2009: What a year!

2009 was quite an eventful year for the City of Longmont, regardless of where you stand on the issues.  Obviously, it was better for some than others.  Personally, it was pretty busy but overall pretty satisfying, too.

So lets go through it, month by month:

January - Since I was still writing aviation related articles at Examiner.Com, the Longmont Examiner (my wife) picked up some of the slack of what was going on around town.  One of her first stories of the year was about the ongoing issue between George Marxmiller and the city over a ditch in his backyard.  As of the end of the year, it appears this situation has been resolved to Mr. Marxmillers liking.  The backyard chicken debate took a turn for the bizarre as a lady came to city council dressed like a chicken.  This issue took up far too much council time, but was eventually passed via ordinance.  On the day of President Obama's inauguration, a couple councilmembers, in particular a bumbling Sean McCoy, couldn't contain their soon to evaporate glee.  As the progressives in town tried to convince people they invented the theory of a "day of service", contributor Dave Larison reminded everyone of LifeBridge Church's ongoing activity in this area.

February - Feb 19th marked the day when normal people of the country (non-leftists, progressives, or liberals) decided to fight back against generational theft with Porkulus rallies around the country.  Longmont was represented by yours truly and future mayor Bryan Baum.  Around this same time, the nonstop parade of nuts continued their tirades at Public Invited To Be Heard, all caught on tape!  Longmont's State Senator Brandon Shaffer voted against transparency for school district financial reporting.  The Chamber of Commerce hosted "Unity in the Community", apparently some people didn't get the word.  Councilmember Sean McCoy said we should support paying for higher education for illegal aliens.

March - Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory leaves the Twin Peaks Mall.  Maybe Councilmember Karen Benker should have used them instead of Doves when lobbying for state funding, which occurred around the same time.  Longmont's State Representative Jack Pommer sponsored yet another attempt at screwing with how Colorado splits up it's Electoral College votes.  FasTracks starts going off the rail, as former supporter Dave Larison explains why he can't support it any longer.  The Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act becomes law and the politically charged issue of picking those on the Election Committee is discussed.  The never ending saga of prairie dogs at the airport starts up again, this time it lasts for months, and does not end well for the prairie dogs.  Another of the never ending saga's is the radicals assault on the LifeBridge/Union development - this time it's over a drainage culvert.  Vote!Longmont makes its concerns known about the LFCPA at Public Invited To Be Heard - they should have listened, would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars.

April - Longmont's US Representative Betsy Markey got the first of what would be repeated attacks from her own people, this time over her vote against Obama's budget.  Later it would be healthcare, where local loons savaged her for not staying in line.  Jack Pommer gets caught breaking campaign rules and owed $20,000 in fines.  Dave Larison pointed out the purely political appointments to city boards.  As I started writing less about aviation and more about Longmont and politics, I pointed out how easily people were "Obamboozled".  This was less than 4 months into a presidency that would continue a downward slide.  In what became a front page story in the Times-Call, I exposed the shaky financial ground Thistle Community Housing was on, which was followed by a terminated agreement with them.

May - In the ongoing fiasco at Twin Peaks Mall, Councilmember Brian Hansen proclaims we don't need a new theater, we have Netflix!  I started my weekly Longmont Foreclosure report, things were not looking good.  Contributor Greg Burt writes of LIFT's frustration with the city over the mall.  FOXNews covers our airports prairie dog issue as the city sets aside $14,000 on a fence that will eventually be taken back down within months.  Longmont then begins to kill prairie dogs after being threatened of witheld funding by the FAA.

June - A judge declares Longmonts annexations near the Union project null and void, yet the Bloc of 4 press on blindly.  Councilmembers float the idea of pulling legal ads away from the Times-Call.  Councilmembers continue to ignore the Open Meetings requirement to forward emails to the city's server.  I did my first radio interview on the Amy Oliver Show.  In mid-June I resign as the Denver Aviation Examiner and devote more time to local politics.  Longmont Examiner takes on city council over their mosquito spraying policy, or lack thereof.  Brandon Shaffer gets caught having a Democrat-only retreat on our tax dime.  Contributor Nicolle Pratt slams leftist radical Kaye Fissinger and Karen Benker over the Union project.  Rubber stamping Betsy Markey goes along with the job killing "cap and trade" bill.  Councilmember Sarah Levison wants to find ways to collect taxes from estate sales, the dead can't even escape her.

