Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com

Dave Hill represented at the City of Englewood, on Monday evening regarding the celebration of a waterfall of income. The city's special water district will now earn approximately $2,000,000 per year because it just won a longstanding legal battle with the City of Aurora for 590 acre feet of water rights per year. Now, Englewood can turn around and lease these water rights to the City of Centennial, which is desperately in need of water.

No one likes to talk about dry history when they are celebrating a big splash, but just briefly, allow me to pour one on: Back in the late eighties, the Cities of Thornton and Westminster wished to keep Stanley Lake full to service more of their water directly for their cities' use. Englewood made a deal with them to allow 590 acre feet of it pass through to Englewood.

Along came the City of Aurora, and paddled out a later deal with Thornton and Westminster for their own water, but they left Englewood out. Englewood did not like its senior water rights being diverted, and for many years has dammed up the City of Aurora in a legal battle to return what belongs to Englewood. The matter was settled this week.

What's the value to you, you ask? According to Robert Cassidy, Englewood Water Board Member, about five million dollars per year! This is a huge benefit to Englewood businesses and residents because it should lower the water bills significantly. It should also stop the rate increase that was scheduled to happen this year due to the E.P.A.'s requirement on Englewood's water board to install a U.V. disinfectant system.

The cost of this U.V. start up equals approximately one year's revenue to Englewood from the City of Centennial's purchase. Putting it simply, hope for your household budget floats on water rights. Good Work, Water Board!

On the other hand, the Mayor recognized that a line had been crossed in the City's policy on overspending, funds which are kept completely separate from the special district Water Board. Mayor stated that City Council is forced to dig into the long term asset reserves 9.2% percent at this time. To help offset this topsy-turvey raft that's about to drown the budget, the City declared a fiscal emergency, on September 7, 2010, Monday evening. See Ordinances, Resolutions item 11. to click on the link and listen for yourself.

However, the Englewood City Charter specifically prohibits this kind of fiscal emergency, in Article V, Ordinances, section 41. Section 41: Emergency ordinances even to catch a fleeting interest rate are not permitted.

Emergency ordinances necessary for the immediate preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety may be introduced, read and unanimously approved by a quorum present, at any meeting of the Council. The facts showing such urgency and need shall be specifically stated in the ordinance. No ordinance shall receive final passage on the same date it is introduced; however, emergency ordinances may receive final passage by Council on the following day. Emergency ordinances shall take effect immediately upon final passage and shall be published within seven days thereof. No ordinance making a grant of any special privilege, levying taxes, incurring indebtedness, authorizing borrowing money or fixing rates charged by any city owned utility shall ever be passed as an emergency measure unless the indebtedness, or the borrowing of money has received prior voter approval, or the indebtedness does not require voter approval under Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) of the State Constitution.
(Amended 11-2-1965; 11-6-2001)

But a 2 million dollar annual gain is apparently not sufficient for Water Board Director, Stu Fonda, who approached City Council to pass a hefty increase on non emergency utility fees for whenever water or electricity is shut off at your home after hours or on weekends. This is only typically shut off for construction, but occasionally, as Councilman Bob McCaslin pointed out, an escrow issue could occur on new home owners, as happened to himself, where his own water was shut off after hours. This would effect landlords and property owners whose tenants have failed to pay their bills as well. The person on call would have the personal authority to make a decision as to whether to charge a citizen or not.

Requests to turn off sprinkler systems, or at a plumber's request are passed along to the homeowner at an initial new fee of $150, and $75 per hour thereafter. Pay attention, folks, the City is passing along their own failure to stay within their own budget onto your shoulders. Since this is not a matter of public safety or necessity, and the funds go to the special district, City Council should have negated Mr. Fonda's greedy little water request.

It was slightly amusing that McCaslin, at large, admitted he called the police and the fire department before thinking to call the water utility, and that this was the event nine years ago that spurred him on to Council to make better policies. (Uh...now's the time to bob in that pond with your thinking cap on, Mr. McCaslin.)

