Death and taxes in Longmont

You've worked your whole life, you die, your family tries to sell off some stuff for whatever reason (pay off debts, pay for your funeral, etc) and the taxman, or taxwoman in this case (Longmont City Councilmember Sarah Levison) follows you to and beyond the grave to collect.

Apparently someone in town was holding an "estate sale" and Ms. Levison wants the city to get its fair share of sales tax revenue from this sale. She "had an occasion to stop by" this sale, said she didn't buy any of the $500+ items, and has now turned snitch on the people holding it. I'm sure it will greatly help in the grieving process.

She said she "noticed they were not collecting taxes for the City of Longmont". She's either clairvoyant or actually asked them, but she didn't elude to that in her comments. How does she know they weren't collecting sales tax for Longmont or the State of Colorado? That's right, she doesn't. Don't you love those kind of people who show up at places (usually uninvited as anyone who knows them would just assume not invite them to anything) and start throwing their weight and opinion around? In this case a city councilmember making assumptions (correct or not) about a possibly criminal activity, in her opinion.

She didn't say she didn't buy anything. So if she did, was she a known accessory to tax evasion? We'll leave that alone, for now...
Here's the video


Once again, with some people their instincts and principles just come natural in social settings - in this case a nosey, overtaxing nanny-state type. It's not enough that they want to bring back the "Death Tax" ("Estate tax" is just too nice) and tax you your whole life and into the afterlife spreading their misery to those you leave behind. But tax them again when they try to sell your stuff, probably just to keep the house you lived in and paid a mortgage on for years.

But that's not all! She also wants to find out if maybe the state could go after these people, she'd "hate to think that we might have lost several hundred dollars worth of tax income that day". She ended with "we need every dime we can get these days". First off, "we" being the government, is supposed to be us, the people. It's amazing how quickly elected officials forget that and find as many ways as possible to siphon off money from citizens.

Second, if this city didn't squander money away so frivolously in the last 18 months (about the same time as this weak majority has been on council - no, precisely the time this weak majority has been in charge) this wouldn't be so much of an issue. It was Ms. Levison in particular who led the charge with last minute adjustments to the recent budget, things dreamed up on the fly with no public notice.

You must know where this is leading, get ready for....

GARAGE SALES TAX.

...and here's your future garage sale monitor and elected busybody, Sarah Levison, At-Large Longmont City Councilmember.

More rubberstamping by Betsy Markey

Citizens in Colorado District 4 (Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, Greeley, Fort Morgan, Lamar, etc) were given another reason to be proud of their elected representative Betsy Markey. Just like the porkulus bill she voted for earlier this year (see my earlier piece "Local representatives: apologies expected"), she's once again put her signature on a bill she probably didn't bother to read at all. What did I refer to her and her ilk before, oh that's right, rubber-stamping chimpanzees.

This time it's the "cap and trade" bill, probably one of the biggest tax increases in history, but wasn't that said about the porkulus bill? They just can't stop outdoing themselves, these tax and spend types - at least they're fitting the stereotype.

This from Face The State:

Markey says she reads bills before voting, but how could she?

Freshman U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey claims to read bills prior to voting in Congress, but it's unlikely she had the time to do so before voting for federal "cap and trade" energy legislation Friday.

During an appearance on 9News' "Your Show," hosted by political reporter Adam Schrager, Markey said her approach to voting is to "read the bill, talk to staff and people on the committee and then go to constituents and listen to what they have to say." But given that over 300 pages of amendments were introduced to the 1,200 page bill at 3 am before the final vote, it seems that not a single member of the House could have read the bill in its entirety. Insiders say even if a member wanted to review the legislation, a complete copy of the bill was hard to come by before the vote.

Markey's "yes" vote has pitted her against fellow Democrats and her Republican challengers. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, ultimately voted against the bill, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and particularly hurt the coal industry in his largely rural district.

"Well if you read the bill, there's no way you would vote for it," said state Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, who is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Markey. "Her vote represents the special interests that got her elected, but not the interests of the fourth congressional district. To disarm our economy and choke out investment in this country's businesses is just irresponsible."

The bill narrowly passed the House by 219-212, after hours of tense negotiations. If passed by the Senate in similar form as in the House, the bill would mandate a 17 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050. It also requires that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020.

Multiple calls to Markey's office were not returned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Markey is on a tear, she must really be proud of her financial destruction for future generations. Like the above article says, she didn't return calls, and it's pretty clear she only talks to friendly media. She probably won't talk to YOU if you disagree with her abysmal go-along-with-the-mother-party voting record (for the most part). But you can try calling her at (202)225-4676 or fax (202)225-5870. Someone who called her office was told Ms. Markey read the 1,200 page bill. Odds are someone there is lying.

You shlubs in Longmont who fell for her tactics (can't say you weren't warned) can't go to District 4's Longmont office because it doesn't exist anymore. But I'm sure she thanks you for your misguided vote. It was Larimer County who put her over the top, and she keeps offices in Ft. Collins and Greeley.

Don't misinterpret: this is less about this bill (which will probably die in the Senate) and more about elected representatives being derelict in the duty. I don't believe for a moment that Ms. Markey or most, if not all, of the people who voted for this (or the porkulus bill) read hardly any of it or understood it. These people are just drunk with power and when it comes time to actually do their jobs they're too hungover.

It also says something about their character, which appears pretty thin and weak. You're either easy to bully by fellow representatives that add 300 pages at 3 in the morning and they tell you to "trust them" and vote for it. Or, being a new representative (and never forget, a fairly vulnerable and targeted one in '10), you just go along with your party to get along.

Either way, pretty spineless.

Longmont foreclosure update, and new website

The weekly updates for foreclosures in Longmont, CO will now be on their own website. Here's the link:

Longmont Foreclosures

(http://longmontforeclosures.blogspot.com)

Add it to your bookmarks, favorites, and RSS feeds.

Here's a peek at this weeks map:


View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map

Pratt to Fissinger: Analyze this!

(The following is a guest opinion from Longmont resident Nicolle Pratt)

Opening the Times-Call Thursday, June 25, to find yet another Kaye Fissinger opinion piece attempting to justify the increasingly indefensible antics of some of the current city council members shouldn't have surprised me the way that it did. I should be accustomed by now to her tireless assaults on LIFT, a local non-partisan pro-business group, which she evidently sees as threatening to her friends on the City Council. Admittedly, I was amused by her vehement insistence that Longmont must not return to the way it was in “the ‘70s, ‘80s or even the past two decades” and must adhere to her (undefined) vision for Longmont’s future. Kaye Fissinger, the author, moved here from California less than five years ago. Let that resonate with you for a moment.

