Eye On Englewood

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

An interesting fact about Englewood's definition of household is that in 2004, Mayor Bradshaw enacted it in violation of the City's official purpose to mirror it's household code with the average of surrounding cities, the size of Englewood.

Instead, Englewood's definition of household became the most narrow of all.

In 2004, the newest legal definition of "Englewood Household" was enacted against Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of having no less than 4 unrelated people, that being defensible by law. This number also mirrored the median of other similar communities. Finally, that number seemed forward thinking enough to include developers' aims to build larger homes.

With City Attorney Brotzman's help, however, the definition of Household is being used to target people hosting exchange students, out of work sister-in-laws, x-spouses, or visiting friends in summer.

In one case, the City prosecuted a boarding house of artists in Englewood, knowing full well that it was a boarding house, but choosing to prosecute it for the definition of household anyway. The City's definition turned out to be too vague to use in the prosecution and it was dismissed secretly (against criminal rules of procedure) that dismissals must be procured only in Open court.

In another instance, an out-of-work family was forced to leave his Englewood sister's home or she would face prosecution for violating Englewood's definition of household.

In Englewood, there is no freedom to have an elder hostel or youth hostel for travelers.

But, Englewood doesn't come right out and actually define the terms of their narrow codes. They cannot do so legally, because of anti-discrimination laws.

Recently, when not-in-my-back-yard philosophers complained about 2 students living in a four bedroom home with the owners, the City reinvented the code for Englewood Boarding houses. Still, they did not define what Englewood's code meant by "related" or "unrelated". After eight months of debate and drafts, the new code was reenacted with the same mistake it had originally. It was too vague to prosecute.

Nevertheless, such residences, as of October 6, 2008, have been legislated by color of law out of all Englewood residential areas and into multi-family zones with apartment buildings or industrial areas.

Since Boarding houses are not permitted to exist in an apartment setting, the purpose of relegating them to the apartment zone is a little obvious. The message is: "Don't Want No New People... Go Away."

What is your personal definition of family? Has it ever changed with marriage, divorce or simply because of the situation someone you love finds themselves? Are you an inclusive person, or do you believe "every man is an island" and should traverse every phase of life without aid of any kind?

Are you one to practice entertainment or hospitality? Many cultures value hospitality above all. One of the most valuable times in my life came when I spent a year abroad, living with a family. In Englewood, by Englewood Municipal Code, this arrangement of hosting a student is illegal and criminal if you also happen to have a stepmother, sister in law or uncle in the home.

Is a Realtor's liability compromised if she sells an Englewood bungalow to an unmarried couple with children?

Perhaps you own a three-bedroom rental in Englewood with more than two unrelated people living in it?

No wonder Englewood's Flood Middle School closed in 2006. A City's duty is to be creative in attracting families, and one of those ways is to be hospitable to nannys, cooks, gardeners and... grandmas. Englewood is too closed minded to appeal to the upper class.

Mother-in-law cottages in Englewood neighborhoods used to be popular and useful. Now, they are illegal. The code works to isolate people rather than promote neighborliness.

Why doesn't the City encourage housing for students attending schools nearby? Instead, it prosecutes any more than two renters per home, regardless of the size of the house.

Students are on the cusp of finding a mate and settling down. It's likely they will stay were they have found friends rather than enemies.

Some people believe that the public officials are all that needs changing, and that the selective prosecutions of such laws will solve themselves.

But, If the law is unjust, is it unqualified to be law? Especially since variances cannot be approved for specified Uses according to zoning rules and the Appeals Committee.

If the neighbors are concerned with loud noises, with weeds, with neighborhood values, or with traffic, why not fight those battles with specific codes addressing those issues rather than by this government defining your family?

In 2004, when the definition of household had it's public hearing, one man testified about weed violations, and another about a neighborhood business with too many trucks.

A third testimony was that code enforcement and the police who were on the same block, turned a blind eye continuously. Employing the definition of household to these issues made no sense.

