(Public invited to be heard 3/24/09)
-Edited for print version appeared in Times Call opinion section on 3/31/09
Mayor Lange and members of council, I'm here on behalf of our non-partisan organization Vote Longmont, to voice concern over the upcoming local elections this November.
While it may be only March, ordinances and committee selections are being made that could affect this election. An Election Task Force was formed in response to the election of Councilmember Santos due to a large group contribution to his campaign. Other groups and organizations have shown similiar support for current and past council members, so this was not unique to Councilmember Santos. Considering that, I appreciate his cooperation and participation in the task force.
Attempts have been made to limit the rights of citizens in this community both by some members of this council as well as public speakers who frequently show up to speak of or post online insidious statements that the upcoming election will be bought by groups backed by big money.
Now that the campaign finance reform ordinance was passed, albeit with some last minute amendments, the upcoming selections of the Election Committee is something all concerned citizens should be watching closely. Council members and applicants need to follow the rules of the application process. The application process is open and the requirements and dates are posted on the city website. There should be no last minute rush of post deadline applicants, like that of previous board selections...some of which were for boards that had already received qualified applicants.
I encourage the general public to watch the selection process very closely as a little over half of this council up for re-election. Citizens should keep an eye on cronyism, voting blocs, and possible conflicts of interest. If this process is not done correctly, this Election Committee could become a kangaroo court with subpoena power targeting its political enemies.
Please remember that this election is supposed to be non-partisan, and for the sake of transparency, council should be reminded of that when selecting members for the commission that fairness be given to all applicants.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Deciphering political doublespeak
I about fell over laughing when I saw the following tagline “Members of Congress must embrace accountability – People across the country are tightening their belts, and we must expect our government to do the same.” That was the op-ed title from U.S. Representative (Dem-04) Betsy Markey in a special to the Times-Call on March 25, 2009.
Six days earlier I wrote a piece requesting an apology for what our current crop of representatives pulled with their signing of the stimulus bill without reading it. I’m not going to jump to conclusions and delusions of grandeur that these representatives actually read it or care what I wrote, but I did log a lot of hits from U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic National Headquarters computers. They like Googling themselves apparently, cute.
But this pack of nonsense from Ms. Markey was just too much, and more than likely people bought it hook, line, and sinker. She just signed the bill that people are howling over because of these AIG bonuses, yet now proclaims she and her fellow representatives “must embrace accountability” and “tighten their belts”? This is the same old claptrap of “do what I say, but not what I do” in the guise of freshman, inexperienced politics. This of course includes their party leader, President Obama, whose last press conference was a clinic in doublespeak and dodging.
She mentions “implementing effective policies”, like these ridiculous deficits over the next 12 years? Like not noticing these AIG bonuses you signed for? She’s “proud” of her “efforts to bring real change to our government”. Sounds like more of the same, including the lousy congressional ratings. But what “change” has she brought? Once again, I’m all ears.
She worries about the word “accountability” being “in danger of becoming just another meaningless buzzword”. She’s right, and she’s engaging in that very activity. What total hypocrisy and double standards.
When I met and spoke to her my advice was to try to run a clean campaign and stay above the mud slinging, and that she’d probably have a good chance at winning. I wasn’t saying that because I necessarily wanted her to win. While being a nice enough lady, I saw her as a fairly inexperienced, unseasoned future bureaucrat who couldn’t even keep our fairly large union’s name straight. But I gave this suggestion because she needs to keep in mind the district she represents, which is not some heavily leftwing district by any stretch of the imagination.
You that were fooled into voting for her, you’ve also been put on notice by her, if you didn’t catch it. If you read between the lines of her op-ed she’s telegraphing that she’s about to disappoint a lot of people who voted for her. Sure didn’t sound that way during the campaign jumping fully onboard the Obama bandwagon like a bunch of other suckers. This is the problem with going all in with the hero worship when it involves politicians, whether its people seeking office or their minions. Of any party. Sooner or later these people let you down or will be let down, and they sure take it harder than finding out something like Britney Spears isn’t all she was cracked up to be, or the pundit (or governor) they follow is a pedophile, home wrecker, or tax cheat.
When in comes to Ms. Markey, this isn’t some newfound independent streak, it’s the classic art of political self preservation. She knows she’s in a mostly rural, fairly Republican district. She knows she won against an incumbent (and incumbent party) that wasn’t very popular. She knows she played dirty during the campaign. She knows candidates are lining up against her for 2010 already and that she’ll be in one of the national “targeted” races. She knows she needs either a) Republican votes to win, or b) hope, as in 2008, that Republicans don’t show up on Election Day, or both. She hopes op-eds like this one will fool enough people into believing what she says, and ignores her actual actions on The Hill.
Since I gave advice once, and know these blog entries somehow get the attention of certain sites (mentioned above), here’s another tip for Ms. Markey: be yourself. That’s right, be yourself. You were elected to represent this district, but being this is (still, for now) a representative government, you don’t need our constant approval or endless polls, nor do you need numerous town hall meetings to hear griping and your sycophants nudging. (But if you are going to have these kinds of meetings, can they at least be in non-partisan locations and venues?)
Stand and vote on your principles, whatever they may be. You won, with a majority even. Don’t just pander for the next election, actually do something, you may not have a second chance (as in term). And I think you know that. If how you vote now is contrary to what you “sold” during the campaign (for instance, did you say you were against the assault weapons ban? I didn’t hear that), explain it – don’t try to cover it up like this op-ed piece does. Your voting record will be closely scrutinized, count on it. Might as well make the best of it.
But while you’re at it, don’t forget you don’t just represent your party or the drones who would vote for you no matter what. You don’t just represent women, you don’t just represent this district or state. You represent this country above all else. Waste that and you don’t deserve support or re-election.
Six days earlier I wrote a piece requesting an apology for what our current crop of representatives pulled with their signing of the stimulus bill without reading it. I’m not going to jump to conclusions and delusions of grandeur that these representatives actually read it or care what I wrote, but I did log a lot of hits from U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic National Headquarters computers. They like Googling themselves apparently, cute.
But this pack of nonsense from Ms. Markey was just too much, and more than likely people bought it hook, line, and sinker. She just signed the bill that people are howling over because of these AIG bonuses, yet now proclaims she and her fellow representatives “must embrace accountability” and “tighten their belts”? This is the same old claptrap of “do what I say, but not what I do” in the guise of freshman, inexperienced politics. This of course includes their party leader, President Obama, whose last press conference was a clinic in doublespeak and dodging.
She mentions “implementing effective policies”, like these ridiculous deficits over the next 12 years? Like not noticing these AIG bonuses you signed for? She’s “proud” of her “efforts to bring real change to our government”. Sounds like more of the same, including the lousy congressional ratings. But what “change” has she brought? Once again, I’m all ears.