Kaye Fissinger riddled her piece with falsehoods. She claims there was no involvement of certain council members with the “solely grassroots effort” to run the Union development off (and into the waiting arms of an all-too-eager-to-take-the-tax-revenue neighboring community). This is an outrageous untruth, with photographic evidence to the contrary. Karen Benker most assuredly did “actively participate” in stopping the Union project. This issue is Sean McCoy’s own personal crusade. These are not secrets, and don’t warrant being lied about.

Don’t let Miss Fissinger convince you that this was some sort of mandate by the people, a great uprising and ground-swell of populism. It was actually a very small number of people who imposed their will on the town because they got up and got active. We, the people, slept and dawdled while she and her few friends went out and stood at the grocery stores collecting signatures and ended up miring us in the mess we find today.

Fissinger readily admits that Karen Benker was anti-Union from the start as the “lone vote against it in August 2007” and Miss Fissinger should know well, as she, herself, did “organize, direct and actively participate in this effort”.

City Council member Karen Benker (left) with Kaye Fissinger

at What's In It for Longmont fundraiser; Dec. 2007

"No council member organized, directed or actively
participated in this effort." -Kaye Fissinger; Times-Call 6-25-09

Current city council members not only ran off the Union project, but also instigated the ill-advised attempt to stop another city from developing it and then pushed our city into a losing legal action to try to stop it. And guess what? Now we’re all on the hook for the cost of their crusade against a church development and we’re out the very capable city attorney who advised them NOT to pursue the action that will now be costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well done. This is what happens when we sleep at the wheel, people.

She piously accuses LIFT of secretive actions and tells you to be alarmed by “resistance to responsibility and accountability”. She may as well be talking of your council, who have ceaselessly pursued their own agendas to the detriment of the city and its budget.

Are we going to allow our council to continue this ill-charted course in fighting a losing court battle? Your council has already decided they will appeal. Without your input. In a CLOSED meeting. Without your consent. Talk about a lack of daylight! Do you want to owe more money to this lost cause? The judge found that this council’s actions “exceeded its jurisdiction” and it “abused its discretion”. Are we going to continue to let them waste our city money fighting their own agendas against organized religion and “big business”? (News flash: 4C is not “big” business by any means. We’re not talking GE or WalMart here, folks) When do we say enough is enough? The council is asking our city workers to volunteer for furlough, and yet apparently feels it has no end to resources when it comes to throwing money around for court costs. Is this what you voted for? Or were you, like me, asleep at the wheel?

Miss Fissinger seems to truly dislike the town she has adopted. She writes of the “accomplishments” of this council and screeches of failings of a group of business people who would like to see the city get back on track. I think I can sum up what the council has done recently pretty simply and without subterfuge.

• Stalled a mall redevelopment until the developer could no longer financially pursue redevelopment, thereby forgoing that tax revenue.
  
• Funneled tax-payer money to a redundant incubator.
  
• Ran a large development into the waiting arms of a neighboring town, thereby forgoing that tax revenue.
  
• Scuttled a city attorney who wisely advised them not to pursue a losing court battle with that neighboring town.
  
• Lost said court battle.
  
• Was found liable for those court costs to the tune of over one-hundred thousand dollars (with certainly more to come).
  
• Saved some prairie dogs at the airport.
  
• Allowed the good citizens of Longmont to get back to their agrarian roots by housing chickens, both legal and illegal.
  
• Installed some solar panels at the local pools.

Yep. That pretty much sums it up. Thanks for all visionary leadership toward the future, council. Do you hate Longmont as much as Kaye Fissinger? Considering the fine mess this council has gotten us into, “the 70’s, 80’s and even the past two decades” aren’t looking too bad, are they?
---------------------------------------------
Editor note: while I didn't post the above piece, I found it humorous that the original picture that was included in it was yanked down even though it complied with Flickr's Terms of Use, as shown below:(The Flickr service makes it possible to post content hosted on Flickr to outside web sites. However, pages on other web sites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90827594@N00/2100046688/)
Oh the crying and lengths people will go to kill free speech, it really is sad. -Chris

Longmont's Open Meetings violations

(The following is a guest editorial/city council letter from Longmont resident Richard Yale)
Contingent liabilities associated C.S.R. 24-6-401 Open Meetings Law violations
Dear Mayor Lange,

I am writing as a friend of the City expressing my concern over contingent liabilities the Council may have inadvertently exposed the City to with its secrecy making policy decisions on public business falling under the purview of C.S.R. 24-6-401. Implicit in the statement explaining the decision to appeal the Weld decision is the fact the public policy was formulated in secret executive session. The Sunshine Law says no resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a Home Rule City Council shall be valid unless made at meetings of two or more members of Council at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken is declared to be open to the public at all times.

The June 24, 2009 announcement of appellate action against the Town of Firestone required a resolution or decision and commitment of funding of which there is no apparent public declaration of intent on file prior to the decision making process 6/24/09. Circumstantial evident points to a decision being made to appeal without public declaration of the purpose of the executive session wherein the decision was made and it appears budget funds appropriating funds for legal expenses were made in a blanket 2008 request that may or may not have been discussed in public. However, the case law is quite clear that piggy backing new decisions on past Council decisions violates 24-6-401.

This is serious business, any citizen in the State can file an action asking the Court of record to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of section 401. In any action in which the court finds a violation of this section, the court shall award the citizen prevailing in such action costs and reasonable attorney fees. Council’s failure for over a year and a half to put all communications between members on public record, i.e. email avoided the mandatory requirement of ‘open to public at all times’. Subsection (9) establishes mandatory consequences for such violations of the Open Meetings Law, entitling plaintiffs to their costs and attorney fees incurred in bringing an action to force a public body to comply with the law. Van Alstyne v. Housing Auth. of City of Pueblo, 985 P.2d 97 (Colo. App. 1999), There are many in the public who believe the costs for Council’s Firestone folly should be paid out of the Council members’ own pockets, not the tax payers if you are following comments to news stories.

