Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

Where's that little blue book when you need it? You know, the one that tells you the pro's and con's of an election issue? Some nice ladies dropped a flyer in person by my house, and I got a handwritten postcard in the mail, so I decided to read what I could find on 3D and 3E in the Englewood Herald.

Rick Gillit just wrote an article that was published. He took the diplomatic stance, "Well, I'm not about to slap down the children's educational needs, but I'm just not sure that's what this money is about."

So,I analyzed the property tax issue generally. Most property tax goes directly to the City, and only a portion of it goes to the school district.

I had to ask. Why did the school board request so much money? John Brick wrote an opinion against 3D and 3E saying,

"New facilities are important to a quality facility asset management program but the district needs to be careful of “empire building.” Englewood’s citizens lag behind in wages and household income.

Is it better to wait a year to approve the bond issue until the school district answers the important questions about its size and focus? We stand at the crossroads of more of the same in a new building or schools that build neighborhood identity and contribute to our community economically, politically, and culturally. Let’s ask the district what is our return on investment."

I believe John Brick is right. It is to pay for the empire building of City Manager Gary Sears. Englewood, as City, is IN DEBT. I think that Matthew Crabtree and Bryan Oliver nicely laid out the budget deficit in their political debate at Moe's Barbecue earlier this month. Over the past five years, Englewood has dipped into the emergency assets and reserves to approve the City Manager's recommended budget to the tune of $10,000,000 (that's million) dollars!

I saw that Colorado also has a school tax increase on the ballot, and we will be paying for that as well as benefiting from it. So, I kind of feel like our children are being illicitly marketed to manipulate us to pay for the mess Gary Sears and the present City Council, minus Rick Gillit, has gotton us into. Mr. Gillit is the only councilmember who voted "no" on the budget.

And before him,-- put these pieces together will you?-- Laurett Barrentine was the only city councilmember to ask to review the line item budget and discuss it before voting. So, that lot of council asked Mr. Penn, whose wife represents the school board, to run against her. The popular coach won the last election. Now, Englewood is even more IN DEBT.

Renovations to the school do not cost that much. All the rest is going to sweep the DEBT under the rug...now, it's your expense. (For the rest of your life)

Bill Clayton, wrote another opinion for the Englewood Herald. He broke it down for us.

"For instance, the tax increase brochure describes how this will be paid for with a $5 per month increase on a home value of $100,000. Aside from the fact that most homes in Englewood are worth a lot more than $100,000 and therefore will pay much more, this certainly implies that the residents of Englewood will pay the cost of those bonds and tax increase with a nominal increase in taxes.

This is deceptive, and could not be further from the truth, which is that residents, who can vote, only pay about 40 percent of the property taxes in Englewood. The vast majority of property tax is paid by business property owners, who pay property taxes at a rate four times that of a residence. This means a business property, or vacant land worth $100,000 will pay $20 per month.

Since most of this tax increase will be paid by the businesses we frequent, these additional taxes will be passed along to all residents as higher prices, making every family’s total tax bill at least double the amount suggested by the school district.

Those of us who believe in the principle of "no taxation without representation" find it to be reprehensible that our school district, which is charged with teaching good government and citizenship, seems to care little about that basic principle."

One mom responded kind of nasty to Mr. Clayton's opinion saying she didn't care how much it cost everyone else, she wanted to give her child the best education. The problem with that thinking is the suggestion that we throw money at a building and it somehow motivates the teachers to teach, and gives them all the rest of the tools they need to do their job better. There are too many missing links for me in that equation. When I looked at the handwritten post card I received in the mail, I saw that not once did it mention better education.

I'm all for renovation of gentrified buildings, but there are fundraisers that these parents could pull off to raise needed money. They could put on concerts or sports events, spelling bees, contests and parades to raise money!

Instead, the school board hired a consulting firm to study the median income of Englewood and suggest what kind of money could reasonably be raised. The firm capped the suggested taxes lower than a third of what this bond issue entails. Then, why so greedy?

I would like to think that if the school board AMENDED its proposition and made a less greedy request next year, and we voted onto council people who were committed to rectifying the budget by other means, well we would gladly foot the bill for classy renovations.

I have to agree with Mr. Clayton this time. He concluded, "Apparently Englewood Schools aren’t all that interested in the principles of representative government and good citizenship as long as they can get their tax increase passed."

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Englewood businesses (BID) have begged the City for better lighting in the parking lots along Broadway for at least four holiday seasons. Instead, the City installed decorative lighting on the street front of two city blocks two years ago. But all of Broadway's back lots remain dark during the prime shopping season.

When Santa sneaks down the chimney this Christmas, is this going to be a liability for Englewood as to crime and property insurance? Doug Cohn, Appeals Commissioner, believes so because the Grinch has been notified repeatedly and yet continues to neglect the safety and welfare of its citizens who refuse to buy their bizzle-binks in Whoville. Mister Grinch is a depressed, wicked-tempered grouch with a sour attitude who lives in a mountain cave near the north end of Whoville. He absolutely hates everything about Christmas because of the trash that accumulates around the entire town after Christmas Day. "For fifty-three years I've put up with this threat!"

But, wouldn't it simply be awful if one of Santa's elves evaporated without a trace in the back lot, while attempting to buy toys from Mr. Cohn's Bonnie Brae Hobbies store?

Some of the business owners remember when the EDDA was active (Englewood Downtown Development Authority). This was a joint venture between the officious City of Englewood and those doing real business on Broadway.

Nothing could be done within the city bureaucracy, however, and it was dissolved in 2002; But, the Grinch kept the $100,000 investment from the owners, rather than turning it over to them to start their new independent organization.