She worries about the word “accountability” being “in danger of becoming just another meaningless buzzword”. She’s right, and she’s engaging in that very activity. What total hypocrisy and double standards.
When I met and spoke to her my advice was to try to run a clean campaign and stay above the mud slinging, and that she’d probably have a good chance at winning. I wasn’t saying that because I necessarily wanted her to win. While being a nice enough lady, I saw her as a fairly inexperienced, unseasoned future bureaucrat who couldn’t even keep our fairly large union’s name straight. But I gave this suggestion because she needs to keep in mind the district she represents, which is not some heavily leftwing district by any stretch of the imagination.
You that were fooled into voting for her, you’ve also been put on notice by her, if you didn’t catch it. If you read between the lines of her op-ed she’s telegraphing that she’s about to disappoint a lot of people who voted for her. Sure didn’t sound that way during the campaign jumping fully onboard the Obama bandwagon like a bunch of other suckers. This is the problem with going all in with the hero worship when it involves politicians, whether its people seeking office or their minions. Of any party. Sooner or later these people let you down or will be let down, and they sure take it harder than finding out something like Britney Spears isn’t all she was cracked up to be, or the pundit (or governor) they follow is a pedophile, home wrecker, or tax cheat.
When in comes to Ms. Markey, this isn’t some newfound independent streak, it’s the classic art of political self preservation. She knows she’s in a mostly rural, fairly Republican district. She knows she won against an incumbent (and incumbent party) that wasn’t very popular. She knows she played dirty during the campaign. She knows candidates are lining up against her for 2010 already and that she’ll be in one of the national “targeted” races. She knows she needs either a) Republican votes to win, or b) hope, as in 2008, that Republicans don’t show up on Election Day, or both. She hopes op-eds like this one will fool enough people into believing what she says, and ignores her actual actions on The Hill.
Since I gave advice once, and know these blog entries somehow get the attention of certain sites (mentioned above), here’s another tip for Ms. Markey: be yourself. That’s right, be yourself. You were elected to represent this district, but being this is (still, for now) a representative government, you don’t need our constant approval or endless polls, nor do you need numerous town hall meetings to hear griping and your sycophants nudging. (But if you are going to have these kinds of meetings, can they at least be in non-partisan locations and venues?)
Stand and vote on your principles, whatever they may be. You won, with a majority even. Don’t just pander for the next election, actually do something, you may not have a second chance (as in term). And I think you know that. If how you vote now is contrary to what you “sold” during the campaign (for instance, did you say you were against the assault weapons ban? I didn’t hear that), explain it – don’t try to cover it up like this op-ed piece does. Your voting record will be closely scrutinized, count on it. Might as well make the best of it.
But while you’re at it, don’t forget you don’t just represent your party or the drones who would vote for you no matter what. You don’t just represent women, you don’t just represent this district or state. You represent this country above all else. Waste that and you don’t deserve support or re-election.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Response to Firestone Mayor Auer's Times-Call editorial
Congratulations Mayor Auer for hitting the nail on the head. You could not have said it more eloquently. Firestone's situation comes down to one thing, The U.S. Constitution.
LifeBridge owns the land and has the right to use it as it sees fit. Longmont does not own the land but had the opportunity to welcome LifeBridge into the city had it not been for a few on city council and a few isolationist wackos.
Firestone welcomes LifeBridge into their city and what does Longmont do? Violates LifeBridge's constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As well as to own property. Longmont has no jurisdiction over this property, but wants to control it. Common sense would say Longmont back off. I am not a member of LifeBridge but I do have a Horse in this race, that horse is named "justice " the American way. And he is the odds on favorite.
I protest Longmonts treatment of Firestone and LifeBridge and will stand on the Constitutional Right to own property. Longmont will lose this battle in civil Court. They have already lost it in the court of public opinion. Property Rights are being taken away by this city, county and state and has to stop now. If not, socialism is around the corner.
The real losers are the Longmontians for when the city loses this fight, and they will, the taxpayers will get to pay the legal fees, and that could be for both sides. They will surely lose All American City status. They will lose the respect of any real American that believes in the Constitution and property rights.
Good luck Mayor Auer. You are not afraid to fight for what is right, and in the end you will prevail.
George Marxmiller
LifeBridge owns the land and has the right to use it as it sees fit. Longmont does not own the land but had the opportunity to welcome LifeBridge into the city had it not been for a few on city council and a few isolationist wackos.
Firestone welcomes LifeBridge into their city and what does Longmont do? Violates LifeBridge's constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As well as to own property. Longmont has no jurisdiction over this property, but wants to control it. Common sense would say Longmont back off. I am not a member of LifeBridge but I do have a Horse in this race, that horse is named "justice " the American way. And he is the odds on favorite.
I protest Longmonts treatment of Firestone and LifeBridge and will stand on the Constitutional Right to own property. Longmont will lose this battle in civil Court. They have already lost it in the court of public opinion. Property Rights are being taken away by this city, county and state and has to stop now. If not, socialism is around the corner.
The real losers are the Longmontians for when the city loses this fight, and they will, the taxpayers will get to pay the legal fees, and that could be for both sides. They will surely lose All American City status. They will lose the respect of any real American that believes in the Constitution and property rights.
Good luck Mayor Auer. You are not afraid to fight for what is right, and in the end you will prevail.
George Marxmiller
Thursday, March 26, 2009
So now the LifeBridge boogeyman is a drainage culvert?
Of all the disingenuous arguments we've heard against the Union project from the anti-LifeBridge hatemonger crowd, the latest ruckus over the Spring Gulch #2 drainage improvements truly takes the cake.
Despite character assassinations and charges of corruption from the likes of Jeff Thompson, Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow made the project justification perfectly clear a month ago at city council chambers, as seen in this YouTube video...
Pedrow underscored the facts that 1) the Spring Gulch drainage project conveys water from the northeast portion of the city of Longmont; 2) it protects Hwy 119 from potential 50-100yr flood damage; 3) it serves Longmont's Sandstone Ranch and the St. Vrain Greenway extension, including the Hwy 119 box culvert to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists; and 4) it was approved by voters in 2007 with bonds already sold.
Anti-Union activists bring up the wayward strawman that the Spring Gulch #2 bonds when fully retired will cost every Longmont resident about $115 in taxpayer dollars, all to benefit LifeBridge and Firestone. If they want to play that game, how about the bloated $66.6 million that Boulder County will be spending on frivolous open space in 2009? That equates to over $225 for every one of Boulder County's 294,000 residents, just for one year.
An unknown Times-Call online commenter put it succinctly last year when addressing the anti-LifeBridge faction in Longmont: "You just don't want the Church or it's message to grow. I have heard you all speak. I have heard those words before. The scary part is what I see in your eyes. You and your friends remind me of the hatred I saw 40 years ago. Give it a rest, the folks at LBCC are good people."
