Englewood Story

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://www.ci.englewood.co.us/Index.aspx?page=952

Shortly after the new Boarding House Code was enacted our appeal regarding Ducky's new fence was subverted and lost by a part-time municipal judge, John W. Smith III. The run off felt as confusing as being Dorothy in Kansas fleeing from the witchy neighbor and finding herself with a bump on the head from the ensuing tornado.

In the three inch volume of Englewood Municipal Ordinances, the City spent all summer "cleaning up household items." This is to say, "cleaning up mistakes, errors and accidents which shouldn't have officially occurred given the presumption that enacted law is always true, thorough and authoritative."

The "sweep up" of course wasn't meant to help individuals who have been victims and prosecuted under the errors, nor does it necessarily mean the City is returning to any measure of good sense. In fact, it meant that they are adding layers to their bad faith like pieces of furniture to the cyclone. They simply added more things to wollop the disoriented.

Because the neighbors had now taken to circumventing the issue of us housing up to three unrelated people of color in their neighborhood with unfounded parking complaints and foot traffic, they then complained to Planning and Zoning Commission that we appeared to be rushing to complete our driveway. On July 8, 2008, a secret study session where the public was generally not allowed, Council representative Bob McCaslin enabled as to our neighbors.

Both McCaslin and representative Penn intended to keep their word to get behind the neighbors all the way and help them "fight the good fight". At the close of the planning and zoning meeting, Planner Tricia Langon instructed that "no one repeat anything" that had gone on, and further kept these minutes from being published until I found out about them through an open records request on September 2, and complained publicly to City Council.

Sudddenly, the fact that the Drakes complained we were "rushing to pour the driveway," was somehow unacceptable as though hurrying to obey a law that was about to be enacted was illegal. In fact, we were naturally continuing the work on our driveway to enable our 84 year old mother aided by a walker easy access to our home for family get-togethers. Easy access meant getting her into the side door.

So, that hot July day we built the framework and had the dirt delivered, Ducky's wife, Anne, called the police on us. Commander Contos explained that our driveway could not be completed without a site plan approval. I explained to him, along with Code Enforcement Officer Carolin Faseruk wickedly standing beside him, that the City already had an approved copy of our site plan on file evidenced by our blue prints.

Commander Contos looked down at his shoes and said, "Well, it certainly looks like there is just dirt to me, so I'll leave you with just a verbal warning instead of the Notice of Violation."

We then received a letter from Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, stating that she had double-checked. Since the building department had invalidated our permits, this blanket act included our site plan, thus, we were required to apply for a new one.

I went down to City Hall, brought a copy of our site plan for parking, and it was stamped approved and e-mailed back to us by Brook Bell.

There is really no such thing as this invalidation of a site plan already approved because, according to City Code, the approved initial plans were valid for three years after approval, but I understood that the City needed to help Anne and Ducky swoop, fly and deposit their poop on our heads for the sake of saving "The People's Dignity."

This little charade was continued however, in the new Boarding House Ordinance as it was enacted.

City Council brought it forward to vote on September 15, 2008, with a requirement for a site plan to be formally approved. And, when they applied the new ordinance to us, the memo from Alan White in Community Development was that a yet another site plan application with drawing be submitted...for the third time!

All the lingo in the application was toward new development, new zoning, new plans, requests for variance of proposed properties, etc.

Reading it clarified to me that all of zoning's powers lie in forward planning, and not in retrospective application of law. I felt there was a dim arc of a rainbow,-- promising what?... I still couldn't grasp.

We had poured our driveway and parking areas. Our entire project was complete. There was nothing new left to apply for.

Certain aspects of the boarding house Ordinance were indeed passed through Planning and Zoning Commission, where Chairman Bliele and two other members refused "to step on one person's toes" "especially where a great amount of personal investment had already taken place by relying on the old code." But others, including Contractor Steve King, who had built a house on our block, voted with the City's recommendations to ungrandfather us.

Dorothy went to Oz and applied for "Home". The Great and Mighty Oz made her go to the fire to bring back the Witch's broomstick before he would send her home. Oz had no power to promise this, much less to accomplish. He himself was stranded in the Emerald City.