Perhaps the Grinch was punishing the nemesis business owners for pulling out of his cheating game. "You're a mean one, Mister Grinch!" Says, Thurl Ravenscroft. "You're foul, bad-mannered and sinister! And, that goes for your little dog, Max, too!" Though, City Council cared less what the citizens of Whoville thought of them. They absolutely refused to encourage Whoville business sales, even at Christmas. Sigh... Instead, they funneled the business owners' money to the new and improved City Center, and tightened the sign codes against the businesses on Broadway.

With or without the dressed up Grinch and his fraud of a reindeer-dog, the new Business Improvement District(BID)began working to market Broadway in 2006 with meager funds. The first years' fees went to pay off the attorney. But at a quarter til dawn, business owners took marketing into their own hands, and have begun to decorate the street with gigantic flower pots, welcome banners and bike art.

Part of the problem, says Cohn, is that the Grinch tried to take some of the Broadway parking lots and turn them into an arts center, so the Mister Grinch couldn't have cared less about lighting the shopping areas targeted for eminent domain. But scratching out the numbers couldn't save the proposed arts complex viability to bring in funds to the city, so Grinch released his grip over the business lots.

Yet, the lots remain dark. Especially in winter months, the businesses on Broadway seem foreboding when considering parking or shopping after five pm. One could imagine that the Grinch is actually trying to blight his own shopping mall!

Gene Turnbull explained that the lighting in Littleton's Old Town is owned by Public Service (Xcel) but Littleton pays to maintain the lighting and pays the utility bills. This may be feasible, but the Grinch of Englewood continues to provide only a perception of "help" while the Whoville battle goes on to get the Grinch to do anything.

Yet, at the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting, Grinch recommended that a lighted sign be installed at Broadway and Girard in the foreboding empty lot to point people away from the Businesses on Broadway (BOB is the newest private marketing campaign) and toward the light rail station and Civic Center. Mister Grinch's pet project apparently needs to be pointed out, at the expense once again of Businesses on Broadway.

It almost seems humorous in light of last year's drama when the Grinch's claims against business signage was shot down at the higher court level, that Gary would suggest for his own benefit a violation of the Englewood sign code. The sign he was suggesting was 28" and 40" wide, proposed by Mile High Outdoor Advertising.

In repeated efforts to solidify the Grinch's hold on Englewood shopping, the City has again brought up the green Santa's idea of too many trash businesses roaming the alleyways. They reason that if only one company pulls the trash sleigh, the Grinch could regulate how many Christmas and Hanukkah wrappings, boxes and packaging might find a way into the alleys, and how much they can charge for the extra trucks needed to pick up all this holiday trash.

"Dear Grinch, please scamper back up to your mountain. If you come down into our dark alleyways and parking lots, you might get hurt. --Sincerely, Whoville"

You're a mean one Mr. Grinch
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
And as charming as an eel,
Mr. Grinch!
You're a bad banana,
With a greasy black peel!
You're a monster, Mr. Grinch!
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders.
You've got garlic in your soul,
Mr. Grinch!
I wouldn't touch you
With a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!
You're a vile one, Mr. Grinch!
You have termites in your smile.
You have all the tender sweetness
Of a seasick crocodile,
Mr. Grinch!
Given the choice between the two of you,
I'd take the seasick crocodile!
You're a foul one, Mr. Grinch!
You're a nasty, wasty skunk!--Dr. Suess

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Jerry Ferman derailed City Council as they argued out-of-turn amongst themselves on Monday Night. Mr. Ferman came to complain about Englewood's moldy water. The time clock was stopped, and the flustered council members lost control. But is this the bigger story? For, in this same week the Englewood Water and Sewer Board found a scapegoat in the sewer lines between Chipotle and Chase Bank on Hampden.

The City of Englewood is supposed to inspect sewer and water lines of every business every six weeks under the Englewood Municipal Code. But, Englewood has not been inspecting the lines nearly enough.

So, when Chipotle noticed that they had a block in the sewer trap, they hired their on-call plumber to flush the lines. Plumber Frank, although he works for many Chipotle franchises, has never been cited for anything in Englewood, and he came to the rescue by flushing the sewer trap.

There was still a smell, however, and so another company was called out to clean it up better. This time, the lard got blocked just before entering the city's sewer, (or so the story goes) (don't tell the EPA) and backed up into the neighboring business' basement. The neighboring business happened to be the Chase Bank building, where the ex-officio Mayor Burns keeps his offices. Chase had to replace carpeting.

Mayor Burns, amongst several other ex-officio Mayors, happens to sit on the Water and Sewer Board. The only true civilian amongst the board members is Robert Cassidy. What was the Sewer Board to do? Water board their own city? That would never do.

They couldn't allow Chase Bank's insurance company or the EPA to come after City Manager Sears because, after all, he hobnobs with sewer members. Plus, did I mention? The current Mayor of Englewood also sits on the board. No, an embarrassing ethical situation needed to be mopped up in short order before Mayor Woodward was implicated.

If they fined Chipotle, Chipotle would sue the City for failure to perform regular inspections, and again the EPA might get involved. The City has already lost one such suit in the District Court, so another strategy had to be formed.

Oh, of course. Smear the "fog" or lard on the contractor who flushed the system. He's independent, and will not have the resources to fight this thing. Good idea.

So, on Tuesday evening, at 5:00pm, Frank Brandse appeared for his case #AC10-15973, which was described as an "appeal of the Water and Sewer Board's fine of $5300." This amount reflected the maximum allowable criminal fine under POTW (Potable Water) as a class 2 petty offense for someone with habitual and knowing intent to violate EPA Best Standards. Frank didn't believe his actions warranted this decision or fine. He said he had never before encountered this problem and an investigation of extenuating circumstances should take place.

Board member, Robert Cassidy, looked at procedures and found that the Charter required a steno-graphically recorded hearing in these instances, and that testimonies were to be taken under oath. Pouting, sewer members were forced to agree. So a hearing being set, Matthew Crabtree showed up on Tuesday evening to record it for the public.