Despite character assassinations and charges of corruption from the likes of Jeff Thompson, Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow made the project justification perfectly clear a month ago at city council chambers, as seen in this YouTube video...
Pedrow underscored the facts that 1) the Spring Gulch drainage project conveys water from the northeast portion of the city of Longmont; 2) it protects Hwy 119 from potential 50-100yr flood damage; 3) it serves Longmont's Sandstone Ranch and the St. Vrain Greenway extension, including the Hwy 119 box culvert to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists; and 4) it was approved by voters in 2007 with bonds already sold.
Anti-Union activists bring up the wayward strawman that the Spring Gulch #2 bonds when fully retired will cost every Longmont resident about $115 in taxpayer dollars, all to benefit LifeBridge and Firestone. If they want to play that game, how about the bloated $66.6 million that Boulder County will be spending on frivolous open space in 2009? That equates to over $225 for every one of Boulder County's 294,000 residents, just for one year.
An unknown Times-Call online commenter put it succinctly last year when addressing the anti-LifeBridge faction in Longmont: "You just don't want the Church or it's message to grow. I have heard you all speak. I have heard those words before. The scary part is what I see in your eyes. You and your friends remind me of the hatred I saw 40 years ago. Give it a rest, the folks at LBCC are good people."
Monday, March 23, 2009
For city, airport safety falls somewhere behind prairie dogs
I received the following letter and think it's important enough to spread around. As many of you know, I have defended the airport in the past against city officials who didn't have its best interests at heart and screwball neighbors who'd rather it close, destroy its businesses or worse.
An ongoing problem at the airport are prairie dogs. Forget about the politics of it that we hear endlessly at City Council meetings, and look at the safety aspect of it. As you'll see in this letter, and other places in the past, the proximity of prairie dogs, or any wildlife for that matter, to runways and airplanes is a dangerous mix.
Sorry, but I put human lives way out in front of these animals. Lets grow up a little and leave the quaint discussion of these cute little furry animals in the proper context. The press isn't notified when one of these is ran over on a city street, they are however when an airplane is forced off a runway or crashes because of these animals or the birds of prey they attract. Contrary to what you might think, the world doesn't revolve around these rodents, so can we give it a rest already? Safety though is a serious, grown-up matter.
I'd like to know which council members directed staff (City Manager Gordon Pedrow and Parks Manager Don Bessler) to change policy in this area. Here's the letter:
---------------------------------------------
Doedo Schipper
An ongoing problem at the airport are prairie dogs. Forget about the politics of it that we hear endlessly at City Council meetings, and look at the safety aspect of it. As you'll see in this letter, and other places in the past, the proximity of prairie dogs, or any wildlife for that matter, to runways and airplanes is a dangerous mix.
Sorry, but I put human lives way out in front of these animals. Lets grow up a little and leave the quaint discussion of these cute little furry animals in the proper context. The press isn't notified when one of these is ran over on a city street, they are however when an airplane is forced off a runway or crashes because of these animals or the birds of prey they attract. Contrary to what you might think, the world doesn't revolve around these rodents, so can we give it a rest already? Safety though is a serious, grown-up matter.
I'd like to know which council members directed staff (City Manager Gordon Pedrow and Parks Manager Don Bessler) to change policy in this area. Here's the letter:
---------------------------------------------
I am writing about an issue that concerns all of us at the airport. Safety, the last couple of years the rodents (prairie dogs) have gotten out of control. The city has been addressing this by building a rodent fence in an effort to limit the rodents to the fenced area. This has clearly not worked. Airport volunteers have been assisting the airport manager to eliminate more rodents. This only worked modestly due to the limitations set by the city on what methods were allowed to used.
The airport manager has been directed by Don Bessler ( parks manager) and Gordon Pedrow (city manager) to work with a non airport volunteer, Mrs Ruby Bowman, to try to relocate the prairie dogs by filling in their burrows. Those of us that fly can clearly see that this has not worked either.
Where and how did Mrs Bowman get involved? Mrs Bowman does not follow the established lines of communication at the airport like the Airport Advisory Board or the hangar owners and airport user group meetings. For her this has nothing to do with the airport and is all about her interest in the welfare of prairie dogs. Mrs Bowman speaks frequently at council meetings and in this way she managed to get support from Gordon Pedrow. It is possible that Mr Pedrow is being directed by specific council members. My questions about this have not been answered.
So far Mrs Bowman has now succeeded in bringing to a halt the many years of prairie dog management at the airport. The city is about to spend $30,000 on an even larger and sturdier fence. The money will come from the monies set aside to build a bathroom this year.
We can not stop this nonsense without your help. This is what we need to do. Its is more obviously effective to call council members directly and express your displeasure about this . I already have and spoke with the mayor. Now it is your turn. Call one or all of them , their numbers are at the bottom. Keep your concern focused on safety. Prairie dogs undermine the runway and taxiways, their burrows and mounds have caused damage to airplanes that inadvertently went of the runway. People are getting hurt. Multiple skydivers have been injured already over the years. A fenced enclosure anywhere on the airport is a potential danger to airport users coming in with an emergency.
The mayor has already confirmed that Gordon Pedrow will come to the next advisory board meeting and explain why he felt it was necessary to ignore every airport user, the FAA and the Colorado dept of Aeronautics. He will explain why he reversed his own decision on exclusion management and why he recommends spending $30,000 of your tax dollars on a prairie dog fence that will endanger airport users and limit airport activities. Call and email now.
Roger Lange 303 772 0065 / roger_lange@qwest.net
Brian Hansen 303 847 7186 / council_hansen@hotmail.com
Karen Benker 303 774 7745 / karenbenkerlg@earthlink.net
Sean Mccoy 303 847 6076 / seanmccoylcc@q.com
Mary Blue 303 772 3890 / marykblue@msn.com
Sarah Levinson 303 847 1647 / levison4longmont@yahoo.com
Gabe Santos 303 774 1795 / gabe@gabesantos.com
Roger Lange 303 772 0065 / roger_lange@qwest.net
Brian Hansen 303 847 7186 / council_hansen@hotmail.com
Karen Benker 303 774 7745 / karenbenkerlg@earthlink.net
Sean Mccoy 303 847 6076 / seanmccoylcc@q.com
Mary Blue 303 772 3890 / marykblue@msn.com
Sarah Levinson 303 847 1647 / levison4longmont@yahoo.com
Gabe Santos 303 774 1795 / gabe@gabesantos.com
Then call John Bauer at the FAA, Denver FSDO 303 342 1259 and state your concern about the hazards of prairie dogs on the airport.
I Love This Bar!