July - Karen Benker pledges a whopping $66 towards furloughed city employees.  Dave Larison points out yet another $11 million spent on Boulder Co open space.  Longmont drops off the list of "best places to live".  Sarah Levison essentially drives the BMX track out of Longmont after requesting they pay a higher fee.  Contributor Stephanie Baum takes on a local leftwing slime machine after he gets shut down by Mayor Lange as the crowd applauded during a city council meeting.  Councilmember Gabe Santos tries to make a motion to end the lawsuits with Firestone as Sarah Levison interrupts and Mayor Lange refuses to allow it.  Council votes to direct staff to come up with a resolution to end the Clover Basin Fire Tax.

August - In what would later become a major point of a successful lawsuit against the city, I point out some problems with the recently amended campaign rules.  Karen Benker says Twin Peaks Mall is a "dying mall".  Greg Burt writes about Karen Benker using her poltical influence for a favored non-profit, HOPE.  The Times-Call sues the City of Longmont over a vote taken during one of the many executive sessions.  I took the first of many shots at our local Obama-love operation Organizing For America (OFA) as they spread their lies about healthcare.  Transparency becomes a major issue due to email rules being broken and the unprecedented number of secret executive sessions.  I wrote a primer for the upcoming election.  Longmont's chapter of OFA part of national issue over unsolicited emails.  Sean McCoy goes on a tirade calling members of the public all kinds of names.  I answered Karen Benkers ridiculous charge (which Sean McCoy repeated) about bloggers driving away businesses and jobs.  Contributor Rich Yale calls out Sean McCoy on his childish antics.  While playing Mayor, Karen Benker cuts off speakers at public invited to be heard.  Wrongmont revived for the upcoming election.

September - I first write about the LFCPA's restrictions on and forcing of certain kinds of speech.  After supporting a civility committee, Sean McCoy gets pretty uncivil.  Longmont Examiner demands that the city reveal the costs of all the current litigation.  In an obvious campaign stunt, Karen Benker says she ended the Clover Basin Fire tax, which of course was false.  Sean McCoy makes a non-apology apology for his recent antics.  I become part of a group of plaintiffs that sues the city over the LFCPA.  News of past open meetings problems for Karen Benker with RTD is uncovered.  Sean McCoy plays the blame game over the airport prairie dog issue.  Volunteers for Karen Benkers campaign take down Katie Witt signs or place Benker ones in front of them on private property without permission.

October - Karen Benker and I duel on the editorial page over her open records problems.  A push-poll becomes an issue as a Benker plant tries to catch Katie Witt off gaurd at a Chamber of Commerce debate.  The Boulder Weekly does a big story on the contentious Longmont election.  Karen Benker and Kaye Fissinger stalk citizens as they drive around town looking up certain addresses of political enemies.  Times-Call makes their endorsements for the upcoming election.  Karen Benker uses the Election Committee as her re-election committee filing one complaint after another (eventually costing the city tens of thousands of dollars).  Longmont finally votes to actually end the Clover Basin Fire tax, proving the earlier claims by Benker and her supporters false.  After making complaints about robo-calls, Karen Benker makes some of her own.  I point to all the reasons why Katie Witt should win in her race against Karen Benker - and I was right.  Candidate Bill Van Dusen makes incorrect assumptions on reasoning of LFCPA lawsuit, does not help his candidacy.  Federal court judge grants preliminary injunction against the city in the LFCPA lawsuit, which paved the way for the eventual succesful outcome for the plaintiffs.  Longmont Ledger comes on the scene to try to take some ad sales away from the Times-Call.  Longmont version of YourHub stops being printed.  I call out political favoritism and bias on the Election Committee.  Firestone gets creative with their annexations basically cutting off Longmont's legal attempts to stop Union.  My "Vote Out The Progressives" op-ed runs in the Times-Call, people took my advice.  As campaign reports roll in, it's obvious where the financial support was, and wasn't.  Karen Benker supporters resort to flat out lying in various publications.

