Englewood Story

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

On October 22, 2007, the head of Englewood’s building department, Lance Smith, phoned me to say that the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, had instructed him to invalidate our building permit since our contractor was no longer working on the job.

I admitted we had fired our primary contractor for breaches of contract. I explained what a struggle it had been, but the work was already finished. We were just finishing some wood trim work.

He instructed me to come down to the building department and pull a new permit. He said his department would not honor the permit previously obtained by us because it was hung on a contractor’s license, but I could obtain a homeowner’s permit.

I immediately dropped what I was doing and obeyed.

On November 7, 2007, we received a call from Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, with Community Development. She called about "several complaints" that we had "unrelated people" living with us. I told her I had written a letter of inquiry to Gary Sears and was still awaiting a reply. She said she’d call back later because she was “in the dark as to how to proceed.” One month later, December 7, 2007, she knew exactly how to proceed.

Later, upon obtaining e-mails and phone messages from this time period, I realized that she had been sending threatening Notices to other households about violating the City's definition of household for years.

What she really meant about being “in the dark” was that Mr. Sears, with other heads of staff, had been colluding together about how to prosecute a legal private residence for a City code defining, “household.”

To make themselves legally immune for this nonsense was to promulgate a lie, say: "We made a mistake, and we are correcting it now." That is all well and good for someone who doesn't have everything to lose by that lie.

In my open records from the City, I found e-mails and phone calls from the neighbors and City employees about the 'Bartnick's guest house' and 'the boarding house.' This was before I even realized what term might characterize us and defined our rights.

When Ms. Langon called next, I explained that even six weeks later,I hadn’t yet received an answer from the City Manager. All I had asked for was information, and City Manager Sears did not have the decency to converse with me. Ms. Langon replied that City Manager Sears was now ready to meet with us. December 19th would be a convenient day to discuss our options.

The hold up had been that although our select neighbors and the City Manager had already determined to force us to leave the neighborhood, they required the appearance of order to do that. They needed to "get their ducks in order" regarding the household ordinance by which to prosecute us.

I called Joe Jefferson for help. He was our District 1 Council Representative newly elected, and he relayed that in his initial interview with City Manager, Gary Sears, he had confided that the City was going to prosecute us one way or the other, and that Mr. Sears was looking into our building permits to see if they could catch us in any kind of building violation too. Joe not only spoke to me on the phone about this, but also confirmed it in an e-mail.

I wasn’t worried about the building permits because we had passed everything except the final, and I knew we had been above average in our building standards. After all, this wasn’t a fix and flip, we had personally designed it for our family’s needs. We were living in it. We were vested.

Nevertheless, when we paid for researching records at the City, we found that Manager Sears had asked Police Officer Tom Vandermee for all of my blog entries to search for something that might trigger a case against us. He also asked Lance Smith for a professional opinion as to whether there were any differences in building codes for a boarding house or a single family residence.

Even the engineer had required exterior 2’x6’ walls to provide for lower heating costs. The framer had complained about our engineer designing in extra structural support around each window and doorway. “It’s gonna be a fortress,” he’d said rolling his eyes.

But it revolted me that Mr. Sears had just arranged to meet with us “about our options,” while official plans were under way to catch us in their net. This was my turning point. As I sat there on the phone listening to Joe Jefferson, I envisioned a web the City Manager had been quietly weaving. Nausea, angst set in.

That day, December 12, 2007, a certified letter came from the City.

I panicked at this roadblock. It clearly told how they were not willing to talk about options after all, but wanted to criminalize us. The NOTICE said, “You must comply with the City's definition of household within 7 days. The City does not have any permits or variances to give you. Home occupation permits are for business, something other than the nature of the primary function of your residence, thus they do not apply to you.”

My innocent attitude turned to dismay and a feeling of utter helplessness. How could we possibly move out our flourishing South Korean at this juncture? What about our artist who had just made her room her own with linens and decor? Where would our newest guest go who had lost his job just a week after moving in? It seemed inhumane to put any of our housemates out on the street in a Colorado Winter.

I felt sick. I e-mailed the City Manager and Ms. Langon to cancel our meeting as "unnecessary" since I knew from their 7-day Notice as well as Joe's conversation that they had already made up their minds how to proceed. We had their Notice in hand.

Joe shocked me further by reporting that they might even have a police officer standing by to serve us with a complaint depending upon what I said at the meeting.

In my e-mail, I showed my revulsion like the scream of a rape victim when I named Langon and Sears as the spiders weaving their web.

December 20, 2007 I desperately wrote a letter to each City Council member instead, asking each to research the code as to variances and zoning options, and I also asked them to over-rule the City Manager since we were not criminals, but privately shared our home with students.