We played pool, listened to music, talked to almost everyone and I even got the chance to listen to a wonderful Australian accent coming out of a very handsome young (could be my son young) man who bought one too many shots for me.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
More manipulation by the media
“Trillion-dollar trouble” screamed The Denver Post’s 60-point front-page headline over a two-and-one-half page presentation by reporter David Olinger on 3/20/09, followed by “Hazards in the water,” another two pages of near hysteria two days later -- all detailing how laggard we are for letting Colorado’s infrastructure just fall apart and it’s going to cost $2.2 trillion in the next five years to fix it.
Thusly the Post’s stern lecture series gets off to a feeble start by trying to pin the blame on you and me for somehow failing to address every conceivable infrastructure problem our state faces (where have all the politicians and their comforting press gone?) and forcing people to live in conditions of their own making, such as having to toss dishwater out the back door. No mention is made of governmental foibles such as misdirecting highway funds statewide or the bottomless FasTracks money pit or the lack of personal responsibility.
Whose fault is it that our roads and bridges are crumbling? Never mind that the railroads used to build roadbeds and bridges that lasted a long time and did not crumble under the pounding of extraordinarily heavy loads and stress. And oh, they were maintained at a negligible cost, a must factor in the private sector.
Issue: Safe water, sanitary sewers. Haven’t those who choose to live in a rural setting ever heard of caveat emptor? (As most people should know, Colorado abounds in rocky soil, impervious adobe and shale deposits.) Olinger tells of the expensive sewage pumping and exporting necessary in a rural neighborhood but offers no clue as to why installing a modern disposal system would not be cheaper and safer in the long run.
The city of Alamosa’s water problems sound even more devastating (not good news for the local chamber of commerce), but because Colorado municipalities possess the unique authority to issue bonds to provide reasonably safe water and sanitary sewer services without a vote of the people, there is simply no excuse outside of an emergency for Alamosa to be distributing unsafe water. What has happened to the once state law that required domestic water providers in Colorado to publish frequent purity test results in the local newspaper so the people may know?
Not only do these rural and city “victims” apparently refuse to pony up for the most basic of services and repairs or replacements like the rest of us do, they expect us to pay for theirs too.
Unfortunately, this same blame-game is permeating Colorado’s primary and secondary educational system as well, as more and more people look to the state and now the federal government to pay for constructing and repairing their local school facilities. Why not? No use paying for something yourself if you can find someone else to pay for it.
It used to be called sustainability; now the politically correct code words are bailout or stimulus, the obvious reason for this series. I can scarcely wait to see the Post’s next episode to find out what else is my fault. All I can say is, I’ve done my best to try to be a responsible citizen.
Thusly the Post’s stern lecture series gets off to a feeble start by trying to pin the blame on you and me for somehow failing to address every conceivable infrastructure problem our state faces (where have all the politicians and their comforting press gone?) and forcing people to live in conditions of their own making, such as having to toss dishwater out the back door. No mention is made of governmental foibles such as misdirecting highway funds statewide or the bottomless FasTracks money pit or the lack of personal responsibility.
Whose fault is it that our roads and bridges are crumbling? Never mind that the railroads used to build roadbeds and bridges that lasted a long time and did not crumble under the pounding of extraordinarily heavy loads and stress. And oh, they were maintained at a negligible cost, a must factor in the private sector.
Issue: Safe water, sanitary sewers. Haven’t those who choose to live in a rural setting ever heard of caveat emptor? (As most people should know, Colorado abounds in rocky soil, impervious adobe and shale deposits.) Olinger tells of the expensive sewage pumping and exporting necessary in a rural neighborhood but offers no clue as to why installing a modern disposal system would not be cheaper and safer in the long run.
The city of Alamosa’s water problems sound even more devastating (not good news for the local chamber of commerce), but because Colorado municipalities possess the unique authority to issue bonds to provide reasonably safe water and sanitary sewer services without a vote of the people, there is simply no excuse outside of an emergency for Alamosa to be distributing unsafe water. What has happened to the once state law that required domestic water providers in Colorado to publish frequent purity test results in the local newspaper so the people may know?
Not only do these rural and city “victims” apparently refuse to pony up for the most basic of services and repairs or replacements like the rest of us do, they expect us to pay for theirs too.
Unfortunately, this same blame-game is permeating Colorado’s primary and secondary educational system as well, as more and more people look to the state and now the federal government to pay for constructing and repairing their local school facilities. Why not? No use paying for something yourself if you can find someone else to pay for it.
It used to be called sustainability; now the politically correct code words are bailout or stimulus, the obvious reason for this series. I can scarcely wait to see the Post’s next episode to find out what else is my fault. All I can say is, I’ve done my best to try to be a responsible citizen.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wanna run for office in Longmont? First hire a lawyer and accountant
As if it isn’t difficult enough already to find qualified people to run for city offices, I wonder if it’s a mistake to keep adding to the red tape that we expect them to cut through in order to be elected. Is it reaching the point of having to hire a lawyer and an accountant in order to run for the office of dog catcher?
Upon volunteering to serve as mayor or councilperson, who wants to risk being fined up to $4,000 by an “election committee” for failing to promptly file some sort of a report required under the city’s convoluted Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act? That’s right, listed in the newly revised version just adopted by this council is a penalty calling for a fine of $400 per day for up to 10 days. However, a candidate can accept coin or currency (contributions) in excess of the limits set by this Act and escape with a $50 fine. “Encouraging withdrawal from a campaign,” whatever that is, calls for a fine of $499. Beware of misuse of the city’s indicia (official insignia which you may or may not need), that’s a $499 fine. And get this: “Any violation of this Act not otherwise set forth herein, $100.” That covers an awful lot of possibilities. Read this legalese for yourself in Ordinance O-2009-12. I’m not kidding.
Also: If the current Longmont City Council members are serious about keeping partisanship out of city politics -- as stipulated in the City Charter -- then they should have deferred to us (the electorate) the right to choose who we think is suitable to serve on their newly created “election committee.” This panel is being endowed with awesome power and authority over our elections and processes, including conducting a court of law, and each member should be voted on by the people. I do not want to see it packed with the usual ideological activists from either side of the aisle.
That will be hard to avoid, and that’s why the council should stay out of it. Take applications, let the people decide.
Upon volunteering to serve as mayor or councilperson, who wants to risk being fined up to $4,000 by an “election committee” for failing to promptly file some sort of a report required under the city’s convoluted Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act? That’s right, listed in the newly revised version just adopted by this council is a penalty calling for a fine of $400 per day for up to 10 days. However, a candidate can accept coin or currency (contributions) in excess of the limits set by this Act and escape with a $50 fine. “Encouraging withdrawal from a campaign,” whatever that is, calls for a fine of $499. Beware of misuse of the city’s indicia (official insignia which you may or may not need), that’s a $499 fine. And get this: “Any violation of this Act not otherwise set forth herein, $100.” That covers an awful lot of possibilities. Read this legalese for yourself in Ordinance O-2009-12. I’m not kidding.