This has the potential of bringing litigation against the City by anyone in the state of Colorado. Open Records violations bring strict liability rules to bear so lack of intent or knowledge is not a defense. This new risk is probably more that most members bargained for originally. In fairness to them, I recommend Council make a serious effort to bring itself into compliance with the Open Records Act to mitigate potential losses the City faces in contingent liabilities. Start with a stay on the appeal of the Weld County Court. I believe it is an imperative Council make full disclosure of all facts comprising the formulation of the City’s annexation actions in Weld County the past 15 months, open all correspondence in Council’s pursuit of legal action against the Town of Firestone. Where policy decisions were made on Firestone policy, please disclose, who said what, who voted what in the formation of subsequent actions that are at issue today over whether the law was obeyed in the formation of the Firestone litigation policy and funding. Financial and legal decisions that went into the decision to appeal the Weld judgment.

Full disclosure must include the contingency reserve the City should be setting up to handle the second phase of litigation. Given the successful actions by land owners against the City and County of Boulder there is a common nexus with those cases, 4-C and CITY OF MONTEREY v. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 97—1235. Argued October 7, 1998–Decided May 24, 1999 has the City Attorney advised you the State Liability Insurance may not cover council members if they lose a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against themselves for abuse of power under color of office?

State Senator plays it fast and loose with Open Meetings law

The press is asleep at the switch. Oh no, not again!

Yes, I’m afraid so, as all of the reporters, editors and editorial writers who covered the recent dust-up over Colorado Senate President Brandon Shaffer (of Longmont) holding a two-day meeting with fellow Democrats unannounced and behind closed doors at the state capitol seem to have missed the most important point: This was an egregious violation of the Colorado Open Meetings law.

Briefly, this how the law is explained:

“Legislative Policy: It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.

“Who is covered? All boards, committees, commissions, authorities or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making or other formally constituted bodies and any public or private entity which has been delegated a governmental decision-making function by a body or official are included under the law.

“State Public Body includes General Assembly, governing boards of institutions of higher education, state agencies, boards, commissions, etc.

“Local Public Body includes all political subdivisions of the state, such as counties, municipalities, home rule cities, school districts, special districts, metropolitan districts and RTD. (Generally, meetings between staff members are not considered open.)

“Executive Sessions: An executive session is permitted only during a regular or special meeting (a certain formula must be followed). State Public Body (in this case the Legislature) can go into executive session only after two-thirds of the entire body vote in favor. Local Public Body can go into executive session only after two-thirds of the quorum present vote in favor.”

The Denver Post published an editorial mildly chastising Shaffer, referring to the closed-door retreat as merely “a Democratic workshop.” To its credit, however, the Post had earlier requested Shaffer to hold the Democratic Party responsible for reimbursing the taxpayers $4,300 for expenses involved.
We either have open government or we don’t and open is best. Most people outside government understand this truism. What makes so many of them change after we elect them to office? Is Sen. Shaffer above the law?

The voters of Longmont have made two serious mistakes in recent elections by putting Progressives in office. First, sending tax-and-spend Shaffer to the State Senate was bad enough, but after supporting Betsy Markey’s election to the U.S. House of Representatives from the 4th Congressional District, she “rewards” the people of Longmont by closing the local contact office, a very valuable resource that Representative Marilyn Musgrave maintained throughout her tenure in office.

The Progressives (neo-liberals) are moving Longmont backwards, even in City Hall.

Longmont foreclosures skyrocket, McCoy parties in Vail

Another bad week for foreclosures in Longmont (getting tired of saying that), with 14 new foreclosures reported, an average of 2 per day! What made this week odd was that Ward 1, which has the most and usually gets the most new foreclosures, actually had the fewest new foreclosures (3). Even odder was Ward 3, which has the fewest but had the largest increase this week, which was 5. A large number all by itself. Ward 2 sat right in the middle with 4. (You math geniuses will notice that doesn't add up to 14, 2 had Longmont addresses but weren't in the city limits.

So, lets look at Ward 3, the northwesternmost ward in the city. The councilmember representing that ward is Sean McCoy. You may have noticed he wasn't at the recent City Council meeting. While normally that would be a welcomed respite for the senses, turns out he wasn't there because he was at the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Conference in Vail, Colorado. I heard Mayor Roger Lange attended this as well, but I also know he spent a late night at the City Council meeting Tuesday, as did I.

Here's what you may not have heard about that CML "conference", courtesy of joint investigation between the Denver Post and 9News: (read the whole article at the link below, I'll just paste a few relevant sentences)

Official Colorado confab puts scrutiny of work into play
At a time of layoffs, furloughs and budget cuts in Colorado municipal governments, about 600 officials from towns large and small have convened at a Vail resort for three days of taxpayer-funded networking and seminars interspersed with parties and golf.

"It's a little extravagant, don't you think?" asked Ed Bagwell, director of the public-services division for Teamsters Local 17 in Denver. "We've heard complaints from our members. Why are they spending this much in a down economy?"

...But a reporter, producer and photographer from 9News who visited the conference Thursday found plenty of municipal officials who had decided to forgo the panel on "Maintaining Your Infrastructure in a Tight Economy" and instead hang out in the halls and lobby.

Unaware she was speaking to a reporter and being taped, Glendale City Council member LuVerne Davenport said the city brought six people to the conference so they could rotate through the panels and no one would have to go to all of them.

So what do they do when they are not in the seminars? "We goof off," Davenport said.
Municipalities paid about $190,000 in registration fees and for meals.
Central City Mayor Ron Slinger said he planned to attend every session — and still make a 4 p.m. tee time.
"I look forward to Breckenridge next year," Slinger said. "It's even better."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you vomit over that, and wonder how Mr. McCoy spent his time there, here is this weeks map and numbers. Afterwards, a relevant article about housing and unemployment.


View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries (52 total)
Red(pin)-5/30/09 15 new entries (62 total)
Green(pin)-6/6/09 9 new entries (63 total)
Yellow(pin)-6/13/09 9 new entries (57 total)
Purple(pin)-6/20/09 14 new entries (62 total)

Breakdown by Ward since I started keeping track (4/11/09)
Ward 1=63 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, most foreclosures-least responsive)
Ward 2=52 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=36 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping the above info in mind, there was an article on US News & World Report by Rick Newman entitled Why the Economic Recovery Won't Feel Like One. Again, here are some excerpts from it: (emphasis added)

Everybody's tired of doomsayers pointing out how much worse the economy could get, so let's just focus on two factors: housing and jobs. Most people agree that plunging home values need to stabilize before there's any kind of economic recovery. And jobs have to return. Until they do, mortgage and other loan defaults will continue to rise as millions of unemployed borrowers come up short paying their bills. Consumers who are still employed but are worried about their jobs will continue to hoard money, depressing the market for homes, cars, and many other products.