Mr. Crabtree realized that the hearing was not publicly noticed in the City's newspapers, nor was it noticed as all other board hearings are, on the City website. Posting it on the City bulletin boards barely complied with the minimum standards of "public notice".

Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of the Englewood Water Works suddenly grew quiet at having an audience.

When the hearing began, board member Higday, also an ex-officio mayor, cut into Frank's testimony to attempt to close the hearing. His motion was sidelined until others also began testifying, and he reminded the sewer board that his motion was on the table. As rude and abrupt as member Higday is, he also brought up an interesting perspective that the Board was not following proper procedures according to the Municipal Charter, part IV and sections 60-63.

Member Higday said, when there is a recommendation from the Sewer Board, they are to bring it to notice of City Counsel. Nevertheless, the board went on about their business.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he didn't believe Frank intended to do anything wrong, and that he certainly was no hardened criminal. He recommended the fine, on appeal, be reduced from $5300 to $2000. It was somewhat of a relief to Frank that the Board agreed to that fine.
But, Mr. Cassidy pushed over the line when he suggested that the $2000 be differed pending no further occurrences during the next 12 months.

What? And force our friends in the City to shoulder the insurance deductibles? No way! The sewer board members reasoned. We have a scapegoat willing to shoulder the fee. His name is Frank.

So, Frank, who was cited only by his first name, without the signature of an accusing officer, and without any evidence because he had invoked his right not to be searched without a warrant, was given a fine of $2000, and in exchange, he got to keep his employment with all the Chipotle franchises he serves.

Funny thing. Culpability actually lies with the user, if not with the City inspector. The Littleton/Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant FOG Policy, page 9, paragraph one states, "Users are responsible for the maintenance servicing, and proper waste disposal and cannot abrogate this responsibility to a contractor,pumping service, or other agent." Modified, July 22, 2010.

Although this is clearly printed in the ex-officio Mayor's manuals, they could not get their minds out of the gutter in order to read their own law as to liability. This makes them culpable for insurance fraud.

Furthermore, the City usurped formal criminal penalties reserved to EPA, the State through the District Court level or the Department of Regulatory Services (DORA). Instead, they protected themselves from liability through an administrative inbred process.

And thus, Jerry Furman, proves himself to be a prophet. Yes, the water in Englewood is moldy dirty. If I were Mr. Brandse, I'd run right up to the District Court and get me an injunction and report the crime to DORA.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

My colleague's daughter married a Mexican and moved to Mexico. Lately she's been writing about the human crises going on there and how it has touched not only their family, but also their friends visiting and their entire community. She is begging us on this side of the border to make it secure so that the mass weaponry train from America to Mexico stops.

In my thoughts on Hickenlooper v. Tancredo's race for the governor, I cannot help but realize there are two sides to being a good neighbor. Knowing one's boundaries and enforcing them aids the good of both sides. If a relationship has become unhealthy, the customs between the parties need to change. This is true in marriage and friendships, why not in international law and state boundaries?

When I was a kid my teachers and family told me not to color outside the boundaries in my coloring book. I have lately heard the current ideal is to allow the child to express himself on the page. But, then, why give him a coloring book with lines and figures? Wouldn't a cheap blank page do just fine?

I have religious friends who are all about "giving a cup of cold water to the stranger in need," "loving foreigners because God loves all humanity"... but, I keep coming back to giving that cup of cold water not being mutually exclusive of giving a citation if violations of civil or criminal laws occur. A new set of clothing can be given by a religious entity to those who are being deported. No problem with the lines there.

Human Rights, as interpreted by law and judges include duties. Law is based on liberty for all, so why do we hold the law suspect when it attempts to hold the thieves of our society responsible for theft?

Loving a stranger, feeding an alien is not the same thing as loving a terrorist and feeding an illegal immigrant. A line must be drawn in our consciences and in our laws and in our governors.

How is it that an entire political atmosphere can hold the conviction that in depleting their values and resources, safety and law, they can somehow save all the immigrants? Yet, how many of us ask a stranger to stay overnight in our own homes? We somehow trust our gut to go slow, before allowing them into our homes while we are sleeping. Most of us lock our doors at night. Why?

Sometimes I think all the hype about Mexican borders and illegal immigration, and human trafficking is a veil to hide the larger threat of international terrorism. At what point do we throw down the gates?

While it is true that Muslims hold to courtesy and hospitality as a core value, if they believe you are a threat to them in their country, they'll cut your throat after you take advantage of their family for a bed and breakfast. Perhaps we should learn something from them. "Being a stranger, and you fed me" or "helping the orphan and widow in their distress" is not the same thing as housing, clothing, enabling criminal conduct. A line must be drawn.

We are a nation that has rationalized killing babies so that they don't have to suffer without love later in life. Yet, we protect illegals on every front. Our education has lacked the daily reading of Asap's Fables.

No security, no liability for anyone, is our creed of "niceties." Last week National Public Radio (NPR) fired news annalist Williams for "compromising the political correctness of his opinions while reporting the national news." When someone who is supposed to be portraying an analysis of current events is fired and brought instantly to the gates of poverty by his own people for not being "nice enough" in his opinions regarding the strange customs becoming prevalent in a matter of personal air travel security, I think we have all our boundaries imploded.

It is one thing to be kind to a stranger and welcome him in. It is another thing to prefer his customs over our own, to allow his faith that includes political Jihad in his holy teachings over our own faith and security. A line must be drawn.

We teach our children and women to "trust your gut" when encountering strangers, and yet we fire people for saying that they are trusting their gut. Crazy thinking these do-gooders have. Strangers come from all over, but cunning criminality overcomes us when we color outside the boundaries. Does anyone know what is at stake this election?

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Dissenters of Tom Tancredo's immigration policies beg us to dislodge him from the momentum for governor's seat. This is really the only social claim they can maintain against him since he has a proven record of solid business success, years of political experience and solid ethical and moral records. But, has anyone stopped to analyze what the Constitution and statutes deem "illegal" immigration?

