Englewood Story

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

This Easter marks the one year anniversary of last year's celebration when the Judge dismissed Englewood's first criminal prosecution of us. So I feel it is appropriate to celebrate with an entry in my journal.

Read more

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

Our beautiful four bedroom home was finished…almost. We had touch-up painting and some wood trim to complete. Guys who used to live with us came to help. One of Bill's patients from Craig Hospital offered to help because he said, "I owe Bill big time," and he he helped paint the interior in exchange for a steak dinner.

Our neighbor, Miguel Drake, called the City to complain that we had installed a new water heater. "You know they no longer have a contractor? So, does that require a permit?... No? Then, sorry to bother you." We didn't know Ducky had called until months later when we obtained copies of the City's phone messages.

In late September, 2007, I was hanging curtains in a guest room one afternoon when a call came in from Teikyo Loretto Heights.

It was the South Korean student who was having a hard time. He couldn’t eat American food, and his room was next door to the men’s bathroom. He was starving and he couldn’t sleep.

Read more

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Hippie-Chick fumed and cried and told us she was leaving at the end of December. "Thanks, Englewood, for ruining my Christmas. I will never live in this town again." And, she left.

By this time our South Korean student had managed to arrange a guardianship for us. Our relationship was "legal" according to Englewood standards.

December 27, 2007, I wrote an e-mail to the City Manager telling him we were in full compliance with the City's definition of household.

Manager Sears didn't care about compliance after all. His aim was to boot us out of his neighborhood and make us suffer for living within eye-shot of his own home. He also wasn't keen on the fact that we had called him a spider weaving a web for us.

The City Manager's park side property with a private river running through it simply did not coincide with seeing mixed races living near his house. Where two were welcome, more might come. There was a slippery slope to consider.

Manager Sears continued to confer with City Attorney Brotzman and Building Department Supervisor, Lance Smith. Jointly, they determined how to refuse us an approval of our final inspections.

Nothing was illegal about not giving us a final inspection on our permits, except as to a breech of contract, and they could always claim they were looking out for us in a dangerous situation if we took them to court.

It would be hush-hush that it was the City forcing our mixed race students out of our home. We were the only one facing liability if any of the students complained to HUD or to Colorado Civil Rights Division about being tossed out of their home. As yet, nothing could be proven about the City's intimidation, threats, or refusal of City services.

So, when we called for final inspections on January 3, 2008, the City inspectors came together saying they'd planned it that way.

The correction notices they left with us asked for caulking a bathroom toilet, correcting a shower's water heat by one degree, and instructing us to put a handrail return at the top of our stairway. Inspector Charles Petty penned, "refused" in the "final inspection" column.

Inspector Craig Daly wrote a memo to the file stating that everything appeared in good condition, but that the original plumber on the permit had not finished the job. There was no danger or safety concern mentioned.

But, Lance Smith immediately called Roger at Castle Plumbing and made a deal with him, not to hold him liable for any dangerous issue that might arise at the Bartnick's house, if he would immediately write a letter for the City files that he hadn't done the finish plumbing at the house. Of course he complied because it relieved him from liability as a plumber who had abandoned his job.

Then, on January 7, 2008, Lance refused not only finals on the final inspections, but also refused to give us new permits. He said City Attorney Dan Brotzman had ordered him not to. I showed him our correction notice from the final, and said, "I'm here to comply with your inspector's request to buy yet another permit." I told him we had finished the corrections on the inspectors' Notices, but he refused to perform a final inspection. I asked him to back up his refusals with a written policy or law, and he said he would ask the City's attorney and get back with me.

I went that evening and addressed City Council, asking them to right a wrong happening at the City Staff level regarding our home, and also asked them face to face to investigate where the City's right to plan or map out proposed zoning divisions ends and where a homeowner's right extends as to private uses of the inside of their home.

At the end of the meeting, Councilman McCaslin ranted against us saying, "You can kill more flies with honey than vinegar." My experience with the City's one and only "brick wall" posture was beginning to support other residents' claims of injustice.