Home prices have fallen about 30 percent nationwide since they peaked in 2006. Isn't that enough? Surely they have to stop falling soon, right? Maybe not. The Federal Reserve has projected a total home price decline of somewhere between 41 and 48 percent, with a bottom in 2010.

Housing matters for several reasons. When the economy is healthy, housing and everything associated with it accounts for about 20 percent of economic activity. If the housing market is in the dumps, odds are that the economy will be, too.

Most economists predict that the unemployment rate will keep rising through 2009 and into 2010, topping out somewhere between 10 and 12 percent. It will be genuine good news once the unemployment rate starts to fall, but we'll still be trudging through a few years of scarce jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, for instance, predicts that the unemployment rate will drift down slowly and won't return to "normal" levels of 5 percent or less until 2016.
--------------------------------------------------------
Glad I could make your day. I was asked in the radio interview with Amy Oliver why I'm mapping these, why I'm talking about it. Just read the above articles, look at the map and numbers, watch our city council in action (both 1 and 2 word versions applicable) and see what they talk about (chickens, prairie dogs, suing neighbor cities, hiring consultants, overpaying staff heads and attorneys, no mosquito spraying) while Rome is burning around them.

But what a grand time in Vail, eh?

Culture Of Corruption: Brandon Shaffer

Like I asked at the recent City Council meeting: Are there secret meetings held to discuss holding secret meetings, or does it just come natural for certain types of people? I was eluding to State Senator Brandon Shaffer (Democrat-Longmont) and getting caught inviting only his own party buddies to a retreat, and Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker and the 1996 Rocky Mountain News editorial about her secret RTD meetings (more on that in another piece), and of course the Open Records debacle relating to city emails.

But first, Brandon Shaffer. I've called this guy a party hack for quite some time now, and the proof is in this current pudding. I know, a lot of you bought the bait and switch of him standing in front of a flag and pictures of him in uniform - but all doubt should be erased as to how this guy ticks. This from the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels: (emphasis and comments added)

Colorado senate president: Exclusive Dem retreat a "mistake"
The $4,300 event should have included the GOP, Shaffer says.

State Senate President Brandon Shaffer said he erred when he excluded Republicans from a two-day, taxpayer-paid retreat on conflict resolution and team building. The event last week cost more than $4,300.

"In retrospect, I made a mistake," said Shaffer, D-Longmont. "I should have invited Republicans as well." -remember that comment for later

Senate Republicans said because they were excluded, the event should have been paid for out of private Democratic caucus funds, not taxpayer money.

Shaffer said he hired a facilitator in part because of criticism this year about committee chairs who were thought to be disrespectful to the public or to fellow lawmakers. Because Democrats are in the majority, they are in charge of the committees. -and are thought to be disrespectful, just thought that was worth repeating.

"I thought it was a good idea to do some training around culture and leadership and the way we interact with each other down here," Shaffer said. "I think a minimal investment in professional development is justified."

But Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, was critical. "If I've said it once I've said it 1,000 times: The Democrats in Colorado's statehouse are acting an awful lot like the Republicans in Congress right before they lost everything," Penry said. "Unemployment is the highest in nearly a generation, state workers are being furloughed, and we're writing checks for team-building seminars? Wow." -stunning, and obvious

The Senate paid $4,200 for the workshop led by facilitator Paul Bernabei of Top 20 Training, which bills itself as an organization that empowers people to "make a positive difference in the quality of their lives, relationships and experiences." The Senate also paid for his $179.20 plane ticket.

The Senate secretary, Karen Goldman, said she raised the issue about including the minority staff. -get that? The issue was raised.

"When I was asked about the Senate paying for it, I said we could do that but I would feel more comfortable if all staff were invited," she said. Shaffer said it was his decision to keep Republicans out. -partisan hack only represents some of you, not all.

"I thought it would be beneficial if we were in an environment where we were going to air dirty laundry to keep that in-house," he said. -like what dirty laundry? Illegal activities?

Bernabei met at the Capitol with Goldman and her staff and Senate Democratic caucus staffers Wednesday and with Senate Democratic lawmakers Thursday. Shaffer said the workshop was so effective and so constructive, "I wish the Republicans had been there, frankly."
----------------------------------------------------------
That last statement by Mr. Shaffer takes the cake for stupidity. He's in charge, he makes the call, if he wished the Republicans had been there, he could have made it happen. He intentionally locked them out of this.

But there's more: From the Associated Press: (emphasis and comments added)

Shaffer defends staffer’s bonus
Predecessor also rewarded workers
By Steven K. Paulson / The Associated Press

DENVER — Former Colorado state Senate President Peter Groff paid his staff $30,000 in bonuses before he left office, according to records obtained by The Associated Press, despite a statewide hiring freeze and a budget crisis that could mean furloughs for thousands of other workers. -nice

His successor as Senate president, Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said he awarded a $5,000 bonus to one of his staffers. Both defended the bonuses, saying their staffers were paid low wages and worked long hours. Records obtained by the AP on Monday through the state open-records law show Groff gave eight employees bonuses ranging from $5,500 to his chief of staff, who made $81,900 a year, to $1,500 to a secretary who was paid $54,248 a year.

“I thought the staff deserved it,” Groff said from his new post in Washington, where he is director of faith-based community initiatives for the Education Department. “They did a great job getting us through a tough, difficult session.” -too bad if the rest of the public isn't doing so hot.
Groff was named director to the new position in May.

Shaffer said he paid a bonus to his assistant, who he said made only $8,000 over the past six months and got no state benefits. -says something about his employer (Shaffer), probably has him cut his grass and watch his kids, too.

Shaffer acknowledged it’s a “sensitive subject” but said he authorized the bonus because the assistant did a good job. -sensitive? But you had no problem doing it though.

Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, paid no bonuses this year and returned $10,000 from his office budget to the state Treasury. “There are a lot of great workers who are not getting bonuses this year,” Penry said. “These aren’t huge sums of money, but symbolism matters. Government should be sacrificing like everyone else.” House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said he didn’t pay bonuses this year. He says the bonuses that were paid send the wrong message to state workers who face furloughs or losing their jobs. “They just don’t get it. It’s amazing. They’re so insulated by government, it’s incredible,” said May.