I wouldn't have believed it, until I read the case law myself, but the theory of equal rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Equal rights is based on a standard access to rights under the law. What is that standard, you ask? It is the standard of the european pilgrims to America, it is the white man's standard for freedom, for work, for possession of land and practice of religion.

This fact was hard to swallow because it appeared to be discriminatory and non politically correct in itself. It seemed to give the Ku Klux Klan, and right wing selfishness import.

But the more I wrestled with the concept, the more I realized that what the Klan attempts to do is to dislodge the justice maintained in the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby dislodge equal rights.

The value of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it assured women, aliens, and minorities in America the right to access the courts for redress of their grievances, the same as the white immigrant men who may have only been thinking of themselves when they penned the Declaration of Independence.

So, if aliens, women and minorities have constitutional protection under the present Constitution and Declaration of Independence, how can they be deemed "illegal aliens" within Tom Tancredo's analysis?

Crimes are founded on intentionality. Aliens are only acting illegally if the prosecution can show they intentionally acted against the law. The law itself must contain definitions of the elements of the crime and statutes must contain firm terms defining what is legal or illegal.

Short of being found "illegal" under these terms, the only other redress we have against aliens is a tort. The threshold for accidental aliens, or tortuous aliens taking healthcare services and jobs from Americans must include the fingers pointing back at the American political climate for having allowed the aliens' encroachment all of these years on our soil. After all, we elected the officials who allowed the newcomers, and we elected the mayors, judges and sheriffs that refused to hold and prosecute them. We are all culpable unless we can show that we have defended our boarders by all means possible.

Certainly, children born to aliens have no culpability as to being illegal. No one can prove children intentionally violated immigration laws. Therefore, under the Constitution, and Tom Tancredo's policies there are many perfectly legal aliens in this State and Country.

It is the illegal aliens that Tom Tancredo firmly opposes and intends to take in hand should he become governor. It is the ones who traffic refugees into human slavery. It is the ones who deal drugs. It is the ones who take jobs without application for green cards and citizenship. It is the ones who have been guilty of violent crimes, driving without a license and causing accidents, and those whose religion promotes overtaking our civilization by strategy and terrorism, or they engage in piracy, looting, assault or the taking of their neighbor's property.

What is so harsh about this, Tancredo's core value? It is difficult in some cases where the hierarchy of rights overlap, yes, but that is what the courts are there for. All we need are Supreme Court Justices who uphold the Constitution, and District Court Judges who have read the law and show up for hearings in their jurisdiction.

Tancredo's polices are lawful policies. He seeks the greatest good for everyone, regardless of their opinions of him. Yes, some weirdos support him, but look at the vast support of the rest of the State, wealthy business people as well as rural folk, and many middle classes.

Minorities and aliens need to know that a Governor who reads the Constitution can be persuaded by it as well.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Many government offices, including schools, are urging "No" on 101. Why?

In essence, Proposition 101 would move state motor vehicle registration fees back to 1919 levels, reduce or eliminate taxes on vehicle purchases and rentals over the next four years. 101 would also reduce the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent in 2011 and then to 3.5 percent gradually over time. It would put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. And, finally 101 would required your vote to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services in the future, so your cell-phone, internet and television fees would not go up without an official vote.

If you are against inflation and high salaries for government servants, you should vote yes to 101. If you feel out of control financially because of crazy fees, fines and taxes on basic services, stop letting them take bites out of you.

The government says this proposition is confusing and ambiguous. But, the blue book analysis of the bill is concise. It assures us the impact is expected to be $2.9 billion in today's dollars, ($1.9 billion in state reductions and $1 billion in local government reductions).

Additionally, the bill puts control and choice back into your vote. We all know that government has ways of relaxing any restriction placed on it; we've seen it with TABOR. But at least, this measure compels public servants to ask you first before taking a raise, before seeing your utility bill and phone bill skyrocket when you relied on the two year provider contract. I've never been one to like strangers having a monopoly on my budget decisions.

Government is trying to guilt you into voting no to 101. Because a very small percentage of the fees we pay for telecommunications are federally required to subsidize low income, or the blind, deaf or speech impaired, these fees will likely be paid out of another source of taxation or government funding. Government is not concerned about charity nearly as much as it is about the portions of these fees that line government salaries. You don't have to feel frightened for the underprivileged.

I value my opinion, as you may have noticed in this blog. I would like to keep my personal voice when it comes to taxation and spending.

But, perhaps you like taxation and spending more than I do. Well, good news! 101 does not take away your opportunity to contribute to government as much as you like. It merely gives you a choice in the future when you find that your district representatives do not represent your interests.

Some of my good friends are campaigning for all their worth against 101 saying that it will bankrupt schools. Don't ya just resent fear mongering? What I love about 101 is that K-12 will get the state funding these grades deserve. It will merely force the C.F.O. (Presidents) of Colleges to do their jobs and raise private funding rather than depleting all the State money that should be going to our kids' basic education. It will put genuine competition back into play amongst the Universities. Grades and character will again matter. The market will matter. After all, colleges are private business all too long having masqueraded as "government".

In conclusion, I would urge all those who do not care whether their votes are heard later, to refrain from voting on this bill now. If you insist on being heard on this bill 101 now, I challenge you to continue the right to be heard, and vote yes as an investment... towards your own voice, your own control, down the road.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Why don't the newspapers or City Council tell us the truth? They are protecting something by "urging" citizens to vote no. But, I smell a skunk. Vote yes on Amendment 60. It protects you and your rights. It stays all Colorado governments from keeping extra property taxes collected above the present constitutional limits.

60 holds all Colorado governments, accountable via two means: mandatory audits and citizens' right to file lawsuits to enforce compliance.