Also: If the current Longmont City Council members are serious about keeping partisanship out of city politics -- as stipulated in the City Charter -- then they should have deferred to us (the electorate) the right to choose who we think is suitable to serve on their newly created “election committee.” This panel is being endowed with awesome power and authority over our elections and processes, including conducting a court of law, and each member should be voted on by the people. I do not want to see it packed with the usual ideological activists from either side of the aisle.
That will be hard to avoid, and that’s why the council should stay out of it. Take applications, let the people decide.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Local representatives: apologies expected
Oh, the AIG outrage! How could we have been so hoodwinked with these bonuses being paid out? Sounds like some people want blood for this, right?
Well, you don’t have to look far. Look right at your local representatives, that would be Markey, Polis, and Udall. If they went through the trouble to read what they sign they might have noticed this little gem hidden somewhere deep inside. But they or their staffers didn’t apparently, so they just blindly voted along anyway like good little rubber-stamping chimpanzees.
When asked about this, Jared Polis gave some smarmy response that, and I’m paraphrasing “yes, much of this was already looked at prior to vote, we knew for the most part what was in this.” Oh really? Did you know about these bonuses? If so, then your vote approved it, didn’t it? I haven’t heard Markey or Udall’s response to these bonuses or their blind votes; someone may need to wake them up.
Odd how silent many of their supporters are over this nationally and locally. All I’ve heard them complain about lately is lamenting over the signing of contracts (homes, credit cards, cars), not fulfilling them, and those darn consequences of breaking these contracts. Well, Congress just did you one better. They didn’t read these bills and budgets, signed them anyway, and we all pay the price for their (here it comes, these types favorite word) malfeasance!
Perhaps our local representatives, and their ilk who all voted for this fiasco should heed these words:
“When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody’s read them. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate, then these kinds of things happen.”
Who said that? Senator Barack Obama November 22, 2004
So go ahead, we’re waiting for your apologies. Better yet, your resignations.
---------------------------------
Had requests for the source of the above Obama quote, I'll do it one better, here's the YouTube with the actual audio:
-------------------------------
additional relevant quotes: Jared Polis said this was a “great bill”, and “There's really no excuse for (members of Congress) not knowing what is in this bill.” During a question-and-answer session with the audience, Polis also addressed concerns that the package contains too much funding, or not enough. "Nobody knows," Polis said, defending the act-sooner-rather-than-later approach. - from ColoradoDaily.Com
--------------------------------------
"We will hunt you down!" thundered Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis during the AIG bonus demagogue-a-thon on the House floor Thursday (3/19/09)
---------------------------------------
Well, you don’t have to look far. Look right at your local representatives, that would be Markey, Polis, and Udall. If they went through the trouble to read what they sign they might have noticed this little gem hidden somewhere deep inside. But they or their staffers didn’t apparently, so they just blindly voted along anyway like good little rubber-stamping chimpanzees.
When asked about this, Jared Polis gave some smarmy response that, and I’m paraphrasing “yes, much of this was already looked at prior to vote, we knew for the most part what was in this.” Oh really? Did you know about these bonuses? If so, then your vote approved it, didn’t it? I haven’t heard Markey or Udall’s response to these bonuses or their blind votes; someone may need to wake them up.
Odd how silent many of their supporters are over this nationally and locally. All I’ve heard them complain about lately is lamenting over the signing of contracts (homes, credit cards, cars), not fulfilling them, and those darn consequences of breaking these contracts. Well, Congress just did you one better. They didn’t read these bills and budgets, signed them anyway, and we all pay the price for their (here it comes, these types favorite word) malfeasance!
Perhaps our local representatives, and their ilk who all voted for this fiasco should heed these words:
“When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody’s read them. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate, then these kinds of things happen.”
Who said that? Senator Barack Obama November 22, 2004
So go ahead, we’re waiting for your apologies. Better yet, your resignations.
---------------------------------
Had requests for the source of the above Obama quote, I'll do it one better, here's the YouTube with the actual audio:
-------------------------------
additional relevant quotes: Jared Polis said this was a “great bill”, and “There's really no excuse for (members of Congress) not knowing what is in this bill.” During a question-and-answer session with the audience, Polis also addressed concerns that the package contains too much funding, or not enough. "Nobody knows," Polis said, defending the act-sooner-rather-than-later approach. - from ColoradoDaily.Com
--------------------------------------
"We will hunt you down!" thundered Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis during the AIG bonus demagogue-a-thon on the House floor Thursday (3/19/09)
---------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A FasTracks supporter no more
How I regret voting FOR FasTracks in 2004--I even helped circulate petitions to get the issue on the ballot. Silly me, being a longtime sales tax watchdog. Did I really want to pay a full 1.0% sales tax for getting RTD table scraps on the northern fringe of the district? And now they're going to ask for another 0.4%? Heaven sakes, before we know it, our total sales tax will be 10% just like liberal infested Chicago!
In Longmont we've always been destined for a lousy deal with the FasTracks plan, yet we pay the same hefty RTD sales tax as someone living in central Denver who has been enjoying the use of light rail for nearly 10 years.
Like many voters, I fell for the propaganda and "cute little trains" that I had sampled at the beginnings of light rail in the Denver Platte Valley. Having many family members who live in the south Denver metro area, I eagerly accompanied them on light rail several times to downtown sports events in the early 2000s. Pretty cool ride, I thought at the time.
Of course, the proposed Northwest Corridor with its heavy rail on restricted BNSF tracks is a far cry from what's been done in Denver--especially the Longmont spur. What northern Colorado commuter is going to want to come into Longmont and park (with fee), take a train to the Boulder transit village, then get on another train back to Denver? I figure the whole convoluted process could take up to two hours with all the stops and exchanges. I'd hate to guess what the parking and fares would total, just for one way.
I'm not a commuter, but when I have to go to downtown Denver I'd much rather hop in my car and drive down there in 50 minutes or so, depending on traffic. I-25 driving is not as bad as FasTracks advocates claim, and the highway will soon be three-lane from Longmont southward (eventually from Ft. Collins) with a new interchange at Hwy 66. We've already got the new interchange at Hwy 119, completed several years ago.
Former Colorado Governor Bill Owens points out that a full build of the FasTracks plan will only reduce metro vehicle-miles traveled by less than 1.0%. Owens favors a T-Rex type model to meet the metro area transit needs. It would translate to roughly half of transportation tax monies going toward highway improvements and dedicated bus lanes, and the other half for key light rail corridors. It's an efficient and much less costly strategy indeed.