November - Dave Larision writes "The Bloc is busted" as Karen Benker and Roger Lange are ousted from city council, and Katie Witt, Bryan Baum, and Alex Sammoury are elected and Gabe Santos is re-elected.  Longmont Area Democrats "pray for locusts" as they lick their wounds.  Wrongmont signs off after a successful campaign season run.  Pulling a Marilyn Musgrave, Karen Benker refuses to concede or congratulate Katie Witt, and basically disappears from sight.  I got invited back to the Amy Oliver Show to talk about our recent election.  On a KGNU radio show, the leftwing whiners come out in force, not always using their real names, and go after myself and others.  My guest editorial "Longmont never leaned left" runs in the Times-Call.  As the prairie dog problem slowly stops being a problem, I introduce "The Rodenator"!  Dave Larison answers 10 preposterous questions posed by the losers of the recent election.

December - I get appointed to the Airport Advisory Board - much crying and whining from Sarah Levison and some other nobody ensues.  Dave Larison writes of the Board of Environmental Affairs, and how their 3 year quest for more power is blunted by the new city council.  I call for a scrapping of the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act, or at least a major rewrite.  Airport prairie dog fence is pulled down, wasting around $14,000 on this foolish idea.  City hit with $40,000 bill for legal services during Election Committee meetings, all for around $700 in fines.
--------------------------------------------
 See what I mean?  What a year!  We'll call it "The Perfect Storm".  I have a hard time believing 2010 will be as eventful considering there is no local election this year.  Now, how about some predictions?  Maybe another time.

Read more

Staggering bill for Election Committee hearings

In my recent "Scrap the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act" I said "The financial cost to the city (special counsel and prosecutor) was in the thousands, while the fines levied were barely in the hundreds."  Apparently I was being too conservative.  The bill (up to this point) is in a city document that may make your jaw drop, even I was surprised.  Be prepared to be appalled.

Within the above document, there is a history of how we got here.  Readers digest version:  Then council candidate Gabe Santos received a $5,000 contribution, there was much crying and whining.  Council member Sarah Levison made the most noise on council and demanded something be done about it.  Along with the former bloc, she pushed through the idea of a Task Force who worked pretty hard at amending the ordinance.  Council member Levison, I'm told, inserted herself a little too much into these proceedings (many eyes rolled) and was heard to utter "Brennan Center" a few too many times for anyone's liking.  Figuring since she liked to hear herself talk endlessly, the others in the group must enjoy it as well (I'm told this was an incorrect assumption).

As predicted, City Council is presented with an ordinance, they discard this and that and end up with a lawsuit-inviting shipwreck.  They decide to invite a few people onboard the Titanic in the form of the Election Committee, what could go wrong?  Many on this committee aren't picked for actual election law knowledge, but because they're political buddies.  They (and this is said right in the city document) learn as they go along at an attorneys fee of around $400/hour.

Sarah Levison noted that to follow Brennan Center's example would give us a document with less of a chance of court challenges.  Well, we all know what happened there; in no time flat there was a court challenge and the City is eating it's lunch, a very expensive one to the tune of around $75,000.  Add to that some of the LFCPA is on the verge of being stripped of some of its language.  So much for the Brennan Center.

But it gets better, and back to the point of this story.  The Election Committee's kangaroo court collected a grand total of $700 in fines.  What were the attorney's fee's to collect that $700?  Estimated at $39,048.  That's right, almost 40 grand!

Council member Levison's mistake, or at least uneducated incompetence, has set back the City of Longmont over $110,000!
 

Karen Benker was partially done in with the failing Twin Peaks Mall.

Sarah Levison has the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act.  I'm not sure which is worse.

There is $14,467 left in the City Council Contingency fund, staff is asking for all of it to partially cover this looming legal bill.  And the spending is not done yet, they just got started.

Also within that city document are suggested changes to the LFCPA.  To help out Council member Brian Hansen - all those suggestions that say Rodriguez next to them, that would be me - you know, the guy who's suing the city over the LFCPA.  He was confused about that recently.  Even though I wasn't on the committee, I submitted a ton of suggestions to make this ordinance a little more acceptable and not so much of a lawsuit smorgasbord.

