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://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.