Englewood Story

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://www.EnglewoodStory.com

July 15, 2009
Governor’s Office
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Governor Ritter,
I am writing to request your assistance in righting a wrong in Englewood, and possibly throughout the State of Colorado.
I read your Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2005-2010 in my research of my own situation, and I see that you are concerned with issues regarding zoning laws and fair housing laws.
We are one house in one city of the State of Colorado, but our City attends the National Conventions where these zoning laws and powers are formed, and in our latest City Council meeting, the Mayor (Jim Woodward) noted that the City of Vail has fashioned their own zoning ordinances after ours. I know other places have similar ordinances as well, and so, I’m asking you to take special Notice of the effect of a City’s Household Ordinance, and in particular our Boarding House residential ordinance.
Two years ago, we purchased a HUD home and designed a five bedroom single family house (this term is used in both building codes as well as in real estate marketing terminology) and then built it.
We have hosted people in transition, only one or two at a time for many years in the City of Englewood, and more recently enjoyed keeping Denver Seminary students earning a Masters in ministry, providing a home away from home for them. We built this house with private bathrooms for the intention of hosting three students at a time. The house ended up being a four bedroom house so that the fifth room could be a music room and guest room.
We followed all of the building codes, but right before final inspection, a South Korean student who was desperate to speak the language better and could not eat the cafeteria food that Teikyo Loretto heights was offering, came to live with us.
That very week, our neighbors on either side began complaining to Community Development and asking about zoning laws. Up to that point, we had all gotten along very well. When a mixed race female moved in, the neighbors freaked out and threatened us personally that they would shut us down even if the City refused to take action.
We asked them what was really behind the matter. Had we abused parking privileges? Had we offended them in some way? They answered, “NO! You are simply against zoning laws, and there was a Korean student who shot up Virginia Tech, and you haven’t pulled Criminal background checks on these guys.”
We hadn’t pulled criminal background checks on our neighbors either, before we bought our home, and now we wished we would have!
We wrote to the City Manager twice, and the City Council members, each one, but no-one bothered to answer us. We didn’t know yet that our City Manager lived only 4 houses away from us, kitty-cornered. We also didn’t know that when we were determined to be innocent that they would work so hard to make a new law retrospectively and specifically to target us so that we would be deemed illegal.
So, we called our newly elected District Representative Jefferson, who said that when he was elected, he asked the City Manager about our problem. The City Manager told him that not only was he going to prosecute us for violating the definition of household, but that he was also studying our building permits to see where they could foul us up. (I have e-mails to verify this).
Because the Building Department Supervisor couldn’t find any difference between boarding house building codes and regular single family housing, the City chose not to tell us that we were a boarding house, but to prosecute us for violating the definition of household, and to get the plumbing contractor to abandon his final obligations of his contract and to write a letter the very day we called for final building inspections (January 3, 2008) to ask to be released from his permit and contract with us.
Instead of the City investigating the issue, they let Castle Plumbing contractors be released from its responsibilities to us on January 7. The City then invalidated our building permits. On February 18, 2008, they closed our plumbing permit, so that there were no further permits active. They had performed a final on our active permits, but they cited us for a lack of caulking on one toilet stool, and also refused to use the ladder and flashlight we had provided to go up into the attic to make sure the exhaust pipe had been turned around. Finally, they also cited us for being 1degree over the 120 degree heat mark allowed for a shower upstairs. There were no danger or safety issues at stake, but their intent to frustrate us financially and buy themselves time to get us out of our City Manager’s neighborhood worked.
We won the first prosecution because for one, the City succeeded in scaring off the mixed race female housemate with their Notices and threats the week of Christmas (2007), so although we notified the City Manager that we were in compliance with the household code, they served us with a Summons anyway. Our foreign Korean student had no-where else to go, and we couldn’t throw him out in the cold. But, another reason working for us, was that we figured out we were a “boarding house” according to the City’s Small Group Home code and that we could house up to 8 unrelated people. We wrote a Motion to Dismiss based on that. The City’s special prosecutor, Alan Katz, agreed with us, and against the direction of the City’s regular attorney, he wrote his own Motion to dismiss. What could the Judge do?
The judge dismissed the City’s household violation case against us on April 25, 2008. Three days later, the City initiated a City wide Emergency, called the Emergency Moratorium on Boarding Houses, completely ignoring the City’s definition and processes for emergencies and emergency ordinances.
They spent the entire Summer building a new Boarding House ordinance in which they took them out of the Group Home section of the code and put them into the Household section of the code, according to the Table of Uses.
None of this makes sense because households are still not allowed any more than 2 unrelated persons. The two unrelated persons does not have a measurable chart or definition to measure relationships by, and boarding houses are allowed up to four guests at a time. Even the Senior City Planner wrote a letter to the City Manager asking “how do we count the 2 unrelated?”
The other major problem with their new code is that they took boarding houses out of private residential use and put them into a no-man’s land of jurisdiction. They treat us as a business use where they can regulate us by demanding entrance into our private residence whenever they see fit. They can charge us annual fees to use our residence, and they can regulate our residence in 7 ways that other group homes and rentals and regular single family households are not regulated, thus treating us with fewer rights and taking them away without just compensation.
Even small group homes are still allowed in the residential areas, but where we built our home, we are not allowed. Boarding houses are no longer allowed in R-1-A, R-1-B, or R-1-C areas. Neither are larger group homes, but small group homes, are still allowed.
We of course do not require state licensure because there are no medical professionals caring for our students of higher education. We are simply housemates sharing a home.
We have never been cited for loud parties, wrong parking, dog issues or density issues of any kind, but we have been served with three Summons and Complaints just because we have been hospitable to students of color.
We all feel this is unjust. Three of our students have been frightened away and out of Englewood because of the police harassment and the few neighbors’ overt hostility, stares, cat calls, telling us to park somewhere else, building fences so that we cannot access our alley or trash cans and then being prevented redress in any Appeals we’ve requested.
They constantly stalk us to public City meetings and court hearings. They do not qualify as “victims” but the City and they are well organized in their stalking and terrorizing of us. (We also have plenty of e-mails and detailed phone messages obtained through Open Records requests to validate this.) We are financially devastated by defending ourselves, and we are completely innocent.
Please step in and do something. We would appreciate a just law and a just application of the law. Our trial is for August 13 and 14.
Thank you sincerely,