House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, also did not award any bonuses this year, according to House financial records. -refreshing surprise

Julie Postlethwait, spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel and Administration, said Gov. Bill Ritter left the decision on whether to award bonuses to individual department heads this year. She said her office won’t know if any were awarded until the end of July after the bonuses have been paid. State workers could be furloughed for at least four days in the upcoming months to help balance the state budget. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses

Lawmakers have told state agencies to cut costs by an additional $16 million by cutting salaries or furloughing workers. They left it up to Ritter and his department heads to work out the details. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses

Ritter’s chief of staff, Jim Carpenter, said Ritter is trying to discourage executive directors from giving bonuses this year, but he can’t guarantee they haven’t been handed. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses!

State records show that in the 2007-08 fiscal year, which ended last June, Senate Republicans gave out $37,000 in bonuses and Democrats $26,250. Totals for the current fiscal year won’t be available until sometime after June 30. Carpenter also sent an e-mail to thousands of state workers describing the plan so far. He said four days of furloughs are possible in the budget year that begins July 1. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses!

However, he said more could be ordered to help balance the existing budget or in case more budget cuts are needed because of a further drop in tax revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And to wrap it all up with a bow on it, once caught, Brandon Shaffer said he'd pay back the money for the retreat. Once again, Denver Post's Lynn Bartels: (emphasis and comments added, edited out repeats from earlier story)

Colorado Senate to repay funds
Workshop that excluded Republicans won't go on the taxpayers' tab

Following a rash of criticism, state Senate President Brandon Shaffer has decided to use private Democratic funds rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a $4,200 workshop from which Republicans were excluded.

"The perception was that it was an unwise use of funds," John Cevette, Senate chief of staff, said Wednesday. -ya think?

Republicans were peeved at the use of taxpayer money because they weren't invited, and even left-leaning blogs were critical. Shaffer said he erred in excluding them, and that the cost will be paid for out of "personal donations." -attention, did you see that?

"I think that was a smart move on their part," said Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

Cevette said the Minnesota-based facilitator did an excellent job, and staffers and lawmakers learned a lot, but it was overshadowed by two back-to-back controversies. The brouhaha over the workshop came at the same time it was disclosed that former Senate President Peter Groff paid nearly $30,000 in bonuses to Senate staffers despite a budget crisis and furloughs for state workers. Senate Republicans gave no bonuses this year, although last year, they gave $37,000 in bonuses while Democrats gave $26,250. The House Democrats and Republicans haven't given bonuses for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this sound familiar? It should if you read this site or pay attention to local Longmont Democratic state representatives. Back in April, John "Jack" Pommer (Democrat-Boulder/Longmont) got caught not paying deliquent fines (all the details are here). Like Mr. Shaffer, he didn't do a thing until he was caught, probably never had any plans to pay those fines. Unless the Denver Post put the heat on Mr. Shaffer, I have no doubt he had no plans on paying back this retreat fee.

But here's the other similarity: Those deliquent fines Mr. Pommer paid, like Mr. Shaffer he used "personal donations". That's right, you people foolish enough to contribute to either of these candidates just helped pay for late filing fines and this retreat junket! Odds are if you bought their line, you'll continue to and deserve to lose your hard earned money. But maybe, maybe, you'll learn something and remember about our two local ethically challenged representatives before voting for them for anything ever again, but I'm not counting on it.

City Council needs to re-visit mosquito policy

Below is the (required 300 words or less) opinion article I submitted to the Daily Times Call, which was printed today 6/18/09 with their headline of : "You can avoid spray"

An extended version of this was also printed in my column over at Examiner.com and ran as a link on Topix.com


I am a mosquito magnet, and so is one of my kids...so I was very attentive to the advice given during a conversation at a recent Boulder County Parks and Open Space meeting. The speaker was encouraging vigilance with mosquito repellent. She noted that we have received a lot of rain recently and temperatures will probably heat up, bringing out the mosquitoes and she was predicting that it's going to be a "bad year". I've heard stories from and know people affected by contracting West Nile virus from mosquito bites, so this was not good news.

Yet just last month, four of our Longmont City Council members (Hansen, McCoy, Benker and Levison) recommended changing our mosquito spraying policy and now will only do this when set traps in and around the city catch 100 or more mosquitoes showing positive testing for West Nile virus.

I've watched while some people in Longmont have voiced their concerns at council meetings about pesticides and how the fogging affects them. When fogging has occurred in the past, we get out of our hot tub and go inside. I have a garden alongside my fencing and should fogging occur, I will cover it up with plastic sheeting. Should my dog be outside during spraying, I will bring him in during this temporary spraying event. It's not that difficult to avoid being "fogged."

The City of Longmont often boasts about our outdoor spaces and our many parks. They also are offering many outdoor events this summer and need the income generated from citizens attending. There are millions of projected income dollars tied up in some of these events.

We live next to an open space that collects a lot of water every rainfall...let's hope the mosquitoes are the only ones to have a bad year.

Longmont City Council-Public invited to be heard 6/16/09

The following is my text from my speech at the public invited to be heard portion at the Longmont City Council meeting on June 16, 2009.


I'd like to talk about more than one topic tonite.
Firstly, I am a writer for the Longmont community for a variety of media publications and I think it's a disservice to the Longmont citizens for councilmember McCoy to suggest that any other paper besides the Daily Times Call should be looked at as a source for local announcements, in particular legal notices. Why? The Times Call has the largest circulation in town and if you really want Longmont residents to best be aware of these notices, the Times Call is the best place to do that. I've also heard Councilmember Benker make comments about the paper being “a conservative paper” and have heard that she wants to pull city business out of the paper. They do seem very happy with the pricing Lehman Communications does for providing printing services for the new upstart Longmont Life “newspaper.” I really don't see why this is being made a problem.