Does a renter, necessarily just because he is a renter, fail to plant flowers or a garden or mow the lawn? We all know of home owners who allow their properties to fail. The issue isn't really one of relationships at all.

And, since when was it government's business to determine relationships within a home?

If the City wishes to legislate morality, then they should, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Hospitality is a cornerstone of our society. Never more than this time, in global bank foreclosures, housing crises, and business crises, will your family's generosity be remembered, honored.

Except... Not in my backyard.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

After publishing my article on Englewood’s civil rights violations, I was sent the following letter.

Read more »

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

la,lah...Always turns out this way....

While listening to the minutes on the http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/ site, the McCaslin charade about championing the new cat leash law for resident's wayward domestics had me in a fit of tears. Bob's Comments How can the man take himself seriously? Is McCaslin going to run on this Cats-On-Leashes platform?

Then came the discussion on picking up strays and neutering or spading them and letting them go back to their neighborhoods after. "Because of course, they have their purposes catching rodents"... Was that Wayne Oakley?

Jefferson demurred that he was "only concerned about the humane effects of the traps." Jefferson's comments.

Cats are like people in that they cannot reproduce to catch rodents if you sterilize them all...crazy little fact of nature. Is Englewood on a hidden mission to eliminate cats? The nature of cats and dogs are different, is that too obvious to mention?

But, it could be a value for dollar to take your cat's collar off and let the city sterilize it for you. Or, perhaps you are a concerned citizen who believes this secret sterilization is a bizarre budgetary line item in the City's policy expenditures.

After this, Matt Crabtree addressed Council with concerns about the enormity of funds given to Community Development.

Mayor Woodward replied (during Mayor's choice at the end of the meeting) that he is offended that he has to explain himself, and is getting impatient with his feet being held to the fire. I found his comments a little catty. Perhaps he hadn't realized that by this time, Council had switched subjects.

It occurred to me how much better Englewood City Council is for weekend entertainment than any other vice out there. Well, maybe you'd best get a few beers before you sit down.

Because then came District 4's candidate for change, Rick Gillet's, articulate complaint regarding Council Woman Jill Wilson's double duty as a member of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee as an ethical conflict
1) for taking a seat that a citizen might better serve on,
2) for using undue influence and her power as a City Council woman with inside information flowing both directions,
3) for the public perception of undue influence.

Responding to Mr. Gillet, Mayor Woodward and Councilman Oakley, each stated that yes, they could see how there might possibly be a conflict, but he and Oakley were hesitant to deprive Councilwoman Wilson from her seat as she is their friend and associate and they believe the best of her. Oakley specifically stated that he believed undue influence was not the same thing as abuse of power. After all, Wilson only gets the same singular vote as the next volunteer board member.

What they failed to address was the fact that Council's interests in reporting on citizens for code enforcement (I)nformation or action by way of (S)ervice has trebled in 2008 compared to the 2007 record of Council Requests, and it has doubled in 2009.

The facts show that Wilson's influence has indeed grown in both directions, not only her opinions to the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee, but also directed from the militant power of Counsel against specific addresses and named residents.

When she asked City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, whether she could ethically vote for herself, he advised her that she could do so as long as she didn't believe she would be gaining anything economically from her vote for herself.

Thankfully, Rick Gillet is a candidate for District 4, up for election this November, because he has the courage to go to bat for a more accessible government in Englewood and are up for November Election. When it came down to a vote of the present City Council, Jill was still sitting on both Council and Code Enforcement. Council discussion and vote.

When I reviewed the 16 pages of Council's Requested Actions from 2007 onward, I realized that this Council has not been interested in drug abuse in the City, home foreclosures, increasing services or benefits to the public, or working on creative avenues to fill the storefronts.

Page after page is filled with hundreds of line items of Council members reporting on Citizens for Code Enforcement issues and requesting legal or police action. Perhaps your address is on this list?