60 would establish expiration dates on any new property tax increases. This automatically begins to lower your mortgage payment next year, and if you are a commercial business owner, your taxes are automatically lowered by a thousand dollars.

60 would require public facilities like golf courses and sewer plants to pay property taxes.

Proposition 60 takes the heat off of small businesses carrying the greatest liability for public debt. Secondly, it takes the penalty out of work by evening the score.

I see these little red and yellow warning signs in the yards saying 60 will kill jobs. This is laughable. No where in the blue book does any part of the analysis include killing any jobs.

After Amendment 60 in enacted, Public schools, K-12 will receive most of their funding through the State of Colorado, instead of their funds being swiped off to fund State colleges and universities. I believe it is basic education that is desperately in need of our funding. Not everyone goes to college. It is a privilege, not a basic right.

College presidents are hired to raise funds privately for their institutions and that is what they do for a living. Federal grants and loans are still available to students beyond that. Proposition 60 enables competition and free market for universities, not just a free hand out.

Proposition 60 goes hand in hand with 61 and 101. If enacted, the economic systems in Colorado will change, by putting the proper line items into the proper budgets where they are meant to go. Revenue streams will continue.

But it keeps politicians from dipping their hands into the pot for personal salaries, and padding the pockets of their personal passions. It will also overturn tax measures created in the last ten years. Don't believe the fear mongering that schools will lose out. Vote Yes! on Amendment 60.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Amendment 61 would place severe restriction on governmental agencies borrowing money and would basically eliminate the ability to purchase large items through a lease-purchase agreement. It would encourage business owners to do Colorado business, and government agents to keep Colorado trust, do their duty, and very little else.

TABOR placed severe restrictions on governments to engage in any contract for goods that causes future governors to be yolked to the debt. But in Englewood, governors have disregarded TABOR, and I'm sure like other municipalities, are finding ways to bundle services with goods, or simply failing to notify the people of the right to vote on important contracts. You can read City Council's contract this Summer with the reprehensible BP (gulf oil spill company)also known as Ameresco for the Solar goods, maintenance, and higher energy costs for Englewood over the next 20 years.

Violations for ignoring the law have been shrugged off. So what? Judges tend to say. If a home rule entity wishes to indenture future generations, who are we to interfere?

So, frustrations of those denied recourse in the courts and being depleted of resources by trusted servants have now won the right to petition you because they had legs enough to walk and presence enough collect the signatures, which is a feat in itself, to put ballot 61 into play.

Where is the teeth to Proposition 61? It requires the same kind of oversight accountability for governors that is required of CEOs and CFOs. It requires that tax rates raised for the specific item say, the production of government services or buildings or roads, must then be reduced after the projects are paid for. Presently, the system is that once the funds are raised, the expiration date of the tax is simply ignored, and Coloradoans keep paying, but the money gets filtered off to new projects.

61 tells government that people do not want to be sold "a temporary war time tax" yet be forced to pay into it indefinitely. This proposition requires a "truth and lending" element to the practice of raising taxes by requiring that the tax ceases when the museum or transportation system is built.

If governors have a pet project, they can no longer fund it under the table, but must deliberate it thoroughly and present it for a vote through a blue book type disclosure of all the angles.

Another thing this idea does is stop allowing Englewood to say it is raising bonds necessary for schools buildings while depleting the school fund for filtering money to private developments of say,...um... let me think... oh,... City Center...yes, case in point. Now, I loathe City Center's empty storefronts, but I loathe empty-eyed kids more.

Knowing how to budget your own money is a trick, but at least the spending stops with one household. Compare that to the State of Colorado which now owes 17 billion in debt it didn't ask you for permission to obtain. And for what, you ask? Have your parks,roadways, business district or utilities improved? Colorado is presently doing business like a banker or entrepreneur, taking much needed commerce and control out of the private sector.

Amendment 61 changes the present terms of State funding to public universities which have been secretly filtered to certain universities without voter approval. No longer will the State of Colorado be the lender for select home buyers, businesses, ranchers and farmers. And, the biggest impact will be on the all powerful water districts which continue to "improve" without voter approval under the table, and then ask for higher fees.

Amendment 61 is a six pack of muscle back to the people. Vote Yes.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

About fifteen years ago, Englewood enacted a Special Concrete District. This, despite the fact that Englewood already had about 10 times more districts than other municipalities. What an auditing nightmare! But that is not the focus of this piece.

This piece focuses on the fraud of the concrete district scheme itself. In order to create a new tax, and enact the district, City Manager had to feign a disadvantage. Then, he frightened residents into membership for their own protection. Sound anything like a thug making his mark? How did City Manager Sears accomplish this? By, completely ignoring your property boundaries.

Englewood started insisting that concrete sidewalks needed to be upgraded, sending notices to residents. Englewood insisted that the private property owners would be required to pay for the new cement repairs in full. The City required home owners to pay up immediately, short of buying into the new district. Property owners then examined the broken sidewalks and agree, yes, they need repair, and no, I cannot pay for hundreds of dollars, and furthermore, I don't know how to fight city hall. Bingo! City scored!

Very few residents possessed site plans, and they didn't believe that their trusted servants in government could outright lie to them about fiscal liabilities without being caught. So, over time, more and more private property owners began to assume their shares and payments into the concrete district.

The scheme goes this way: If you agree to buy into the district, then when you sell your home, the new owner automatically assumes the concrete debt, and the new owner has no right of redress within the City. This obviates your First Constitutional Right to redress government. Now, ain't that special?

But this month, a family took the Mayor and City Manager to District Court, because it is a higher court than the Englewood Municipal Court which judge is in bed with certain City officers. This family obtained a temporary restraining order against the City regarding the concrete district. They deserve a gold banner, for resourcefulness, don't you think?

Since purchasing their home in 2006, they had requested that Englewood repair their front heaving sidewalk. Every year, they sent letters, and every year, Englewood refused and ignored them. The problem was that an healthy 80 year old tree had roots that heaved the pavement.