On January 12, We received Mr. Smith's letter refusing to perform a final inspection or grant us a new permit, or to write a letter of completion. He carbon copied the letter to City Manager Sears and City Attorney Brotzman. He cited a half of a sentence of code that aroused my curiosity. The code mentioned R-3 Group. Perhaps we were some kind of group home?

I looked up the code and law unfolded like tulip petals. The first thing I noticed was that under Englewood's Group Home code, we were in full compliance to host unrelated people in our district.

The City's term R-3 was listed on our permit as a kind of single-family style of home. Mr. Smith had written a memo to City Manager Sears telling him there was no difference in the building standards between single-family homes and boarding houses.

In fact, if we wanted to, we could have shared the house with 8 unrelated people, 2 per bed-room. This law showed not only that we were within our rights, not outside them, but also that we had not abused our rights. Ours was a home for study and reflection. No dangerous issues of too many people had ever occurred here.

The City called it a "boarding house." With a huge sigh of relief, we decided to be a residential boarding house. We looked over State codes and health codes and found that no permits or licenses were required because we were still only a private residence. This suited us fine and we decided to rely on it whole-heartedly. But, why hadn't the City Manager ever let on to us about it? Surely he knew about the codes enacted during his tenure as Manager?

On January 15, 2008, City Manager Sears was responsible for serving us with a Summons and Complaint, in layman's terms, it was a groundless and malicious prosecution. We were appalled. Didn't there have to be some correlation of facts behind a City's Complaint?

I complained about Gary Sears to his professional management association that he was depriving us of due process and had broken trust with us as to our building permits also. I complained to the Supreme Court about the City attorneys' involvement.

We wrote a Motion to Dismiss and another for Summary Judgment. Nothing happened. We were forced to hire an special zoning attorney for the conference at ten times the amount my husband makes working at Craig Hospital. At pre-trial, we conferred with the City's special prosecutor and told him that our research showed we had found our affirmative defense in the City's Boarding House code.

I also asked the City for an Appeal of Lance Smith's refusal to perform the final inspection. The City refused using a flimsy excuse that I had waited too long to request an appeal. It was later that I found out that Inspector Craig had closed out our plumbing and mechanical permits without further claim against us.

Soon after, Special Prosecutor Alan Katz, whom the City had hired because of our complaints against their own attorneys, wrote his own Motion to Dismiss, and I discovered on my birthday that the Judge had approved it. Nothing could have made us happier.

An attorney for Cherry Hills later told us he had never seen an attorney get a municipal case dismissed before, much less by a regular person. We celebrated that evening at a local Englewood eatery with friends, cheers all around and unanimous congratulations.

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.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Michael Knight, investigator, for District Attorney, Carol Chambers, contacted me to explain that their hands were tied as to prosecuting fraud. "Fraud" has certain elements to be proved, and one of those elements is to prove how the City Council or Manager had personally benefited or laundered money.

It was the position of the District Attorney that Englewood seemed to be doing what they were doing as a power play. Perhaps it was because City Manager Sears lived only four houses from us. Perhaps it was because the contractor we fired was Ron Noffsinger's fishing buddy, and because the guys sitting on Council were also his high school buddies. After all, this was exactly how small town politics worked.

Yes, "color" on the block may indeed be the motive of these people, making them rednecks, but fraud simply couldn't be proved yet. I contacted Colorado's Civil Rights Division. Protecting those of color was defensible, but the statutes applied only to landlords, loan officers, and real estate agents.

People knew what was happening was "wrong," but could it possibly be legal?

It appeared a block full of good ol' rednecks were gonna get away with railroading others out of town in the year 2008.

The Devil is in the details, they say. The D.A. sent my complaint to the Attorney General to see if there was anything they could do in that office. They suggested I contact my State Representative.

Read more

Link: http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/3193473/a_wing_and_a_prayer.swf

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CAUSE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL ACCESS ARE BEING TAKEN AT: 3029 S. Pearl Street, Englewood, Colorado 80113. Spend Responsibly.