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://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

On February 22, 1010, Dianna Wray Tomasso was asked to speak during the City Council Study Session. Tomasso is a gifted, educated woman who provided her resume to the City of Englewood as her "two cents" in obtaining a National Historic Designation for Englewood's Broadway Post Office. Hear her presentation on ECOG website.

You don't have to listen very long to realize the Mayor and Tomasso had privately shared a letter from the Post Office and discussed the price the Post Office had suggested to pursue a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Deeming it to be substantially unfounded, Tomasso was asked to present her own bid for the project, which she did on February 22.

Whose property is the post office? Does it belong to the City of Englewood, the State of Colorado or to the Private Postal Service? It seems it is the duty of the owner to decide whether they wish for their property to obtain a place on the registry because although there are grants to be had, there are also extremely costly limitations and restrictions to building renovations that the owner may not wish to be subjected to.

It could be a wrestling match. The fact that the Mayor and Tomasso have included Representative Dianna Degette into the mix, suspiciously sets the post office up for a unfair fight by weighing in the interests of the entire State of Colorado to take away its own choice.

In any government building undertaking, a bidding process must be undertaken. Englewood skipped this bidding process entirely. It has it's own historic register of places on which the Skerrit House is listed, and another home at 2734 S. Acoma in Englewood. Neither of these homes cost $5,000 to simply apply for and obtain a historic status. But, a few years ago, Councilman Ray Tomasso disbanded the historical society in Englewood.

Another question one might have is why this $5,000 in payment was granted to Dianna Wray Tomasso in a private study session on February 22, 2010? Aren't policies and unbudgeted changes to the City's finances supposed to be published for a public hearing or sent to the vote of the people? Nevertheless, when Councilman Rick Gillit, confronted the rest of council with what they were about to vote on, City Manager, Gary Sear stated that he had the authority to do it on his own and the fact that he was allowing Council in on the action was simply a courtesy.

Apparently Council did not understand Sear's slight of them and his own undertaking of full power. They all voted affirmatively, minus Gillit's vote.

After all, Tomasso's offer was only available for the evening. The woman had to know immediately or would refuse to weigh in with all her experience and price tag to boot.

Once, again, City Council voted to spend the taxpayers' money without letting them know anything about the issue or the change in budget policy, once again ignoring the Colorado open meetings laws, obviating the bid policy and succumbing once again to Gary Sear's personal power mongering. After all, it was only a matter of $2500, or was it $2800, or Hmmmm. Maybe the City will be stuck with the full $5000 pay check to Tomasso if it fails to raise half from private investors. It's really not Council's money that Council is disseminating any way. It's yours.

Then, City Attorney, Nancy Reid, asked the City to consider another change in its policies. Apparently, the Board of Appeals has been having a difficult time with absenteeism, which prevents a quorum, and short a quorum in light of a hearing, means the parties must wait for at least another couple of months to be heard. The absenteeism of the board members is causing some grumbling amongst residents and developers trying to work in Englewood.

So, Ms. Reid requested that the problem be solved by allowing a faithful alternate board member to step in and fill the quorum space required. After all, he or she has not had a difficult time showing up for every meeting, but not being allowed to vote.

The request, being reasonable, was voted on and passed. Once again, I ask you, is a City policy change of any kind to be presented privately to Englewood Council and voted on in a study session where most residents are not permitted to speak?

Take Note. Voting records and official actions are mounting up.

The only way to change the status quo is to vote differently with better educated persons in the next election, but having just passed one in November, you must wait for a long long time, and who knows what other policies will be enacted behind your backs?

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

New meaning has been given to this phrase during the election period in Englewood. One night last week, City Council challenger’s signs (Matt Crabtree and Rick Gillit) West of Broadway mysteriously disappeared off of their supporters’ front lawns.

When Rick Gillit found his signs posted all in one yard, he called the police for permission to remove them.

When the Englewood Police arrived on the scene, the local high school coach also drove up asking the police not to make out a report because it was just a cheerleader’s prank and was supervised by adults. The police explained that the so called “prank” was actually trespass and theft.

Police also explained to Mr. Gillit that only the persons whose signs were stolen could submit a formal Complaint. Yet, the signs continue to disappear all over town, including Doug Cohn’s in District 2.

A concerned citizen then requested the Englewood Herald to report the underhanded electioneering activities of the present City Council supervising and instigating the thefts and trespasses, then discounting them as “pranks”.

The reason this activity is much more than a “prank” is because challenging candidates are to be permitted equal access to obtaining office. Citizens are to be provided equal opportunity to the issues through advertising or the entire election may be overturned and the funds spent on this election wasted. Being impeded by Council members who have just voted to allow themselves a third term in office, is not just a prank. It goes to the heart of a republic (under law) and democracy (informed voting).

In 35 years, will these pretty young heads and buff wrestler bodies waste away into mirrors of their mentors?

Take another look at these “mentors.” They have just lost an important Constitutional battle against taking of private property. They have been accused of corruption and malfeasance of office.

Mayor Woodward and Bob McCaslin have been served with an Arapahoe County District Court conspiracy case, together with City Manager Sears and Attorney Brotzman and Judge Atencio. These charges do not depict “responsibility or commitment” but are very serious charges of mismanagement, violating the City Charter and ordinances, wasting taxpayer’s money to ruin individual’s lives whom they dislike or who may have recourse to unseat them, and laziness in training or implementing policies to protect Englewood residents and business owners.

Yesterday, the Denver Post published an article detailing the Constitution does still rule over Home Rule. The present City Council’s choices to take private business property rights was overruled by the Supreme Court. It’s time some shoulders were shaken and some legal advisers were fired. It’s time for a full turn-over of those who govern Englewood as a body.