My second topic is that I'd also like to encourage the city council to continue to use the current methods to exterminate prairie dogs at the airport. I like prairie dogs and I have also discussed this issue at length with a close friend who has a degree in Wildlife Biology and I appreciate city staff time that has been spent trying to mitigate this issue. But, I think it's ridiculous that in the past two years, that $27,382 of the Airport Fund was directed towards ineffective prairie dog management practices with CO2 cartridges, labor, and prairie dog barrier maintenance which yielded limited results and resulted in having to now come back at a time when the population has only increased with the births of newborn prairie dogs. In two applications of the current aluminum phosphide method recently, the annual maintenance cost is cut more than 50%, which is a considerable savings both monetarily as well as in labor and is more effective. And now I read that prairie dogs are starting to overrun the neighboring Blue Skies Park, which was named after an aviation based foundation that gave this city $10k towards supporting the city ice rink. Councilmember McCoy is council liasion for this airport and the airport is in Councilmember Benkers ward. Advocate more for our airport, it's not just a hobby to the pilots and aviation based businesses there and it has the capacity to generate millions for this city. Attend the upcoming airport open house in August and you will see that.

Thirdly, the city council needs to stay on top of the mosquito control plan and given all the rain recently and the large number of outdoor events planned here...it might want to reconsider it's plan and not wait until traps show mosquitoes infected with West Nile. I was a recent Boulder Co Parks & Open Space meeting and they were concerned about it, so should this council.

Finally, I disagree with the idea that our hardworking city employees should be subject to furloughs to help balance the budget. Instead cut back on the money spent on studies. Cut back on the hiring of outside consultants. Cut back on the hiring of large salary administrators of newly created positions. And end the legal actions with Firestone BEFORE you consider furloughing city staff.

---Brigette Rodriguez

Denver Aviation Examiner signing off

I want to thank Examiner.Com, and especially Nate Ferguson, for the opportunity to be the Denver Aviation Examiner for the last 6 months. I've recently resigned due to time constraints, but it's been a fun ride. I averaged over 5,000 hits a month and went out #4 in my category (Neighborhoods & Culture) nationwide for the year.

But my involvement with them isn't completely over as I'll still help the Longmont Examiner (my wife) on local issues - which is where I'll be focusing the majority of my attention. The opportunity to come back to Examiner is always there (I was the former Longmont Examiner) and their site has a great future in front of them. It's growing by leaps and bounds and is moving up the Internet charts.

All of my old articles will still be accessible and the links will remain on my websites. The question has been asked (several times for the last 6 months) if my podcast is coming back. It was nearly impossible to do it and the Examiner position at the same time, but anything's possible. The downloads of the podcast have continued even after my last recording back in December, and the hits and video views on my YouTube channel and especially here at the blog have been steady and increasing (June 16th and 17th were two of the biggest days ever with the radio interview).

While I still believe the written word is king, some occasional audio and video is a possibility. I've also been invited to join a bigger Northern Colorado project (...more on that later), so time is always an issue.

...now, on to all the fun in Longmont, there's plenty to cover.

Longmont Airport fights prairie dogs and their holes

The following link is to a story done 6/17/09 by Monte Whaley of the Denver Post, in which both myself and my husband Chris were quoted in the article:

"Longmont Airport fights prairie dogs and their holes"

Also read my related article: "Longmont airport prairie dogs could cost city federal funding"

---Brigette Rodriguez

Longmont Advocate on The Amy Oliver radio show

A big THANK YOU goes out to Amy Oliver for inviting me on to her show for a live interview. Amy can be found weekdays from 9am-11am on KFKA 1310AM in the Northern Colorado area or live streaming on the web.

Listen HERE (time: 19:32, break and commercials removed - used with permission)

This was my first such interview, and live and unscripted. I made a few too many "umms" and "you knows" for my liking, which I normally cut out of my podcasts, but not bad for the first time.

Does this signal a return of the podcast? Hard to say. I might be going more for YouTube videos, as I like the effectiveness of the "pop-up video" possibilities there. If I resume some recording, I'll probably do it in small snippets (YouTube allows 10 minutes) on a loosely scheduled basis. The YouTube videos would probably be the audio with some kind of slideshow in the background.

Of course, the City Council YouTube videos will be clips from council meetings with my smartmouth commentary in pop-ups.

Council being dishonest about emails

On Sunday June 14, 2009 the Longmont Times-Call did a fairly large piece on emails and Open Records. It sounded sort of familiar as I've written about it over the last year, did my own Open Records request for these emails, and my wife has discussed this with council members.

Something I want you to keep in mind when you read these stories and the editorial that came out the same day: when you hear a councilmember, Karen Benker in particular because she asked point blank about this issue, don't assume for a second "they didn't know". They knew alright.

April 30, 2008 on this site and YourHub, I wrote a story called "Can of Worms". Do I assume they all read my stuff? Of course not. The point is what they asked during a City Council meeting of their then City Attorney Clay Douglas. Here are some relevent parts:
--------------
At the April 29, 2008 Longmont City Council meeting, at the late, nearly eleven o'clock hour, something interesting happened. Quite often, the most interesting things happen during "Council Comments" at the end of every meeting, it's worth Tivo'ing.

Councilmember Karen Benker asked City Attorney Clay Douglas about (the LifeBridge Open Records request) and it turned into a fairly long discussion covering emails, phone calls, and the recording and reporting of these. Some of you may not have been aware, but every correspondence you send to city council, and presumably city staff, is of the open record variety. And, when councilmembers receive these, they are to forward them on to city staff for retention.

I got the strong impression this hasn't been followed by some on council. And there seemed to be concern about "personal" emails, and when items are confidential and when they aren't. It sounds like very little is private when it comes to just about any correspondence between constituents and their city council members.

Apparently, the proper way for a councilmember to respond to an email is for them to CC the reply to the appropriate city staff email address so they get a copy of the original email and the response. And it was also implied that if the councilmember replies and forwards the reply on, it must include the original email from the constituent or the Open Records Act was not properly followed.
-------------------------
There's more, relating to Open Meetings laws and how this "new" council was advised of all of this. No excuses. These councilmembers were well aware of all the laws and procedures, but will they be held accountable? What do you think?

This was an interesting quote in the TC story: "City Council members who are not making all their e-mails available to the public are violating the Colorado Open Records Act, said Steve Zansberg, a Denver-based media attorney."

Karen Benker basically admitted to violating this in one of the stories (‘Lot of room for error’ built in). Even if it "wasn't made clear to her when she was appointed to the council in 2005", this is a lifetime bureaucrat, are you really buying that? And again, she asked the City Attorney during an open council meeting about this April of 2008, over a year ago! So not only has she violated this statute, she's lying about her knowledge and legal advice on this issue.