Another thing that's troubling with the FasTracks push is its growing connotation with the progressive far left in Colorado. You know these folks (like the Bloc of 4 on Longmont Council) by their over-the-top environmentalism, big spending, taxes, and debt; and basic desire of government control of our lives. Buzzwords like "smart growth" and "new urbanism" are often heard with FasTracks advocacy. It's the mantra that cars are bad, suburbs and development are very bad, and people are to be crammed into high-density cities so they can walk and bike and use mass transit.
Count me as a Longmonter and American who does not want to be told how to live, what light bulbs to use, how big my house size is, or how my personal property is used. I certainly do not want to be forced to pay for a transportation method that doesn't make practical sense for my community.
In Longmont we've always been destined for a lousy deal with the FasTracks plan, yet we pay the same hefty RTD sales tax as someone living in central Denver who has been enjoying the use of light rail for nearly 10 years.
Like many voters, I fell for the propaganda and "cute little trains" that I had sampled at the beginnings of light rail in the Denver Platte Valley. Having many family members who live in the south Denver metro area, I eagerly accompanied them on light rail several times to downtown sports events in the early 2000s. Pretty cool ride, I thought at the time.
Of course, the proposed Northwest Corridor with its heavy rail on restricted BNSF tracks is a far cry from what's been done in Denver--especially the Longmont spur. What northern Colorado commuter is going to want to come into Longmont and park (with fee), take a train to the Boulder transit village, then get on another train back to Denver? I figure the whole convoluted process could take up to two hours with all the stops and exchanges. I'd hate to guess what the parking and fares would total, just for one way.
I'm not a commuter, but when I have to go to downtown Denver I'd much rather hop in my car and drive down there in 50 minutes or so, depending on traffic. I-25 driving is not as bad as FasTracks advocates claim, and the highway will soon be three-lane from Longmont southward (eventually from Ft. Collins) with a new interchange at Hwy 66. We've already got the new interchange at Hwy 119, completed several years ago.
Former Colorado Governor Bill Owens points out that a full build of the FasTracks plan will only reduce metro vehicle-miles traveled by less than 1.0%. Owens favors a T-Rex type model to meet the metro area transit needs. It would translate to roughly half of transportation tax monies going toward highway improvements and dedicated bus lanes, and the other half for key light rail corridors. It's an efficient and much less costly strategy indeed.
Another thing that's troubling with the FasTracks push is its growing connotation with the progressive far left in Colorado. You know these folks (like the Bloc of 4 on Longmont Council) by their over-the-top environmentalism, big spending, taxes, and debt; and basic desire of government control of our lives. Buzzwords like "smart growth" and "new urbanism" are often heard with FasTracks advocacy. It's the mantra that cars are bad, suburbs and development are very bad, and people are to be crammed into high-density cities so they can walk and bike and use mass transit.
Count me as a Longmonter and American who does not want to be told how to live, what light bulbs to use, how big my house size is, or how my personal property is used. I certainly do not want to be forced to pay for a transportation method that doesn't make practical sense for my community.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Control the information, gain control
Suddenly blossoming out with their own taxpayer-funded newspaper (isn’t that nice?), could it be that the members of Longmont City Council see an election lurking on the horizon? Possibly, but there may be something else going on here: the growing tendency of those who govern us, even at the local level, of wanting us to believe that we cannot exist or even live our lives correctly without their voluminous official information being poked down our throats in one way or another. Oh yes, some of it is "good" for us. Yet, as most everyone knows, the city of Longmont's mayor, council and staff already have numerous communication avenues (most of which we can take or leave) including person-to-person, a Web site (which could stand some upgrading), utility-bill enclosures, two TV channels, weekly meetings, a local daily newspaper that’s legitimate, and local FM and AM radio stations. But what better way to attract favorable attention than to control the content of and periodically distribute a newspaper to every mailbox in the city. Who is next to enter this costly publicity game? Will the Boulder County Commissioners soon be publishing their own newspaper and distributing it to us, courtesy of the taxpayers? Why not? How about the St. Vrain Valley school district? Shouldn’t the RTD be putting out a newspaper to condition us into paying higher taxes for FasTracks? Oh, and DRCOG and Gov. Ritter and the state Legislature. Wow! Just think of all the possibilities. First thing you know our mailboxes will be stuffed with government propaganda -- just like the turkeys that we are.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Will peak oil mean the end of aviation?
Since I know some of you in Longmont follow the whole "peak oil" situation, on both sides, here's an article on that subject.
A documentary I recently watched asked the question “Will my grandchildren ever ride in an airplane? It was a gripping question, because the answer might very well be no.”
...rest of article at Examiner.Com
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mayor issues Proclamation designating March 8-14th, 2009 as Girl Scout Week
At last night's Longmont City Council meeting, Longmont Mayor Roger Lange issued a proclamation designating this week to be “Girl Scout Week” in Longmont, CO. After he met the local girl scout contingent that was present for the award proclamation, Councilwoman Mary Blue asked that anyone in attendance at the council meeting who was ever a Girl Scout in their lifetime to please stand and be recognized...
...read the rest of the story at the Longmont Examiner
Pommer, fellow travelers continue disdain for Electoral College, U.S. Constitution
It’s baaaack. Once again our elected representatives at the state capitol have decided that your vote and your voice comes second to theirs. For the umpteenth time, they want to get Colorado out of the business of having to deal with the Electoral College system and go along with this “National Popular Vote” movement. It’s a “movement” alright, if you get my drift.
This years model is House Bill 1299, sponsored by Longmont’s own John “Jack” Pommer,
Democrat – District 11 (pictured). He also was onboard with the earlier versions of this nonsense, as I’ve written about extensively. This time though it didn’t originate in the State Senate like the past versions, usually sponsored by Brandon Shaffer (another one of our illustrious local representatives), and I hope he’s seen the light on this issue – but I doubt it.
Ironically, the House is usually where the previous Senate bills went to die. Hopefully, one of our other local representatives Paul Weissmann will reprise his role and put this in the political graveyard where it belongs.
I’ll remind again that a similar measure went before the voters in Colorado in 2004 and was soundly defeated, rejected by 65% of the voters. But the main sponsor Andy Kerr, Democrat – District 26 (pictured), similar to other pushers of this idea (Brandon Shaffer, Ken Gordon, etc) thinks the legislature should overrule you, even though a vast majority of you voted against this.
So far only a bare handful of states have gone along with this scheme, equaling a whopping 50 Electoral votes. It wouldn’t kick in until enough states approved this scheme equaling 270 Electoral College votes. But these types have a long view of things with their systematic watering down and killing of what they call a “living Constitution”. But that aside (and that’s a lot to put aside) it’s just plain ridiculous for some states to use one system for electing a President, and others to use some half-baked scheme as the other.
Think it’s so great? Put it to the voters, again. Why don’t they? Why do they circumvent the voters and pass this as quietly as possible in state legislatures? Because they know what will happen, the 2004 vote is proof.
