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://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

A Halloween yard decoration witch crackles at my knees. “It only takes a few little beggars to spoil the stew!"… I am meeting up with Matt Crabtree on his early morning campaign rounds in Englewood.

“So Matt, with only seven percent of the vote in at Nancy Doty’s office, I thought I’d track you through the leaves and see what good you might offer for the people of Englewood.”

Matthew Crabtree’s open face begins to shine in the chilly open morning sun.

“I hope I can bring some.” He nods and smiles.

“What have people been saying to you on the campaign trail?”

“Well, it’s definitely been interesting,” he admits. “I put my contact number on my door hangers during the very first weekend, I got some hate calls where people would say to me, ‘I know you’re a right-wing conspiracy nut and I hope you lose!’ Then, they would hang up anonymously without even given me a chance to respond. That was unnerving.”

“Are you a right-wing… whatever nut?” I ask.

“No.” He says emphatically. “Actually, if you look at the political parties, I align with my opponent, Woodward, but political parties should not be the issue in a municipal election. Non-partisanship input should be heard on the issues.”

“Okay, let’s start with the only issue Englewood put on the ballot this election. Term issues. Isn’t City Council hoping for a third term? If you get in, wouldn’t that issue also work to your advantage?”

“I was sitting in the audience the night the City voted to add that to the ballot. I almost laughed when I saw the Council vote yes on it. Personally, I believe that adding another four years to their terms is just a third-world prank of dictators.”

“Wow. Third world? Why?”

“Well, it doesn’t help any political geography when there is no change over. Our country’s presidents don’t even get any more than two terms in office. It only reflects our Council’s small-minded attempt to maintain control. So no, even for my benefit. I just don’t believe a third term is a good idea.”

“You’ve done well for being the underdog, Matt. I certainly see a lot of your signs all over, Matt, and I saw your bio in the Englewood Citizen. It looked authentic and focused. Good for you. Anything you wish to add to that?”

“Well, I think all three of us, Rick Gillit, Doug Cohn, and myself are running on similar issues. And we need to get all three of us into Council to make the change over.

“Accessible government, will re-instill trust. A cut in budget spending in the right areas will bring about true value for taxes. I want to bring in more businesses to Englewood and work with people to achieve a better community.”

“Right now the Council has sat on their hands too long. They put requests from residents and businesses into a holding pattern.

“None of them have received any training from the City on the code, or how their roles interact with Colorado law. They have no idea how to research their own code or come up with creative and timely direction, so everyone suffers.

“It’s one thing not to require legal knowledge when you get elected. It’s just not acceptable to continue in that ignorance year after year. They have a job to do. It’s not just a social board. We can’t afford to have them remain ignorant year after year.”

“Hey, must be trick-or-treat in Englewood!” I laugh.

Matt clears his throat. “I’ve watched people actually cry in front of Council, begging for relief, and Council sits there enjoying the power they hold over them. That’s their response. The Mayor did not even know his own job description two months ago when a resident was asking for relief. The City Attorney had to cut into the Mayor’s response, and correct him… ouch!”

I agree. A Mayor should know his City code and his own job description. But, my feet are beginning to hurt and Matt still has ground to cover, so I ask, “Anything else?”

“Well, I think it’s backwards for Englewood to cut out the people’s parades, theater events, social items like fireworks, festivals and concerts as a means to cutting the budget.

“Those kinds of events create community. Great signage creates an interesting community. Community creates tax revenues. I want to be pro-active, not a small-minded micro-manager of someone else’s business.

I say, “Oh, did you hear that Mayor Woodward has some flyer out there telling people to call him before they vote for Matthew Crabtree?”

“Ha-ha, Yes I did. Someone I know in District One took him up on that offer, and called. ‘You know what Jim said?… He said the Appellate Court had overstepped its authority in Englewood and that is why Englewood lost the signage war on Broadway!”

“You gotta be kidding.”

“No. I’m not. City Council, in my way of thinking, should be servants of the law. Not the other way around. The present Council thinks they can do anything they want just because they are “Home Rule".

“I actually believe the Constitution is still alive, that Colorado statutes regulate Home Rule and that Englewood’s City Charter holds the limits for our code. If our codes come up against those laws, then they are wrong, and I hope to lighten up the load legally on our businesses and residents when I’m on council.

“Well, I hear you are making friends on the campaign trail. Keep going to those neighborhood parties and just enjoy the process buddy. I gotta go to work.”

Matt shakes my hand firmly. “Me too.” And shouts at my back, “Have a happy Halloween, Bill!”

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://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.