Englewood refused to correct the problem unless the new owners allowed them to cut down the 80 foot tall shade tree and replace it with a sapling. Although the owners suggested Englewood correct the slope of the street which was causing various hazards in the winter at the bottom of the block, by simply raising the sidewalk over the tree roots, Englewood refused. The owners then suggested Englewood make the sidewalk bump out in a semi-circle around the base of the tree, separating parking spaces in the frontage. Again, Englewood refused.

Englewood's letters refused to cooperate with the City's engineering and paving departments or with the homeowners, even though the sidewalk was causing a severe stumbling liability. Englewood refused to perform due diligence for creative alternatives to save the tree by inquiring with an arborist. But, Englewood also abandoned the property to the owners three years ago, saying in a letter that the land at the front of their property belonged to the home owners.

The letter went on to say that if Englewood did cut the tree roots, the property owners would have to sign a letter to assume all future liability in case the tree became unstable in a storm and fell on a house in the neighborhood, due to the City's sloppy choice of actions!

The situation came to a head when the City decided to do whatever it wanted to the tree, the home owners' rights, and the sidewalk, without notifying the private owners at all. Home downers believed they had some rights to know whose property it really was, or who would pay for what, or whether the owners would lose the tree. The owners took the City to Court and won an injunction. They easily proved the City was about to perform some urgent irreparable harm to the tree and the threat of the tree falling on a home as well.

I wonder why they didn't take this further and suggest irreparable harm was about to occur to their right to redress government or their own safety and welfare?

The Judge required the City to hire an arborist and perform due diligence. Because of this situation, I have looked into the Colorado Statutes on Special Districts which do require cooperation with all the parties when there is an easement or right of way privilege onto any given property.

The City's constitutional duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of a neighborhood, as regarding the slope of the street and the health of the tree. Additionally, Englewood was not allowed to recklessly abandon public property to a private residence and then take it back like Indian Givers when it suited them.

The law of right-of-ways is that government may well own the real property, (usually frontage or alley ways) while private residents may own right of way access to their site from both the front street and the back alley. Additionally, utility companies own a right to access their telephone poles or city ditches on any property, whether owned by government or private owners.

Englewood had abandoned their frontage rights to own the real property in front of these residents' site plan in order to sell shares into the concrete district. And these owners had continued to pay. Thus, the City had an absolute duty to repair the concrete...three years ago.

The City perpetrated fraud against its own people in order to gain a financial advantage over residents, like these, to make them pay for the same duty Englewood always held to maintain its own neighborhood sidewalks. Taxes were already there for new concrete. But, after paying for years, the government refused to perform its duty to cooperate with the home owners and do the job properly. The district judge stopped short of telling the City how to do its job

Do you have a "Notice" stating that Englewood will do something on "your property?" You should find out what your site survey actually says from your Title Company, or hire a survey company to mark the edges. The wording on Englewood's Notice may well be deceptive. If the weeds belong to the City, then, the City owns the duty to trim and care for them. What would happen if residents began noticing the City with 14-day warnings to pull weeds, or repair sidewalks? That's so backwards.

Link: http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fec510767d66027d&m=fea015707565077973&ls=fe2911717c6c007e751173&l=ff011670746003&s=fe2c157177660c75731774&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe9717717664027e7d&r=0

Clear The Bench Colorado--Friday Morning

Dear friends,

If the three unjust justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - stay on in the Supreme Court, they will continue the Mullarkey legacy of ignoring the Constitution. The rulings they promote are called a "progressive ideology", further destroying our rights as citizens of Colorado.

We have very precious few days left until the mail-in ballots drop on October 12.

CEW knows this... and they want to make sure they keep OUR money until after that date.

Big surprise: Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW, pronounced "sue" - because it's what they do) is at it again.

It has clearly been the intention of CEW, since we won our case, and they first filed a bogus filing on May 5, 2010, that it hopes to tie up our resources for as long as possible protecting the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.

On Monday, September 20, CEW filed for a "Enlargement of Time" in order to pay the attorney's fees they've owed us-literally tens of thousands of dollars - since the judge hearing their original "complaint" ordered them to pay up on July 21, 2010.

It's not like they don't have the money. It's not even like they have much math to do.

They are, quite simply, continuing to try and prevent the word from getting out - that quitting Chief Justice Mullarkey's gang of Constitution-shredders shouldn't have a "rubber stamp" to stay in office... FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR TERM.

Unfortunately, campaigns like this don't run themselves. And more unfortunately, campaigns like this don't fund themselves.

We need your help. We need your generous donation of time, effort, and finances in order to win this campaign.

A decision has yet to be reached as to whether or not CEW will receive that "Enlargement of Time", but even then, we still need your help.

In the mean time (and it's hard to say when that decision will be made), we still have flyers to print, signs to produce (and distribute!) and the word to get out.

It is absolutely vital for the survival of our state that we take out the trash this election - this includes those who would rather use our Constitution for confetti than as the guiding principle for their judgements, the highest law of the state.

We must get the word out. And we need your help to do it...

In late August, we ran a statewide poll, and the results are clear and resounding: across absolutely every demographic (race, gender, party affiliation and location in the state) if the word gets out, 78% of voters will vote "NO" on these unjust justices.

This is, quite simply, the biggest no-brainer in Colorado politics this election.

We have ten more years of guaranteed bad judges with the remnant of the Mullarkey Majority in Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - or two years of (at worst) of an unknown quantity (which can't possibly get any worse).

However, even with the two years of unknown, we do know that:

1. It is simply impossible to be worse than 0-15 in upholding our Constitution;
2. There is the chance it might be "as bad", but we can vote them out in two years rather than ten; and
3. There is the even greater chance it could get better - and we might even get a judge good enough to not vote out in two years. In any case, any replacements will definitely get the message: the people are watching, and WILL hold them accountable to their oath to support the Constitution.