I did an Open Records request of council emails a few months ago. I was shocked at gaping holes in time of absolutely no emails, entire months wiped clean. I know for a fact I sent some emails to councilmembers before, during, and after that time period. Most were not forwarded. And as you saw, Councilmember Brian Hansen was the worst offender in this program and Times-Call attack dog Sean McCoy wouldn't even respond for their story. A pretty important issue, don't you think?

Well, not if you're the local village idiots who think Benker, McCoy, Hansen, and Levison can do no wrong. Yes, that's right, they are defending blatant intentional flaunting and violating of state law. Why not? They have the majority, right? The new City Attorney probably isn't aware of what the previous one said about this (and that list grows by the month), so don't expect much there.

So which is it, are they just babes in the woods playing it by ear? Or outright lawlessness?

Longmont foreclosures show no sign of slowing

It was a "good news/bad news" kind of week for foreclosures in Longmont. The good news, if you want to call it that, was that there were fewer total foreclosures in the paper - but that's probably only because the 6 that dropped off ran their 8-week publishing requirement in the paper, they're probably still in foreclosure. The other good news, for councilmembers who are mostly staying quiet on this subject, is that some of the new ones had Longmont addresses but weren't in the city limits. So, they can't vote for/against who runs/sits on council.

Many of the other new foreclosures were in Lafayette, Erie, and especially Boulder.

The bad news is that Longmont is still keeping pace of over 1 new foreclosure a day. This week there were 9 new foreclosures.

Again, these all come from the Saturday Classified section of the Longmont Times-Call in the Legal section. This is the section that some noise has been made lately by Councilmembers McCoy and Benker over the issue of the Times-Call printing ordinances and resolutions. But I guess it's just a coincidence that I also get the information for these foreclosures from the exact same Legal section - which I started doing April 11, 2009 (but thought about doing it months sooner). Maybe they don't like unfavorable (but true) news of all the foreclosures occuring right under their noses, and during their tenure (regime). You wouldn't know, they hardly ever bring it up.

What will it be next week, appeal a losing battle with Firestone and LifeBridge Christian Church?

Here's this weeks map:

View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries (52 total)
Red(pin)-5/30/09 15 new entries (62 total)
Green(pin)-6/6/09 9 new entries (63 total)
Yellow(pin)-6/13/09 9 new entries (57 total)

Breakdown by Ward since I started keeping track (4/11/09)
Ward 1=60 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, most foreclosures-least responsive)
Ward 2=48 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=31 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)

Longmont City Council vs. Longmont Times-Call

The last two Longmont City Council meetings featured something you don’t see very often: the editor and president of the local paper, Dean Lehman of the Times-Call, spoke each night at Public Invited To Be Heard. The topic? The possibility that the city may stop using them for legal notices, advertising, and other services.

Mr. Lehman had to be guarded in his choice of words, and the council members who are floating this idea sort of danced around the topic as well. But I won’t.

As I’ve said plenty of times before, I don’t work for and am often at odds with our local “paper of record”, the Times-Call. On occasion they have been very kind to me, other times not so much. I’ve had plenty of people suggest they are in the tank for the city and run defense for them at times, an opinion I’ve I agreed with at times as they let this poor excuse for a majority on council off the hook way too often.

But unlike most of this paper’s detractors, I’m a paying subscriber and plan to continue to be, as should you. If you decide you don’t like them, you can always cancel your subscription – it’s a shame we can’t deal with some of our elected officials in quite the same efficient manner. I don’t always agree with the Times-Call’s bias, or the fact there is one at all, but it’s been so all over the map lately with its editorials, it’s hard to guess where they stand on any particular day.

But let’s get to the meat of this issue. A few on council have been building up this noise against the paper since taking office in late 2007. It’s pretty obvious that councilmembers Karen Benker and Sean McCoy truly loathe this paper. Ms. Benker made her snide “conservative paper” comment, and Mr. McCoy has been leading this latest charge to end all contracts with the Times-Call. The current excuse Mr. McCoy is using is the $3,786.75 the city paid to publish Ordinance O-2009-21 in the paper. What would be the cost of setting up an RFP (Request For Proposal) and changing how business is currently done? But money isn’t really the issue, it’s revenge.

These councilmembers don’t like the owners (the Lehmans) of this paper and feel they are maligned by them. Mr. McCoy is playing the game that maybe someone else can do the job the city requires at a lower price. Of course he was reminded that the city put a bid out for their own “Pravda”, oops, I mean “Longmont Life” printing and the Times-Call had the best price. He also had to be reminded that printing legal notices is a fixed rate statewide. The Times-Call could have easily rubbed these facts in his uneducated face, but they didn’t, did they? (Feel free to watch the video of May 26, 2009 on the city’s website at the 3:44 mark for Mr. McCoys breathtaking speech on this issue – Better yet, here’s a YouTube video with “pop-up video” like captions).


In a council communication, it stated that the Denver Post had a circulation of 16,000 in Longmont, which seemed awfully inflated. Turns out it’s more like around 6,100. Then the Boulder Daily-Camera was mentioned (est. circulation 2,500), basically anything but the Times-Call (est. circulation 22,500). I’m surprised Mr. McCoy didn’t mention the now defunct “The Agenda” or the soon to be defunct “New York Times”. Odds are “Longmont Life” won’t be used as the Times-Call prints it, but stranger things have happened.

Bottom line: this is a political vendetta, that’s all. It’s not about saving the city money; that would be known as, if I may be so blunt, a bald faced lie. This is about getting at or hurting your enemies, but I don’t suspect Ms. Benker or Mr. McCoy will be so honest to admit it. I find this ironic, as I said before, as this paper goes ever so lightly covering the embarrassing antics of councilmembers such as these two when they could have a field day (as I often do) and really drive up their readership numbers.

The other thing is why now all of a sudden? These two members of council have been around in one form or another for a long time, and as such are part of the old guard they often rail against. Ms. Benker is the second longest tenured member of this council, and Mr. McCoy (as he often reminds us) has been on Planning and Zoning and various boards and the McCoy name in Longmont politics is not exactly a new and fresh one. While they truly define “Old Longmont” and soon should be shown the door in favor of fresh, new ideas and people, I don’t recall the Times-Call taking this opinion, do you?