Could Englewood's budget discrepancies be a problem of priorities? During study session on Monday evening, a sells job from PLACE Ventura, seeking to relocate to Flood Middle School, was presented for well on an hour, asking the City Council for a four million dollar line of credit backed by the City. This representative of PLACE dressed poorly to be asking a city for so much money. His suit was cheap, his collar was wrinkled and his tie was slung low. His cohort, who had flown out from the East Coast to provide architectural services, sat behind him in blue jeans. Nevertheless, Linda Olsen was visibly impressed, and Councilman McCaslin asked excited questions. PLACE admitted in the presentation that if PLACE Ventura defaulted on such a loan, after utilizing say $2,000,000 of it, that the City would be left holding the bag.

After enduring this sales pitch for an hour, it was time to review the City Budget Crises. Ah, too bad. Time ran out. You can hear the all of two minutes given to this encroachment onto City Council's time for yourself. Have a good swim.

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

I caught Rick Gillit between Real Estate appointments, and found the man able to close a deal.

"Okay, Rick," I say, "Let's cut to the chase. Your bio in the Englewood Citizen doesn't offer up much about you beyond your private life. Why?"

"Well, there's a lot of negativity going on in Englewood right now and I kind of wanted to separate myself from that."

"Meaning, what? The City's intrusion into private business practices or the debacle on Pearl Street?"

"Aw, come on, now." He says. "I think that thing over on Pearl is an anomaly. The Bartnicks have some nasty people for neighbors. That doesn't mean the rest of the City is like that. Englewood is better than that, and I want to focus on the positive."

"But you agree that diversity should be allowed in Englewood, including boarding houses?"

"Funny thing. I think Mr. and Mrs. Bartnick believe it's about mixed races living together, and that is certainly the way the City Council prosecuted them, but I think the whole thing was more about small egos who were jealous of that house they built. It's a very nice new house."

"One of the things I read about that issue and you was over a year ago. You appeared at City Council on the side of the boarding houses. Why?"

"Bill, again, I felt those students were harmless. They weren't a frat house. They lived with the Bartnicks. They hadn't done anything wrong, and there is the humanitarian aspect that my wife and I believe in, so we supported. But, just last week, I had some lady who sits on the Code Enforcement committee chase me to my car taking pictures of me and my car saying, "I know who you are! I don't want your election crap!" Frankly, the woman's venom frightened me. City council really handled this thing poorly."

I test him. "Gillit, you gotta know it was a single family neighborhood. Concerns are raised..."

"Look. I'm in the real estate business, and so is Mayor Woodward. He knows and I know that single family housing means a house built in a structural style that allows for a family to live there. It doesn't mean someone with a four bedroom house can't rent out the empty rooms to three seminary students. It just doesn't. The City overstepped."

"Then there's that issue like the sign code thing that showed the present City Council was on the wrong side of the law. You're a proponent of free speech. Why don't you capitalize on that?"

"Yeah, exactly." Says, Rick. "But you gotta be sensitive to parents too. It's a touchy issue when pot smoking Alice in Wonderland murals are allowed within the meaning of free speech. You can see why the idea of heavy regulation and government controls appeal to some who don't know how to discuss these things with their kids."

"That pot smoking thing. It's another hot topic for Englewood with medical marijuana pharmacies isn't it?"

Rick grimaces and rolls his eyes. "Yeah, my district 4, at the south end of Broadway is being called, "Broaderdam. That's what I'm hearing as I walk the district."

"What can you offer on that one?" I ask.

"My thing with that is that it's already legal. I'm not gonna argue with the law in Colorado. What I want to do is help protect the property owners who might have their buildings confiscated by the FBI if the pharmacies overstep the law. We don't want to see more empty storefronts all over Broadway."

"Do you have any plans along that line?"