Regardless of who wins the Governor's race, we must Clear the Bench this year.

In order to do this, to get the word out, we need your help. Contribute today - and help spread the word.

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/ or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237

The math on this is so simple... two years versus ten years.

Getting the word out gets 78% or higher who say they will vote NO.

This is the biggest no-brainer, the biggest bang for your 2010-political-buck; and a powerful reminder of the issues at stake.

Contribute today, be part of the movement!

Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise your right to tell these justices "NO!" to 10 more years of job security with no accountability to the people.

WE THE PEOPLE are here, we are watching and together we can (and will!) send a message to the Colorado Supreme Court - we're not going to take it anymore.

For liberty, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the prosperity of our people and our state- we must CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!

For Freedom,

Sarah Anderson

Campaign Manager, Clear the Bench Colorado

P.S. Please contribute whatever you can today - it's crunch time for producing (and distributing) signs & flyers, which is EXACTLY why CEW is holding on to OUR money!

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com

It used to be that a "profession" such as doctoring, lawyering, running a football, priestly duties and public servants were paid very little. This was true, even though the skilled individuals acting in these fields were considered "experts". They received honor as part of their pay because they were viewed as public servants. To compensate for this feeble pay, they were supported by the good will of the people, commercial interests, patrons, tips, and insurance.

I attended the Colorado Symphony recently and was reminded that Beethovan and Tchaikovsky had patrons to support them. Tchaikovsky had his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. And,he was honored by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. Beethovan's first patron was his own piano teacher, Count Waldstein.

In the western world, the pursuit of "entitlement" is sometimes a full time career. Being a lifetime professional has re-defined the meaning of entitlement. It now means someone is intellectually trained beyond the common amateur, and one who is generally comfortable financially. Albeit, because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services, and often the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held to ethical and moral standards called rules, regulations or oaths.

City Managers belong to an ethics association. Attorneys are held to an Attorney Code of Ethics, Judges to a Judicial Code, Plumbers to a Plumbers Code, and an Olympian, to an Olympic Code of Ethics. Nevertheless, when "experts" holding your life in their hands fail to do their jobs, and are sued, they are the first to demure that they were merely "practicing" law, or "practicing" medicine or "practicing" management of your civil welfare.

But, home rule managers are not in the same class as regular business managers. Can you guess why? City managers do not create the money they earn. They spend people's taxes. The Citizens very literally are their patrons. Members of City staff also do not make money for their employers, ie: "We, the people" but instead spend it, lots of it. They enjoy your money much like royalty.

Quite unlike a business owner who creates substantial income as a product of their ingenuity and work ethic, the news article in Your Hub shows how a City Manager gets to name his budget without showing a work product, gets a budget approved, and then plays all year long on it. Several residents showed up to the Englewood Budget Hearing to protest this very real situation. Ida Mae Nicholls particularly protested having to pay for an Assistant City Manager as well as a regular City Manager, putting Englewoods' budget a hundred thousand dollars above neighboring cities.

Mama always told me to watch out for those shysters who want an up-front deposit before doing the job. She reasoned, "What holds them to any standard if they have already been paid? What is the incentive?"

Meanwhile business owners who are already sweating away to maintain a viable service or product for their customers, are forced to keep receipts, collect taxes, figure percentages and pay the special government districts for the right to provide jobs and make money. Taxes, fees, fines and regulations assessed against business owners grow in larger and larger sums. This money is not being carried into the public river. Instead, city managers are getting paid more and more, while still enjoying greater benefits. Cushy job, that!

What is this topsy-turvy honor system? Business owners are the ones who creatively provide for the public desires. They are the ones who should be honored, not taxed for their services or treated like slaves to the so called professionals.

Business owners in Englewood should start attending the City Council's meetings and speaking their minds on the value of their work, compared to the value of the City managers. Business owners should demand their vote on anything that concerns their ability to function in the City or to earn money.

And all the citizens should consider the real comparisons of real managers and those who only call themselves managers by professional advantage.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Citizens' canons appeared on the hillside at the public budget hearing Monday evening, September 20, 2010. The House was filled with various groups of disgruntled citizens who applauded loudly for each other's fiscal observations and causes. Click link items 7 and 10 to hear these 25 various presentations. City Manager Sears went red in the face and stayed that way for much of the meeting. Bob McCaslin engaged one group near the end and argued publicly out of turn with them from his seat to the back row. Although the City's policy since Mayor Bradshaw was in office has been that Council members do not respond to Citizens' comments until "their choice" at the end of a council meeting, Mayor Woodward defended himself out of turn.

Citizens waited to the last hour to hear any responses to their concerns. And, council members falsely placated their issues. I believe Council's attitude is that they are special, and thus they do not need to listen, or respond to Englewood representatives who make the effort to come out.

Council then denied both Jefferson's move to amend Council Bill 32, to take a formal stance against "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61 and 101. These amendments are carefully engineered to employ an entirely new system of funding Colorado's economic priorities. Colorado's ballot initiatives 60, 61 and 101 place fund raising for higher education back in the private sector of friends of the Universities. Raising funds are what C.F.O.'s and presidents of Universities are hired to do.

But, kindergarten through grade 12 basic education will be guaranteed the funding education deserves from the State of Colorado. This funding has typically been diverted to legislators' pet projects such as the development of Lowery's subdivision, R.T.D., sports stadiums and East Colfax...all of which should have been funded privately.

Jefferson and Gillit argued it is not the position of a non-profit government agency to tell the Citizens how to vote on money systems. Jill Wilson then moved out of turn saying, "I don't care. I move to vote on the bill right away, without the amendment." Her motion was shut down however, because Jefferson's amendment was already on the floor. Yet, Council voted down the amendment to Englewood Bill 32, and then voted to approve Bill 32 as originally proposed "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61, and 101 just because they say so.