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://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

Over the years, Community Development has received a budget of $2,000,000.00 per year. The exact “USES of FUNDS” according to the 2009 budget for the Community Development Department is $1,639,615, that would be $32,792,300 for a twenty year period IF that was the budgeted amount for every year which it probably is not, factoring in inflation, etc..

If this figure has been consistent, they will received at least $40,000,000.00 over the course of the next 20 years. With that money they have developed a fine two story brick strip mall called Trolley Square, which was not thought through sufficiently, -- therefore could not be leased, -- and which within five years time, was demolished.

Community Development also oversaw the demolishing of much of Historic Broadway, the old City Civic Center and Cinderella City.

They received grant money to clean up the brownfill on the backside of Elati and made a deal with RTD for the development of a walk on station. But, Community Development tried to cut out the existing residents' mountain views by inviting loft high rises into the area.

Robinson brick now uses the contaminated land for storing bundles of brick. When asked about the development of this property this year, City Councilman, Jefferson stated that Community Development deemed it too expensive to develop. It might be a bike park, or a retail mall or a hotel for light rail accommodations, but for some reason, the City has become disenchanted with their previous agreements.

They paid professionals for studies on the redevelopment of the RTD Light Rail cleaning and maintenance facility, brought in the station for light rail to Englewood at Hampden, and designed the new transit oriented City Center. This City Center was the recent subject of a video published on the Englewood Citizens For Open Government website. The results of the video show how several deadly marketing choices were made so as to prevent the open offices at the base of the light rail station to receive no access, and thus remain unleased office space.

The study also resulted in the claim that most retailers will not inhabit a retail mall area so small, and that a broader nucleus of retail stores would likely need to be offered to bring in willing businesses who viewed the traffic in the area as viable for money making.

Despite these critiques, Community Development is currently trying on new shoes East of Broadway, at the Swedish Medical PUD site, where they hope to offer a Whole Foods Store in the old Bali’s Gym structure. This idea would likely be a hit for health conscious citizens, and accessible to much of the outside public driving through Englewood on Highway 285.

Nevertheless, Community Development has the Kent Place at University and Hampden to worry about. When they initially cut the deal with the buyers to develop the highly visible property, the City accepted a deal where they would not take the tax monies from the property owners for up to 30 years.

Because Kent Place has changed hands a couple more times, concerned citizens would like to know whether they must continue to face the 30 year deprivation of tax revenues at the hands of the new investor/developers, or if that aspect of the deal was not an asset passed through from developer to developer.

In any case, Kent Place lies dormant, while the relocated Denver Seminary which vacated the premises has flourished in their new Aspen Grove property for three years onwards. Give it another four years, and the property’s renewed soil nutrients should sustain a farm pretty well.

Meanwhile, there is the McClellan Reservoir Foundation whose board of directors are the Community Development and Finance gurus of the City of Englewood. The City recently spent approximately $45,000.00 for a weekend in Las Vegas, marketing this property to the World. Maybe Las Vegas looks like modern Dubai? For that price, it might as well have been a trip half way around the world.

Why would Englewood market this piece of property at such an expense, when it is situated inside of another town, the town which would profit from the taxes of the Reservoir’s development? Why would Englewood agree to pay for the moving around of the dirt on this property, when the City doesn’t stand to gain tax revenues back? If Englewood were a large corporation, it certainly would have enough losses to qualify for great tax shelters each year.

We turn now to Historic Downtown. Why do Broadway’s sidewalks have weeds growing through the cracks? Why are they dirty and unkempt? Why do so many storefronts remain vacant?

The empty lot next to Bonnie Brae Hobbies could be transformed into a delightful, accessible Farmer’s Market in Summer or an Ice Skating Rink in Winter. Why not? It seems the City of Englewood would rather not claim the historical parts, but treats them as the unwanted step-child. Historic Englewood could prove to be a real Cinderella itself, if Community Development chose to throw a little dress on her shoulders.

Could it be that no amount of marketing Englewood’s prime retail space can spin itself as a good deal while Community Development hassles new business owners on Broadway about signage, paint choices, bed bugs, murals, signage, outdoor seating, taxes, and signage? What safety issues are Community Development trying to curb by micro-managing the small business dealers?

Meanwhile important issues such as the parking crises, empty storefronts, brick walls facing the public’s access to City Center, and lack of passageways, bridges, sidewalks to these areas are simply ignored.

For $40,000,000.00 budgeted over the next 20 years, I’d demand a little more attention to detail for my money. That kind of budget could at least clean up the issues that remain before embarking on more speculative deals.

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.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.

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

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.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

A couple of items stand up shouting at me from this most recent City Council meeting. The first is a letter from Lance Smith, who is the head of Englewood's building department.

It was distributed to Council that night, obviating its way around the library's reference packet for the public.

The letter said that Englewood obtained a low grade on risk assessment because it's building inspectors are performing too many inspections every day. ISO recommends two daily inspections because a thorough inspection takes a little longer.

Englewood performs as many as ten inspections a day. Mr. Smith reported to Council how their grade confused him seeing as they can perform so many inspections in a day. But, safety inspections are not a race.

Read more »

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://EyeOnEnglewood.com

After Easter, Springtime breezes through Englewood, warming everyone up for a day or two, giving pause to consider what needs attention around the house or the yard.

But, not only in your own yard; Look around. Englewood has some real issues of obsolete housing, dangerous housing, and neighborhood real estate values that directly affect the City's appeal to younger families, thus its school districts.

Can this aging problem be addressed creatively?

Presently, the City Manager and City Council have promoted liening your property in exchange for the city doing yard and weed clean up. Snow removal might also garner a lien on your home. But, Englewood residents need a better bang for their bucks.

Read more »