This years model is House Bill 1299, sponsored by Longmont’s own John “Jack” Pommer,
Democrat – District 11 (pictured). He also was onboard with the earlier versions of this nonsense, as I’ve written about extensively. This time though it didn’t originate in the State Senate like the past versions, usually sponsored by Brandon Shaffer (another one of our illustrious local representatives), and I hope he’s seen the light on this issue – but I doubt it.Ironically, the House is usually where the previous Senate bills went to die. Hopefully, one of our other local representatives Paul Weissmann will reprise his role and put this in the political graveyard where it belongs.
I’ll remind again that a similar measure went before the voters in Colorado in 2004 and was soundly defeated, rejected by 65% of the voters. But the main sponsor Andy Kerr, Democrat – District 26 (pictured), similar to other pushers of this idea (Brandon Shaffer, Ken Gordon, etc) thinks the legislature should overrule you, even though a vast majority of you voted against this.
So far only a bare handful of states have gone along with this scheme, equaling a whopping 50 Electoral votes. It wouldn’t kick in until enough states approved this scheme equaling 270 Electoral College votes. But these types have a long view of things with their systematic watering down and killing of what they call a “living Constitution”. But that aside (and that’s a lot to put aside) it’s just plain ridiculous for some states to use one system for electing a President, and others to use some half-baked scheme as the other.
Think it’s so great? Put it to the voters, again. Why don’t they? Why do they circumvent the voters and pass this as quietly as possible in state legislatures? Because they know what will happen, the 2004 vote is proof.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Longmont's Cabal of 4 lied, the economy dies
Longmont’s Council leadership in the 9th year of 21 Century has regressed to the imagination and creativity of a 1968 San Francisco flower child in a hippie commune. This fractious partisan cabal of 4 members ignores the interests & rights of those who do not share their private views & interests in the community. Citizens who exercise their fundamental Constitutional rights are punished if they take economic actions opposed by the partisan cabal.
The most dangerous aspect of the Cabal’s anti-Constitution/Charter policies is promotion of class warfare against successful people to promote distribution of wealth. The illusion of progress is staged with put up projects taunting the “affordable housing policy”, in reality the home purchasers in new neighborhoods subsidize purchases for people who couldn’t afford to buy in that neighborhood otherwise. The “necessity” for “affordable housing” is intentionally designed into the city’s economic scheme of things through its policy of social engineering. The cabal’s policy is to put free economic development & opportunity on hold using open space purchases to take valuable production out of the private sector; and using studies and lawsuits as illusionary substitutes for constructive action.
The lawsuits against Firestone are punitive actions to further Longmont’s redistribution of wealth policies. Contrary to Council lies, costs will ultimately be borne by new home buyers in Firestone and by Longmont taxpayers. Good people can disagree, but most of us believe in the same fundamental precept that this Nation was founded upon: equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for all persons. The Cabal’s personal prejudices & political interests are contrary to this fundamental principal which both Nation and City depend upon for unity, prosperity, freedom and liberty for all. The new cabal members lied to get elected and Longmont’s economy dies.
Rich Yale
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Too little we know, too late
Commentary
TOO LITTLE WE KNOW, TOO LATE
“Tree thinning at Heil Valley Ranch.” The Longmont Times-Call reported in its 3/6/09 edition that contractors have been brought in to “thin” (clear-cut as the excellent and disturbing accompanying photo shows) 163 acres of trees on this taxpayer-owned property. Just how Boulder County’s open-space czar can unleash mayhem such as this on the environment without the public knowing about it until after we see a gigantic machine actually chewing up the forest and destroying habitat, is beyond the pale.
There are excuses all over the place, of course. Those responsible call it “healthy destruction.” But what sense does it make, especially in Colorado where it’s so terribly hard to grow anything green because of the thin air, short season and lack of moisture, to deliberately defeat natural replacement? There is nothing new about insect infestations and fires. If the county Open Space bureaucrats were truly interested in saving the forest from insect infestations, they would use insecticides and be done with it. Cutting the infected trees may slow, but it is not going to stop the offending beetles which will simply move on to infect and kill more trees. Likewise, if these county bureaucrats were truly interested in preventing forest fires, they would allow the careful, commercial harvesting of timber and underbrush to create breaks so that the taxpayers would at least not have to shell out $250,000 for periodical “thinning” – an amount that more appropriately should have gone toward repaying the huge $192,000,000 debt run up on us taxpayers by the unelected officials running the Boulder County Open Space department. Relevantly, was this quarter-million dollar job put out for bid?
“This project will make the forest resemble the ones settlers saw when they first arrived in Colorado … a mosaic of uneven-aged forest,” the news story said. Well, who knows what they actually saw? To try to replicate the past is a nice dream but there are many things about Colorado that no amount of money or good intentions can ever bring back. (Note: My great-grandparents settled on the east-central prairie of Colorado in 1888. I’ve lived here all my life. Gone from that region where I grew up is most all of the “tall grass”; but buffalo grass, a sturdy, nutritious drought-resistant variety has survived and taken over, naturally.)
The message? Rather than tinkering, sometimes it’s better to do nothing.
--Percy Conarroe
TOO LITTLE WE KNOW, TOO LATE
“Tree thinning at Heil Valley Ranch.” The Longmont Times-Call reported in its 3/6/09 edition that contractors have been brought in to “thin” (clear-cut as the excellent and disturbing accompanying photo shows) 163 acres of trees on this taxpayer-owned property. Just how Boulder County’s open-space czar can unleash mayhem such as this on the environment without the public knowing about it until after we see a gigantic machine actually chewing up the forest and destroying habitat, is beyond the pale.
There are excuses all over the place, of course. Those responsible call it “healthy destruction.” But what sense does it make, especially in Colorado where it’s so terribly hard to grow anything green because of the thin air, short season and lack of moisture, to deliberately defeat natural replacement? There is nothing new about insect infestations and fires. If the county Open Space bureaucrats were truly interested in saving the forest from insect infestations, they would use insecticides and be done with it. Cutting the infected trees may slow, but it is not going to stop the offending beetles which will simply move on to infect and kill more trees. Likewise, if these county bureaucrats were truly interested in preventing forest fires, they would allow the careful, commercial harvesting of timber and underbrush to create breaks so that the taxpayers would at least not have to shell out $250,000 for periodical “thinning” – an amount that more appropriately should have gone toward repaying the huge $192,000,000 debt run up on us taxpayers by the unelected officials running the Boulder County Open Space department. Relevantly, was this quarter-million dollar job put out for bid?