Isn't it special that Englewood Council members completely miss it, that anything they take a formal stance on while abusing the voices of their constituency will be automatically seen as suspect? We might as well chalk up the entire voting populous of Englewood in favor of Amendments 60, 61, and 101.

When these Amendments win in Colorado, an entirely new economic system, guarantying state funding for schools together with lowering mill levies (taxes) from 7% to 3.5% on your home owner's mortgage will put smiles on faces everywhere. Everywhere, except City Council.

It was the late August study session, topic: fiscal emergency, where District 4 Council member Gillit suggested that the paid stipend of Council is not the real reason council members serve the City, (being only $600 per month). He wondered if council members would be willing to sacrifice their stipends until the City's finances were corrected.

Oh, the reciprocal uproar!

No-one felt the condition of public welfare warranted a personal sacrifice. Councilman at large, Bob McCaslin, summarized council's consensus denying Mr. Gillit's suggestion, when he shouted, "I deserve this money and much more, too!"

Yet, Englewood Council continues to give money to charities, spend weekly for catering their own food for meetings, they include hefty salaries of two City Managers in the budget year after year, and refuse to settle legal disputes with citizens in an amicable way prior to engaging in the big bucks of trial.

Englewood's City Council voices are special indeed. Just as special as the wind from the inside of an old bagpipe.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com/

Announcing the 2011 Englewood Budget Hearing. Monday, September 20, at 7:30 pm, Floor 2, Englewood Civic Center.

Please Take Notice: City Council will actually release the proposed budget the week after the hearing, on September 25, 2010...strangely backwards, but oh well. You can still register your general ideas, strategies, complaints and priorities this Monday at the hearing.

Note that it is the City's lawful duty by City Charter as well as the Colorado Constitution, article XX and the Colorado Revised Statutes §§29-20-101, 205, 24-65.1-101, et seq., 30-28-101, et seq., 30-28-201, et seq., or 24-32-111 to provide full and complete services to roadways, parks, fire, utilities, courts and police enforcement. Englewood is not permitted to cut these services by law. You can rely on your payments for these services through your taxes, because the government must fulfill their duties. It is the City's duty "to provide for the peace, welfare and safety" of your neighborhoods and your well being.

Do you find it okay that Manager Sears has proposed cutting the fire marshal position after the current fire marshal retires this year? Do you think that cutting city services is your sacrificial duty during a bad economy? Chief Vandermee of the Police Force is also retiring in May and another officer is leaving on his own accord. The City is not planning to replace these services for you next year, cutting services you will need and have grown used to.

It has been suggested that the City Manager's office itself is top heavy in the budget. Englewood recently compared itself to Northglenn, Colorado, a similar sized populous, but I've checked the figures and this is what I found:

Northglenn published a 2010 fiscal report, showing the total personnel expenditures for the city manger's office budgeted was $343,482 with a Full Time Employee (FTE) count of 4 people. The City of Englewood's 2010 budget, page 68, indicated personal expenditures of $591,340 and an FTE count of 5. The City of Englewood has one more employee, and a difference in personal costs of $247,858!

Total Expenditures for the Northglenn City Manager's office is $614,151, whereas the City of Englewood is $668,633.

Also note that the City of Northglenn has decreased its City Manager's staff/FTE by 3 people since the 2008 economic crunch, whereas the City of Englewood has decreased their City Manager's staff by .38(about half of a part-time position) since 2008. Englewood employs Gary Sears at $169,540, City Assistant Mike Flarity at $134, 410, Executive Assistant Sue Carlton Smith at $61,145, and Communications Coordinator LeAnn Hoffines at $61,046. And, don't forget that 42% of a part-time employee. These figures do not include cars, expensive seminars, gas or healthcare bennies. The price of all those extras to the citizens of Englewood costs even more. Nice...

Sure seems like some of these people could afford the hit that most of Englewood has already taken in their jobs. The City of Northglenn does not employ an assistant for every job. Why does Englewood? Perhaps because the head of Englewood has been moonlighting by teaching courses at the University of Denver, and playing golf on City time. Now, Manager Sears is proposing the City cut your services to you. This is the opposite strategy that Northglenn has taken.

Your "City’ Manager’s duty shall require the faithful performance of all administrative duties." The City Manager's duties and powers are enumerated in Sections 1-6A-2 and 1-6A-3 of Englewood's Muncipal Code, as well as the Englewood Home Rule Charter. Section 1-6A-1:E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-1)

City Manager Powers.

C. Investigate;
D. Overrule Officials;
E. Delegate Duties;
F. Appoint Administrative Committees; and
G. The City Manager shall have all other powers necessary to perform any duty or responsibility conferred upon him/her by Charter or ordinance. Section 1-6A-3: E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-3)

Mayor Woodward said last month that he used to call himself a fiscal conservative, but now he just calls himself fiscally responsible. Is this a joke? Especially in light of last week's Emergency declaration regarding Englewood's finances. A month ago, Mayor said he hadn't yet seen the "trip point." (that line in the available inventory that says an emergency is warranted). Two weeks later the "trip point" apparently arrived.

Last year at the public debates between candidates, Mayor Woodward stated the city has a "policy" not to go below 10% in its reserves. The policies that the Mayor enforces against its citizens are considered law with fines and jail associated for violation of them. Apparently,the Mayor is held to a different standard and sits comfortably above the law when subverting this policy of the City's important financial reserves.

Still, Mayor Woodward says he isn't one to micro-manage the budget so long as the Rec Center does not run out of toilet paper. He may be covering his own butt on this one. Seriously, go out and represent your higher perspective.

If you cannot make the budget hearing, please be sure to contact you district representative with your thoughts. District 4 Representative Rick Gillit and District 1 Representative Joe Jefferson are both actively involved with listening to their constituents.