No one on the City Council bothered to respond. Later, I discovered, that none of them could be bothered to research their own code or to care two twitters for a common homeowner such as myself.

On December 22, Christmas week, Officer Watson stuffed a "14-Day Notice of Violation of the Definition of Household" under the doormat: Ho~Ho! Our very own Christmas present from the City had arrived.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Only three days after the Judge signed the official Order dismissing the City's first case against us, City Council initiated a Special Meeting, for enacting an "Emergency Ordinance."

The problem with an emergency was that there was only one boarding house in Englewood, and it was not causing any problems.

Do you ever feel like Eeyore with a storm cloud following overhead? Our victory parade in the sun was quickly rained out.

City Attorney, Nancy Reid, drafted a memo regarding boarding houses which stated that they were legally considered residences and were not commercial in nature, but these kinds of residences should be limited.

Who holds these people accountable? I wondered. Stands to reason, if the City can invade, register and limit one kind of family residence, don't they open the door to government control of all family residences?

Senior Planner, Tricia Langon, then used the Attorney Memo to advise the volunteers on the Board of Planning and Zoning not only to limit the existing boarding house, but also to advise them on the many various ways they might limit the existence of these residences and push them out of existence in Englewood.

The City violated its own Charter definition of Emergency to "cry wolf," enacting Council Bill 24, of 2008, an Emergency Moratorium.

The "Emergency" stated that the City had made a "mistake" in not properly defining a boarding house, and further that it failed to limit the uses of such residences.

The idea of a mistake only made sense when applied to the city's renewed attempts to steal our property from us. Did they pay our mortgage, our insurance, our taxes? Did they design and plan our home? Was this their primary residence or was it ours?

Certainly, there was an emergency of foreclosures and unregulated drug use in Englewood, as concerned resident Doug Cohn pointed out when he confronted Council on their emergency tactics. But, these were not what Council concerned themselves over for the following seven months. They even had to extend their emergency because it initially only lasted for six months.

They declared the purpose of their "Emergency Moratorium" was for all new boarding houses, but they didn't understand the words that City Attorney Brotzman had fed them. Councilman Jefferson explained it to both Council and neighbors in the May meeting when he apologized to them that this bill would not effect the Bartnick's home.

Councilmen McCaslin and Penn erroneously believed the moratorium would cause our house to stop existing. They cheered on our three vicious neighbors who had now gained the support of two more, saying, "We're behind you! Keep up the good fight!"

Councilman John Moore believed he could trap us by saying on record, "If we don't know of any existing boarding house, and one isn't declared to us by the date of our moratorium, then they have to comply with the moratorium, right?"

The logic of an "emergency" being institutionalized over something that Council admits doesn't exist escapes me. Except for malfeasance of office. I decided to call Michael Knight with the District Attorney's office. Maybe he could investigate.

I have often wondered what carrot was set before Council to get them to disregard their own Charter and Code of Ordinances as to Emergencies, clearly defined, and to target an innocent household existing squarely within its rights.

The next thing we knew, our neighbors complained that our brand new home had divested their property values "because who would want to live next to a boarding house?" When I look at their faded pealing paint, all their off-road entertainment vehicles parked around their home, their falling apart shutters, I wonder about the integrity of their vocal concerns for neighborhood values.

One neighbor complained about traffic issues and people coming and going at all times of the day and night. We had a good laugh about that one since our Asian student still didn't own a car, and was still walking to the bus stop, Bill walked to work, and the other housemate was out of work. I myself worked full time from home, researching the law trying to defend my home.

When we pointed out this fact to Council, the traffic complaint changed to "foot traffic." And also, somehow, our 2 unrelated residents had changed the character of Greg Pickett's Norman Rockwell neighborhood.

The May 2008 lies seemed to spread like weeds when we discovered that these same three neighbors had addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in July with Council Member Bob McCaslin, convincing members there that they could not afford to sanction our "flop house" "frat house" "apartment house" "drug house"... At the end of the meeting, Senior Planner, Tricia Langon, advised everyone not to talk about what happened, and the minutes failed to be published.

The vote was three to four. Chairman Bleile called a spade a spade when he said he felt it was unconscionable to enact a code just to step on one person's toes. He was right.

"Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain as they are." - St. Augustine

"Bills of Attainder" have been outlawed for many years, yet the Chairman's reasoning failed to persuade the quorum of others. Because they enacted an illegal recommendation, it should not have held water with Council, but legality was not Council's concern. Their aim was getting their way, efficiently and deceitfully and slanderously as possible.

If drugs... too many people,... weeds... traffic... parking... loud music, or trash were a problem at our home, the City could have cited us for any one of them. They were not the problem. We simply dared to have people of color live with us. We dared to disagree with power. Our crime in this American Home Rule City was "being unrelated."

We were diagonally parked in a parallel universe.