“This project will make the forest resemble the ones settlers saw when they first arrived in Colorado … a mosaic of uneven-aged forest,” the news story said. Well, who knows what they actually saw? To try to replicate the past is a nice dream but there are many things about Colorado that no amount of money or good intentions can ever bring back. (Note: My great-grandparents settled on the east-central prairie of Colorado in 1888. I’ve lived here all my life. Gone from that region where I grew up is most all of the “tall grass”; but buffalo grass, a sturdy, nutritious drought-resistant variety has survived and taken over, naturally.)
The message? Rather than tinkering, sometimes it’s better to do nothing.
--Percy Conarroe
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Amateurism from the top down
It’s a new day in America, or so we’re told. More like that ghastly movie “Day After Tomorrow” if you’re one of the millions who have seen your job go away or a good portion of your retirement account. We kept hearing that “the adults are in charge now”, funny, we haven’t heard that lately.
Buffoonery is in full bloom from Washington all the way down to little old Longmont. Let’s start at the top and work our way downward, literally and figuratively. From the Telegraph UK, in reference to President Obamas snub of British Prime Minister Brown: “Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.” But what parties they are throwing!
And this gem of true class: “Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.” Yep, in over his head. Maybe Hillary Clinton was right.
Speaking of our new Secretary of State, the Russian media is having a field day with her “reset” button that she gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: “But instead of the Russian word for "reset" (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning "overload" or "overcharged" (peregruzka).”
Which brings us to our local, ahem, leaders. From the Times-Call: “A Longmont lobbying effort, including Dove chocolate squares taped onto sheets of talking points, fell short of securing federal stimulus funds for a new Diagonal Highway interchange. Before the start of Wednesday night’s Denver Regional Council of Governments meeting, Councilwoman Karen Benker distributed the chocolate-bearing fact sheets — and a letter from Mayor Roger Lange — arguing the case for a $25 million interchange at Colorado highways 119 and 52. Benker is Longmont’s representative on the DRCOG board...” It gets better.
In another Times-Call story, at the same DRCOG event (reminder of previous sentence – “Benker is Longmont’s representative on the DRCOG board”): “No one stepped forward at Wednesday’s hearing to testify in support of Longmont’s application for the McIntosh Lake trail proposal.” Did this part occur prior to the other? Was she out buying a $3 bag of Doves? The result was the same whether Councilmember Benker was there (in the first case) or not (in the second case) – nothing for Longmont. Thanks for the great representation!
But what did get approved? Among other things, a project for Nederland that will help them with their Frozen Dead Guy Days. Ironic that Ms. Benker should choose chocolate from a huge food conglomeration (I happen to love Doves by the way – only if dark) at around the same moment news breaks of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory closing its store at the Twin Peaks Mall (another place I love and will miss). It’s almost like dancing on the grave of your constituents who just lost their jobs. Wait, someone did that too, Congressman Jared Polis about the Rocky Mountain News shutting down.
The fun never ends.
Buffoonery is in full bloom from Washington all the way down to little old Longmont. Let’s start at the top and work our way downward, literally and figuratively. From the Telegraph UK, in reference to President Obamas snub of British Prime Minister Brown: “Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.” But what parties they are throwing!
And this gem of true class: “Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.” Yep, in over his head. Maybe Hillary Clinton was right.
Speaking of our new Secretary of State, the Russian media is having a field day with her “reset” button that she gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: “But instead of the Russian word for "reset" (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning "overload" or "overcharged" (peregruzka).”
Which brings us to our local, ahem, leaders. From the Times-Call: “A Longmont lobbying effort, including Dove chocolate squares taped onto sheets of talking points, fell short of securing federal stimulus funds for a new Diagonal Highway interchange. Before the start of Wednesday night’s Denver Regional Council of Governments meeting, Councilwoman Karen Benker distributed the chocolate-bearing fact sheets — and a letter from Mayor Roger Lange — arguing the case for a $25 million interchange at Colorado highways 119 and 52. Benker is Longmont’s representative on the DRCOG board...” It gets better.
In another Times-Call story, at the same DRCOG event (reminder of previous sentence – “Benker is Longmont’s representative on the DRCOG board”): “No one stepped forward at Wednesday’s hearing to testify in support of Longmont’s application for the McIntosh Lake trail proposal.” Did this part occur prior to the other? Was she out buying a $3 bag of Doves? The result was the same whether Councilmember Benker was there (in the first case) or not (in the second case) – nothing for Longmont. Thanks for the great representation!
But what did get approved? Among other things, a project for Nederland that will help them with their Frozen Dead Guy Days. Ironic that Ms. Benker should choose chocolate from a huge food conglomeration (I happen to love Doves by the way – only if dark) at around the same moment news breaks of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory closing its store at the Twin Peaks Mall (another place I love and will miss). It’s almost like dancing on the grave of your constituents who just lost their jobs. Wait, someone did that too, Congressman Jared Polis about the Rocky Mountain News shutting down.
The fun never ends.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory has left the building
While the majority rule on Longmont City Council ignores community pleas to develop the mall, another well known brand has left.
Read the rest of the story at the Longmont Examiner...
Letters that don't get published
Letters that don't get published:
3/3/09 to The Denver Post
COMMENTARY vs REPORTING
Re “Legislature 2009 - Senate debate turns ugly,” news story in the emerged Denver Post, 3/3/09, bylined Tim Hoover.
Attaway, Denver Post: The conservatives are always the bad guys and the liberals know exactly what’s best for us. It’s this sort of crapola woven into the news columns that drove me away from the Post to the News years ago.
If Greg Moore cannot or will not sanitize the Post’s news columns, which seems apparent, then I have no desire as a transferee to stick around.
Sell your ideology on your editorial pages where it won’t stand in the way of disinterested reporting. Please.
–Percy Conarroe
3/3/09 to The Denver Post
COMMENTARY vs REPORTING
Re “Legislature 2009 - Senate debate turns ugly,” news story in the emerged Denver Post, 3/3/09, bylined Tim Hoover.
Attaway, Denver Post: The conservatives are always the bad guys and the liberals know exactly what’s best for us. It’s this sort of crapola woven into the news columns that drove me away from the Post to the News years ago.
If Greg Moore cannot or will not sanitize the Post’s news columns, which seems apparent, then I have no desire as a transferee to stick around.
Sell your ideology on your editorial pages where it won’t stand in the way of disinterested reporting. Please.
–Percy Conarroe
Monday, March 2, 2009
Abandoned city chicken alert!
Something you probably won't see in the paper or hear in council:
Coming across the police frequency - somebody left their house (not for the day, left as in gone) and LEFT their chicken behind. The neighbor called police dispatch not knowing what to do about it.
So even before this ridiculous new law is in force, these city chickens are costing us money in police time. At the same time as this incident, there was a domestic disturbance, someone being followed for committing graffiti, a traffic accident, and more. But time was taken away from these more important matters because of a chicken.
It's only beginning...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)