Some people just can’t deal with what they perceive as their competition, or in this case political enemies. Some on this council have proven they have amazingly thin skins, which is a bad trait for politicians to have. I don’t consider the Times-Call my competition (although they’ve said they don’t feel the same way about me), and I want them not just to survive, but thrive.

But you have to ask yourself, why would our elected officials have it out for the press? I thought we sorted that out about 200 years ago. Did this council not get that memo?

…more on this story as it unfolds.

Longmont running out of moves

Back in May 2008, I wrote a piece called “Longmont, Take The Deal” where I said it was just about checkmate on this idiotic crusade against Firestone and Weld County over the Union annexation. It came as no shock or surprise to hear the news that Longmont got its rear end handed to them from the courts over this. (Times-Call “City’s annexations ‘null and void’ Judge: Longmont ‘abused its discretion’”)

Much of that Times-Call article sounds familiar – as it was exactly what I warned about over a year ago. Let’s go back, shall we?

“Longmont isn't and hasn't been dealing from a position of strength. It really doesn't hold any cards and stand to lose much. The cute game of de-annexing and re-annexing, including certain roads with the goal of cutting off access to the landowners' property, was a dirty trick and will cost the city at the county, state, and court levels if you allow this charade to continue.” – This was the main point of the Times-Call article, the city got caught trying to play cute games, and it lost.

“We've all been entertained by the antics for the last few months by some of your "surrogate agitators and aggressors", but the time for stalling and playing games is over. This deal is probably the absolute best you're going to get; to pass on it would be foolish.” - The deal was Firestone’s offer to let Longmont buy some of LifeBridge/4C’s land for their supposed “buffer”. This whole buffer was always a sham, a stalling technique. Longmont passed on the deal, and may very well end up with nothing at all. Great strategy!

I reminded some on council of this supposed majority they thought they spoke for: “Six of the current seven councilmembers were involved in the recent elections of November and January. When you consider what "majority" you think you're representing, keep in mind only three of you actually won with a majority (Lange, McCoy, and Santos), one of you lost by a majority (Benker in the Mayors race) and the other two got in with less than a majority (Hansen and Levison).”

The following opinion hasn’t changed: “Personally, I think the landowners are giving away too much in this deal. They've been the target of slanderous and libelous attacks by some mouthpieces of certain councilmembers. We all know some of you ran on, and had the backing of the anti-annexation movement. It's become clearly evident that they were never just "anti-annexation" or looking out for what was "in it" for Longmont.” - I suspect we’ll be hearing less from these mouthpieces; was “distraught” the term the paper used? Can’t remember as it was quickly buried. But like cockroaches, there’s always more waiting in the wings to make up for lost or fallen cockroaches.

I also mentioned a "massive lawsuit that Longmont can not afford, and will ultimately lose.” It was refreshing to see someone speak bluntly when Dale Bruns said “If they had any brains, they’d put an end to this before they have more rulings that would substantiate damages that we would claim. And if that happens, they better get out their checkbooks, because we’re coming after them.”

It’s becoming apparent brains are in short supply as anyone could see this coming, well, except for the crazy-eyed anti-LifeBridge, tunnel-visioned types and the fools on council who listen to them. It’s not as if city council wasn’t warned, they were, they just kept on those blinders and now might even appeal this ruling and keep throwing good money down the drain on this losing battle.

Longmont City Council, you’re out of moves – and out of money, our money. You and the staff you’ve directed have wasted enough time and money on this foolish adventure and now you end up with squat. No land (the buffer you wanted), no revenues (from property tax and permit fees), and no goodwill deserved from your new next door neighbor, Firestone.

Well, you do have one more move: retreat. And while you’re at it how about apologies to Firestone, LifeBridge, and the taxpaying citizens of Longmont. Fat chance, I know, that would take class. Something the majority on this council has shown very little of.

As Longmont's foreclosures increase, the city's future gets bleaker

I admit it. I missed a week of posting foreclosures because I was studying other communities and the situation they are in. Okay, I was mostly on the beach in Hawaii, but still I saw how mangled government can make a mess of things. As bad as I think we have things here, and they are on the road to terrible, it almost feels like a third-world country (Mexico comes to mind) at times in that state. What's so misleading is its natural beauty, what's so tragic is what is being done to it. It's a microcosm of what could become of this country (and is in the process of happening in California and some other states) and a lesson our city council should take note of.

While I was away I saw how bad our budget shortfall has become, numbers thrown at council that they scoffed at months ago but now have come to fruition. It's similar to what's occurring everywhere, again especially California and Hawaii, that's being met with higher taxes (or requests/demands for them) and fees. Again, Longmont could learn something from this: We survive on new business and development, a place like Hawaii survives on tourism dollars. How did Hawaii deal with the problem? It raised the tax on hotel rates - end result, the emptiest I've seen it over there. How does Longmont deal with its problem? It makes it clear they are anti-growth and development (or their version of smart growth, which is no-growth in reality) with the comments from certain councilmembers. End result, well, just check how those building permits and property tax collections are going.

But lets get to those foreclosures, shall we?

View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries (52 total)
Red(pin)-5/30/09 15 new entries (62 total)
Green(pin)-6/6/09 9 new entries (63 total)

24 new foreclosures in the last 2 weeks (avg 1.7 per day) and a new high of 63 total foreclosures! This bodes very poorly for Longmont's future and recovery, if one is coming. I don't know what the city's unemployment situation is, but if its foreclosure rate is any indication, it's probably worse than the national picture of nearly 10%. Collecting tax revenues (those things that keep the city financially afloat) from declining home values and assessments, lost jobs, and abandoned foreclosed homes is a tough thing. Try as some on council might to blame everything wrong on previous administations gets more and more ridiculous the longer they are in office, and the worse things get.

Keep all of this in mind as you hear (again) more about chickens this week, and how this council will deal with the major setback handed down to them by the courts over the annexations that are now "null and void" (which sounds like a good theme/title for the majority on this council). Will they keep throwing thousands (more like over $100,000) at Firestone with this ongoing loser of a lawsuit? We shall soon see.

Breakdown by Ward since I started keeping track (4/11/09)
Ward 1=57 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, most foreclosures-least responsive)
Ward 2=46 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=30 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)

Area churches step in to help local schools in ShareFest

While some people in town (including a couple members of the Longmont City Council) continue to bicker, and spend precious funds on lawsuits and question the intentions of LifeBridge Christian Church...

...click here to read the rest of the story by the Longmont Examiner