As to finances, there is no special line item budget investigation requested, nor is there a request for background on any special funding or increase in staff salaries.

No-one on City Council asked for legal or civil investigation on the boarding house issue they enacted the new statute and ungrandfathered the current law abiding residents according to whim in 2008, nor did they investigate ways to resurrect the Englewood Parade.

Council did succeed in making residents so angry that on 2/11/08, Council requested information about how to provide security for their own council meetings.

On 3/24/08 McCaslin proposed a (S)ervice to "fine citizens without Court appearances," deeming them "Code Violators" without being given a chance to plead and defend themselves, to have a trier of facts in a fair trial. Bob, it is called the right to face your accusers. It is called "due process."

On 04/07/08 Wilson requests (S)ervice on EEF/EMRF Ordinances.

Recently Council members even requested and voted into approval a designated Code Enforcement person to attend to all of their personal complaints, including evenings and weekends.

On Monday evening, Council brought forward their "bucket" for holding new names on their power trip lists. They voted to extend their term limits from two years to three. Now, in November elections, Citizens get to vote on 12 full years of this Council's personal vendettas against them. By that time, they will hold a very full bucket indeed.

Council Member Bob McCaslin provided a motion for Council Bill No. 30, a bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City of Englewood at the next regularly scheduled municipal election a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 22, “Terms,” of the Englewood Home Rule Charter.

Council Bill no. 30 is a measure to extend the term limits of each council member from 2 terms to 3 terms. This measure was brought forward originally during a Study Session by Bob McCaslin on January 26th.

Are you on City Council's list? Did you get a surprise visit from a Police Officer on or about the 4th of July to warn you not to set off fireworks in the City this year simply because you were on their list from last year? Dum, da da dummmm.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Nuisance, (through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, to hurt) is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance is defined by Englewood Municipal Code.

15-1-1:E.M.C. Applicability and Definitions.
A. The abatement of nuisances in the City of Englewood is hereby declared to be of local concern. It is the duty of all responsible parties including persons, property owners, firms, corporations, occupants, lessees, or any agents or representatives of the record owner or owners, to maintain property within the boundaries of the City of Englewood so as not to cause or maintain an act or condition which endangers the public health, safety or welfare or results in annoyance or discomfort to the public or damage to any property or injury to any person.

Wikipedia says, "Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the 'right of quiet enjoyment' is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed."

When neighbors squabble over nothing, depleting another's right to quiet enjoyment of their land, they risk being taken to civil court for the tort of nuisance. Who wants to be labeled that for the rest of their life? Maybe the devils in Tazmania, but not in Englewood.

15-2-1:E.M.C. Nuisance Prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or do any act constituting a nuisance.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to create, continue or suffer the existence of any nuisance on any property under his control.

Although the City Manager maintains the duty and power to abate a nuisance, someone else's nuisance is not really his first priority. He sits above a private neighbor's hell, untouchable.

15-3-1:E.M.C. The City Manager's Power to Abate a Nuisance in Case of an Emergency.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to immediately abate or enjoin any nuisance existing in the City without following the procedures of this Chapter in the case of an emergency, whether or not such nuisance is specifically recognized by this Title.

There is also a City procedure form abating non-emergency nuisances.

