But no "Emergency Meeting" has been called over the City's finances.

Public Criminal number one is hiding in plain sight. What's a Mayor to do? Especially since, he has been complicit all these years in creating the fiscal emergency.

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.