"Sure," says Rick. "And, I think that they shouldn't be zoned in with the pawn shops. They should be zoned like other pharmacies in Englewood...or like liquor stores."

"So, tell me about the dog issues Rick. Seems Englewood continues to argue about dogs year after year. Can you pull the City off of that hill?"

"Absolutely." Rick crosses his arms. "I have dogs. I know they need to run. But we can't have them scaring the elderly or the children, or people with disabilities. They need their own park."

"You're gonna make that happen?"

"2009? Why not? The Council seems to think it's the vote of the majority that counts. The one with the biggest stick. I think the City Council is afraid to step on each other's toes. Wayne Oakley has said outright, I think twice on Monday nights, that he won't vote against Jill or Woodward. I can vote my conscience."

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

What's the difference in a candidate for City Council who attends a crucial City budget meeting, grading a stack of papers throughout, and a child who doodles during Mass?

It's the difference it takes in mental acuity to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. A postman understands this. A pilot understands it. Anyone who works with his hands knows it is possible to process other data, but it is not possible to divide one's analytical attention and process two sets of data at once. Candidate for City Council, Linda Olson, hopes she can downplay the difference by her presence at City Council on Monday night.

How does Olson analyze and grade papers while absorbing critical budget allocations taking place?

Is this how she intends to do business for the people of Englewood if elected?

Doug Cohn and I met up outside the Cohn law offices.

I ask Doug Cohn what his plans are for Council compared to the Ms. Olson's stated intent. He answers,"I want a full service city because that is what we are already paying for."

"The city council makes all its budget decisions without seeing the whole budget," says Cohn. "How can intelligent decisions be made about spending forty million dollars if we do not have all the information? Matt Crabtree just requested a copy of the budget on disc, and the Clerk's answer was that the City doesn't have it computerized. None of us feel that's acceptable."

"Why do you feel the need to access the budget directly rather than delegating to City staff?" I ask.

"I see City Council members as the overseers, the policy makers in the City. We have to know what the line items are before we can study and delegate management of the budget to Gary Sears. There are debits, credits and transfers... I have questions about where millions of dollars have gone, grant funds, brownsfield chemical clean up money, and other strange happenings with taxes."

I say that I saw in the Englewood Citizen, Linda Olson's bio which reads like a professional marketing piece, while borrowing phrases from you, (Cohn), such as "transparency of government."

My observation is that Linda, in less than a month before elections, still fails to find time to concentrate on issues facing Englewood. She may be a nice person, but will she really listen when you have an issue? Will she read her council packet before voting? Or, will she bring papers to grade behind her council chair?

I say to Doug, "Olson states that she stands for your voice and your access to city management, yet her own interest in government shows exactly how much she values the access. Where has she been these last few years on Monday evenings?"

"Hummm... good question..."

..."While your concerns over Englewood foreclosures,forced paving of your driveways, grandfathering issues, property rights, dog rights and sewer fees were being debated in Council, when did she ever show up to listen, weigh in with a perspective?"

"Well, Linda is a very nice person, but she's busy with other things."

"While you seem to be running on some lofty Constitutional issues," I say. "What would you say is the most important Constitutional issue to you?"

"I believe that power follows property rights. Those rights are even more important than free speech. If you gut a guy's financial power to assets, or free choice in how to use that property, what is the purpose of owning property?"

"I've heard there's been an ongoing debate about off-leash dog parks over the years. Do you mind saying anything on that?"

Doug says, "Rick Gillit and I agree on that one. Let's find more spaces around town that can be used as off leash places. Not Jason Park. Dogs will never be given a higher priority than children when we are elected. There is a financial liability there for Englewood, and we have enough irons in the courtroom fires already. Humans must be protected. Government's role is to protect the most vulnerable. Not, special interests."

I agree. Olson lacks interest. How can she be a leader? Maybe she wants some Christmas cash. Even a pretty face can clearly betray a casual, "whatever" attitude because actions still speak louder than words.

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.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/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy

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 »