When Councilman Joe Jefferson proposed to City Council a modification to their original ordinance, September 15, 2008, his idea was not based on almost 400 Englewood Citizen's petitions to honor the Constitutional right to choose or to freely assemble, to grandfather the existing boarding house into the new laws. Nor did he concern himself with Mr. Doug Cohn's weightier reminders of illegalities. Instead, Joe in his Council Choice spot that night, told the neighbors his intention was to shift liability elsewhere. He asked to speak with them after the meeting.

The proposed amendment to Ordinance 55 came as a surprise, however, to some on Council.

Councilman Wayne Oakley complained that the proposed change to the ordinance had not been included in his Council packet, and that he had not had a chance to review it yet.

Mayor Woodward said in a prepared moment preempting the discussion, that considering it was Constitution week, he felt bad bringing the ordinance forward for a vote and that Council needed to at least appear to be honoring the grandfather clause in the City Ordinances.

Council agreed that City Clerk, Loucrisha Ellis, should read the proposed amended ordinance aloud.

Proposed amended Ordinance 55 was a surprise to most everyone, including the Planning and Zoning Commission. This procedure proved to be more than just a surprise, however, in that it violated the City Charter, Section 58, where it states that all proposed amendments and modifications to ordinances must be brought to Planning and Zoning for review, even if Council chooses not to heed their recommendation on it.

Thus the illegal and overbroad Emergency on Boarding Houses came full circle. Ordinance 55, in its shining seven point cunning entirety outlawed rather than grandfathered our boarding house, enacted, October 6, 2008. But Dorothy had a good heart and lots of help from her friends, and she was not the one stranded behind the curtain.

The elaborate curtain of deceit works against the one hidden behind it, because it prevents the hidden to see the truth. I am amused to discover the trilogy of Dorothy in Oz was originally a political commentary, written in a child's fairly tale metaphor.

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.

Link: http://www.EnglewoodStory.com

There's a quirk in the American dream. It doesn't include death. It's all about pursuing happiness,relationships of your own choosing, buying what makes you happy, pursuing what makes for good life, living with a fair amount of peace and prosperity and owning a home.

We turn the phrase to mean the American goal, but after these last two years, I'm back to the fact that everyone's dreams can cower like a scared cat and evaporate from starvation. Nihilism is ruling the country. It's just taken possession of my home.

Today I'm grieving the loss of a two year friend. He shared our home, our kitchen and back yard patio. He shared his ruddy, political sized humor and positive attitude throughout the foreclosure crises and a loss of his job. He had already grieved the most important losses to him, so I guess it may have been only a secondary blow for him to be forced out of his home and into a transient RV.

Lauren fled after the first Christmas, Danielle had found a place with a roommate last month, Jeon had also found a more welcoming neighborhood, but Greg hung on to the very end.

For me, the idealist, it is the grief of an agonizing death. "Death?" you say? "How's that?"

Yes, well, I admit, my counter tops are cleaner today. Rooms are clean and sterile. My refrigerator has more space. His dog isn't barking at the door needing to be restrained from enthusiastic curiosity.

These curious silences are like the lifting of a balloon on a crisp Autumn morning, similar to the routine of others leaving our home in route to their destinations.

But this is not that. We don't experience the stillness out of our own choosing. The final parting came after many tosses of the wedge and hammer. My idealism lies in splinters.

Rattling around in our big house was not our plan. It has been superimposed on our household, on Greg, Lauren, Danielle and Jeon.

We were found guilty of the crime of being unrelated in our own home. In Englewood's municipal code,this is a crime of morality found under the same section of penalties as public masturbation, voyeurism, prostitution. What individual upstanding family can fight the machine of nasty neighbors' slander and an incestuous city?

I wonder what owning a home means if that contract doesn't warrant peaceable entry and enjoyment of what you pay for and insure? Why don't we all resort to living as transients without roots, in high rise apartments, easily packed up and shoveled out the door when someone decides they don't like us? It's much less expensive that way, and no less insecure.

The wedge has found its mark, struck through my core and split us apart. I am not an island. A person isn't meant to survive in isolation or in a corner trapped. Having done nothing wrong, having breached no contract, Greg, Lauren, Danielle and Jeon were not meant to be accosted until they were forced to leave their home.

Is this still America? Or has the age of Home Rule finally displaced the dream.