15-3-2:E.M.C. Administrative Abatement Procedure in Non-Emergency Situations.
If, after inspecting the property on which a nuisance is reported, the enforcement personnel who are charged or designated by the City Manager with investigating nuisances declare the existence of a nuisance, the following procedures shall be followed.
A. Photographs and/or videotapes and written reports and findings shall be generated.
B. The responsible party or parties shall be determined.
C. The Code Enforcement Officer(s) shall have the discretion to informally abate the nuisance by speaking with the responsible party. In the event that the informal proceedings fail to abate the nuisance within the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti the Code Enforcement Officer may, at his/her discretion, issue a summons and complaint to the responsible party or shall issue a notice pursuant to E.M.C. 15-3-2(D).
D. If the nuisance has not been abated by the informal process or a summons and complaint has not been issued at the conclusion of the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-2(C), a written notice in essentially the form set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-3 of this Chapter shall be served upon the responsible party by personal service or by leaving a copy of the notice at the usual place of residence or business of such owner, responsible party shown by the records contained in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office or in the County Tax Assessor's Office, or by mailing a copy of the written notice to such responsible party at such place or address by United States mail, certified return receipt. If service of such written notice is unable to be perfected by any methods described above, the enforcement personnel shall cause a copy of the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, or by publishing on the City's official website, or by posting the notice on the property.
E. The notice shall state clearly and concisely the findings of the enforcement personnel with respect to the existence of the nuisance, and the section of the City ordinance(s) that have been violated.
F. The notice shall also state that unless the responsible party shall cause the abatement of the nuisance pursuant to the notice and this Code, the City may abate the nuisance at the expense of the responsible party or may issue a criminal summons and complaint or both.

Finally, there is the option of municipal court. But a Citizen cannot avail themselves of a Citizen's complaint in Englewood's Municipal Court. Head Judge Attencio has specifically and arduously declined to hear a common citizen or to intervene in a neighborhood nuisance complaint.

15-4-1: E.M.C. Judicial Abatement of Nuisances.
A. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, including those specified and set forth in E.M.C. 1-4-1, the Englewood Municipal Court may, upon a finding that a nuisance exists, issue an order enjoining the nuisance, authorizing its repair, restraint, removal, termination or abatement.
B. A responsible party found by the court to have caused a nuisance or allowed the nuisance to be caused or to be continued shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City to abate said nuisance. Such costs may be collected by the City pursuant to Municipal Court order, in a civil action or assessed as a lien against any property on which the abatement was performed as specified in E.M.C. 15-3-7.
C. Prima Facia Evidence. The issuance of three (3) or more notices of violation of this Title shall be prima facie evidence that the responsible party deliberately and wilfully violated this Title and may be punished within the discretion of the court as provided in E.M.C. 1-4-1. This remedy shall be cumulative with all other remedies.

What option does a resident being harassed by nuisential neighbors have? There is the option of a "No Trespass" sign, and the possibility of criminal prosecution for trespass.

7-6F-2:E.M.C. Trespass.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands or property of another knowing that the consent to enter or remain is absent, denied or withdrawn by the owner or the person having lawful possession thereof, or any agent of such owner or possessor; provided, that this Section shall not apply to any reasonable entry seeking information or emergency shelter.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands, property or vehicle parking areas owned, operated or controlled by any other person, business or merchant when the activity thereat is closed, not operating, nor serving the public and consent to enter or remain upon such lands, property or vehicle parking areas has been denied or withdrawn by a person having authority to do so.
C. Notice posted in the window of the businesses', merchant's or person's building or otherwise upon the property is prima facie evidence that consent to enter or remain is absent and has been denied or withdrawn.

Though in Englewood, getting the judge to hear your complaint is another matter. It seems the government of Englewood plays sport, and quite enjoys the obvious outcome of every offensive move. They can accurately calculate the odds. They will always win.

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.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

We all know that fear can be a closed gate to government. Ignorance is a closed gate to government. And, in a busy society like Englewood, Colorado, busi-ness is a latch to pry open government.

People go to work five out of the seven days of the week, and then with their limited time after work and on weekend, they prepare family meals, and set a bit of personal time apart for sports, activities, concerts, paying bills, mowing the lawn and cleaning.

People tend to entrust politics to the “politicians”.

May 4, 2009, The City's old spending habits were approved by an outside auditor who hammed it up with the City Manager, and then the spending for 2009 was processed unanimously by all seven council persons, without discussion.

