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.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.EyeOnEnglewood.com

As of today, there are 6,505 Comcast subscribing households in the City of Englewood.

Comcast has continued its annual offering to provide a zero interest loan for $125,000 worth of equipment to the City of Englewood so that they can properly publicize their meeting topics, and even to webstream the meetings on the City's server so that those who don't subscribe to Comcast can still obtain equal access to city information through other means.

Think about this tool from a marketing standpoint. Good hotels and all the resort towns in Colorado have utilized this channel feature on televisions in the rooms. You can turn to that channel and see what kind of activity you wish to engage in while you are visiting, what restaurant, what boutique, what bike trail, golf course, Christmas sledding experience or horse coral you wish to call for more information. In addition, say you are seated in your Vail hotel room and you wish to hear about the politics and economy of the lucky few who actually live there, you can listen to their town hall meetings and learn about zoning issues. I've actually done that. I was curious, and I learned something. I then picked up their paper to satisfy my curiosity on that issue further.

So Comcast has provided the airwaves already, but the City of Englewood continues to waive the Citizen's rights to that airing of public business. In whose interests, I ask you?

Why has the City dragged its feet on this public airing issue year after year... for 10 years? False modesty? It's the; "Aw, shucks! No body is interested in my mundane job of controlling their lives and the city's money, policies, streets, water, businesses and parks...why would that be interesting?" syndrome.

Councilwoman Linda Olson would have us believe that her constituents enjoyed a joke at people's expense who watch public television, and that she didn't believe people would watch it. This was her comment at the last City Council Meeting in March. But, perhaps that is why she took so little interest in the Council meetings that she graded papers, and chose not to be fully present, while making a showing of interest so that she could get elected last November. Is it only the power of that seat she sought? If so, it is the power seat behind the veil of secrecy she is hoping to keep.

And what is the exorbitant budget for the cost of equipment that Assistant Attorney, Mike Flaherty put together to present to Council for review? Was he trying to scare them away from having a bit of integrity? His presentation presented numbers for microphones and soundboards and servers that were at least 40% higher than normal provider costs.

With technology being what it is today, the City could easily take advantage of the money provided by Comcast to get the ball rolling in the right direction, for those of us who are closet voyeurs to City meetings, and who actually search the web for interesting activities, local services and real estate opportunities in Englewood.

Don't let this Council hookwink you into waiving away the airwaves you need to survive.

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.