Bill and Laura Bartnick

P.S. I apologize for forgetting to mention this very key law (below) which I amend to my letter.
I read C.R.S. 30-28-115(2). The whole statute is about equal access to residential areas. It prohibited municipalities from excluding them from any residential neighborhood.
Section 115(2)(c) provides the specific maxim. “…No municipality or county in Colorado may create regulations tantamount to eliminating these homes from any district or zone.”
People with disabilities, and people with age leaning on them, and mentally impaired residents get the same rights to enjoy the same neighborhoods as everyone else. In fact, the only permits or licenses required of these homes are the permits and licenses required by the State of Colorado to issue medications and other regulated occupations.
“Equal” means in its very definition: parallel to the standard.
If there is no standard, there is no equal.
Englewood’s new Boarding House Law Contradicts itself. See it in the Englewood Municipal Code, Title 16, Table of Uses. The City removed “boarding houses” out of Small Group Homes (Group Homes generally) and into the general “Household” category. This act instills a new conflict in their code. We cannot be a “household” according to their code because household’s are limited to two unrelated people. Boarding Houses are allowed 4 unrelated people. We are congregate living. We are a group home.

For the first time, I saw clearly that the 1999 boarding house law that existed when we built our home was not in error in any way, but was in fact in full compliance with the equal rights laws.
City license to regulate innocent relationships inside a household? It is a bizarre concept to me that we should have to 1) even know the City’s code of “family” 2) that it trumped our own private definition, and 3) it qualified the kind of people to move into town.
Please speak with Special Prosecutor Alan Katz, (from Littleton) whom Englewood had hired to prosecute us. Katz wrote his own Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Attencio dismissed it. He has some background of this case.