The following 2009 spending is itemized:
*a nine year old truck is to be replaced.
*a 60% increase on everyone's sewer fees was approved.
*a 2009 shell of an ambulance is purchased for $135,313, which still needs to be outfitted inside.
*a tilling tractor with the deluxe package including a GPS system and leather seats is to be purchased for $95,598.19
*November Candidate, Rick Gillit, asked Council to give an official report of the $20,000 they just spent at League of Cities, but Council ran out of time for Joe Jefferson's report.
*$20,000 for a community garden was expended.
*and, during study session, a grant of $5,000 was approved for Waste Management Company recycling, costing the City only $4,500 out of the original $9,500 price to recycle. For what? Isn't this the same service the Shriners offer for free?

Candidate for council, Rick Gillit noticed, "Not one council member posed the question whether the truck could be fixed rather than replaced or whether it could last another year or two?"

He said no-one asked, "What would a 30% sewer fee hike accomplish rather than a 60% hike?" or "What would a shell of an old ambulance cost to be refurbished?" or "Why does the City's tilling tractor require a GPS and deluxe package?"

It sure brings up the obvious: Did Council discuss these issues elsewhere besides the public meeting? If they did, they have violated the Open Meetings Rules and Sunshine Act.

Another observer noticed that not one Council member asked, "Why spend $20,000 on a community garden when the City is having to cut back expenses by 15%? And, no-one asked, "Did we really need to spend all those hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating against our own people last year?"

Understanding the laws which govern a home rule city is as easy as reading the manual: The Charter is the City's Constitution. But after the year 2000, Englewood’s manual gained three inches of ordinances known as the Englewood Municipal Code, (E.M.C.). Thick with cross references, notations to history and previous laws, full of things from the criminal code, pensions, building codes, the court, and zoning issues.

I agree, it is a bit cumbersome.

But, what this old ticker finds inexcusable, is the unwillingness to research a topic when asked. Why aren't rules of fixed measurement and law applied to the interests of justice? Are budgets really just a matter of the whims of those in power?

Is it really okay to charge 60% more for water and sewer services during an 8% unemployment crises, just to spend it elsewhere on new Tonka Trucks?

The air of secrecy surrounding Englewood City Hall has been breached by a Citizen's group intent to record and make public City meetings. For months now Englewood Citizens for Open Government (www.englewoodcitizens.org)has published City Council meetings and study sessions, and just this week,they published a the fact that Englewood's Financial and Administrative Services Director Frank Gryglewicz, Accounting Manager Steve Dazzio and Timothy P. Mayberry, CPA, from Johnson, Holscher & Company, P. C. discussed the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in private and concluded that Englewood passed the(CAFR)grade.

Secrecy is a fine gate to help government achieve its aim by locking out controversy. Secrecy fleshes out efficiency and may save someone a bit of embarrassment. But, is secrecy the right tool? A pen's cap can be used to pick your ear, but it may have other unwanted effects. What does the tool of secrecy compromise?

It forces a potentially good form of government underground. It makes the good guys wear porcupine quills when they find themselves above ground because they know what things are hiding below.

Efficiency is the sweetheart of secrecy. Efficiency can evade a just investigation of the facts and laws, making a clean sweep of everything but the outcome.

When an authority figure doesn't admit that he struggles with an issue or needs more time before he casts his vote on it, he never has to research it and then he can rely on his associate's opinion. It is much more efficient that way. Right or wrong, something gets done.

City Council looks ominous sitting high above the audience that addresses it. Like judges they sit, as if they are privy to the issues at hand and at law. But are they?

Perhaps they are only privy to the information City Attorneys secretly feed them. But if the City attorneys, the City manager has it all wrapped up, and the one power withheld from Council is to "interfere" with Staff, according to the Charter, Part 1, ARTICLE III, section 32, then why does Englewood need a City Council?

Maybe they are so concerned with appearing "on the same page" that they become only puppets and "yes men" to the City Manager. Certainly, if they cannot open a public court record and take a look; certainly if they cannot drive by an Englewood site to investigate an issue for themselves; certainly if they cannot respond to a Citizen's question or look up their rules for themselves, their counsel will leave something to be desired.

Most assuredly, if they are not allowed to ascertain budget reports or ask questions of the head of the building department, and absolutely, if they have some friends from high school bending their ears for loyalty, their input is less than objective or meant "for the dignity of the whole."

Shouldn’t residents take a second look?

Please excuse my waffling. I’ll get right to the point. November elections are upcoming.

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.

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.EnglewoodCitizens.org

If you receive a City paper called "The Englewood Citizen" you might discover a high-lighted portion at the bottom of page 2, May/June 2009, announcing that the City Council has made their meetings available on their website.

Funny thing, a grass roots group calling themselves Englewood Citizens for Open Government (ECOG) has been recording and uploading these meetings for several months now, pressuring City Council to be more transparent, approachable, accessible and accountable to their constituency.

After City Council discussed whether they would continue to allow ECOG to record and publish their meetings, and finding no way out of it short of criminal liability, they decided to join the parade and outdo ECOG.

After all, an official City website is going to accumulate more hits than an unknown grass roots group, right?

Matthew Crabtree, concerned citizen, must be given the credit for his endurance of four hour long city meetings, and his fortitude in pilgrimaging the recordings of conscious. He has continued to upgrade his services to the public of Englewood.

Mr. Crabtree reports that he has started clarifying who the speaker is on any given subject.

For those who would not recognize their own district representative's voice over any other, and what they might stand for, they may now begin to follow topically what each representative states.

For instance, on April 20, 2009, Council resurrected the idea of mandating paved driveways... spear-headed by John Moore, but if you are not familiar with District representative Moore's voice, you may not realized that he is the one representing the issue. II. Hard Surface Standards.

Council is on a roll with "ungrandfathering" residential properties that were pre-existing to their new-fangled ideas. Apparently, their town just cannot change quick enough for them. In this case, Council will extend grandfathering rights only to those who have gravel, while just weeks ago these were deemed dangerous. They will forego grandfathering of dirt driveways.

The really bad news is that any arbitrary thing enacted by this Council will make residents liable for fines, liens and even threats of jail.

Englewood residents barely surviving hard times can thank their electorates for this finely timed gift.

The cool thing for residents to know is that while dirt is illegal in the new Englewood, road base is solidly safe within the proposed code. Residents just need to declare which one they have.

It was important for me to note in listening to the recordings that Mayor Woodward raged against a great-grandmother and long-time resident of Englewood who came to Council for the second time to represent her opinion about them throwing away Nancy Peterson's various awards after she was injured by an unnamed City policeman.

When she originally caught them in the act, Ms. Cummins represented herself kindly about the matter and obtained a March agreement from Council to put them on public display somewhere in City Hall, alongside City Manager Sear's trophies. But, after seeing some scratches and wear from being tossed away, they decided to put the awards out of public eye in the airlock of the Englewood Police Station.

She, Ms. Cummins, came bravely to Council to tell them that she didn't appreciate her friend's honors being stuffed away from public eye twice, and what happened to their original 100% commitment to her by Mayor, Bob McCaslin and Jill Wilson? She wanted to know.

Mayor delays his hottest topic til near the end of section 12. "General Discussion," when he begins to respond to "Ms. Cummins comments" and then lectures her for her "attack" on him personally. It's a bit of a shameful interaction from the office of City Mayor that can be heard in the last third of General Discussion, during Mayor's Choice section at www.EnglewoodCitizens.org. Monday, April 23.

I personally will stick with Mr. Crabtree's recordings as all of the background noise has been removed from the recordings, and they are conveniently set out per section and per speaker. It's much more accessible and transparent than having to listen to the entire four hours of this Council's official meetings.