But Ms. Levison and her followers knew better - as we can all see by the staggering bill that's come due.  Imagine if someone did this not within a bureaucracy, where incompetence like this is somewhat expected and sheltered, but at a company. Not only would someone get fired for this kind of performance, but probably charged with some kind of crime or wages garnished for a very long time.  But this is how people act when it's not really their money.

So, two big numbers to remember:  $110,000 down the drain / 2011 election.  Recalls of sitting council members are just too expensive - wait, now it's starting to make sense!  Then again, people could always just resign, that would probably be cheaper in the long run.

Read more

Clueing in the easily puzzled

It's a rare treat for your loyal editor and publisher to respond to the occasional sniping from the pointless peanut gallery.  If I did it all the time, I'd have nothing else to do, and it's boring to argue with the ignorant.

But someone (you've never heard of) has gone out of her way to mention me a couple of times in reference to a recent board appointment, so let me answer.  Her name is Paula Burr (just by typing that, her name exposure just went up 100 fold), an Obamabot from Organizing For America (which probably explains why she doesn't care for me or my appointment) and has repeatedly said she's "puzzled".  I'll try to unpuzzle.

After attending Airport Advisory Board meetings for several years, and often asked why I didn't apply for it, I finally did recently.  The reason I never did, not that it's anyone's business, was due to work schedule conflicts, which has been resolved.  Unfortunately, the timing of the interview process couldn't have been worse: they asked me when I could be available on a particular day, to which I answered, and they assigned me a time right in the middle of when I said I could not attend.  I don't have bankers hours, can't take phone calls on the job, nor am easily pulled away while at work - simple as that.

But, I sent an extensive letter to all council members apologizing and explaining why it was impossible for me to attend this interview and went through my rather lengthy background in aviation.  For all of my critics in town, rest assured, whatever you may think of my political writings and positions, my aviation background, all 25+ years of it, is substantial and I'm more than qualified to serve on this board.

But I heard some stories about this so-called interview process, where one applicant said all the council members (I believe it was Sarah Levison and Sean McCoy) were interested in was what the applicant thought of Tom Zweck and the St. Vrain Greenway!   Yes, those should be good indicators of aviation and airport knowledge, if that's what they were looking for.  My application had all the information any serious council member would need to make a decision, but it's obvious from comments and actions before and after the vote that these two council members, along with Brian Hansen, weren't and aren't serious.

One went around spreading bald faced lies about me, one acted like he wasn't sure I was the same Chris Rodriguez that was suing the city (duhh), and another is busily causing discord within the current board and will likely make a third attempt in 3 weeks to undo my appointment.  And that's not even half the story, but I'll leave it there for now.

But the puzzlement really has nothing to do with experience and suitability for the position, it's all about politics.  If people want to play dumb and pretend it's anything else (or are really just dumb), try doing a better job.  Ironically, these same people say my appointment was purely because of politics.  See what I mean?  Now you see why I don't usually argue with the clueless, confused, and ignorant?

Read more

Despite petition drive, prairie dog fence at Vance Brand Airport in Longmont is removed

You knew something was up when many advocates for prairie dogs filed into the Longmont City Council chambers last Tuesday night to make pleas on behalf of the ongoing issue of prairie dogs at Longmont's Vance Brand Airport. Others channeled world leaders and one was very persistent in being disruptive and placing signs within camera view of the live meeting.

But, speakers also stated that 3,500 people had sent emails and letters in support of the prairie dogs.

Read the rest of the story at Examiner.com

Read more

Scrap the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act

A version of this ran in the Tuesday December 15, 2009 Longmont Times-Call 
 

The Longmont City Council has an important decision to make in the near future:  what to do about the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA).  Whatever honeymoon the new council enjoys will probably come to a screeching halt regardless of how they move forward on this.  Inaction is not an option because of their 7-0 vote to end the lawsuit between the city and multiple plaintiffs (including myself) over the LFCPA, and the terms of that probable settlement.

This was a good first step as it was clear the city would eventually lose this case, might as well stop the financial bleeding now.  Hopefully they will continue this thought process of ending the costly and losing litigation in the cases with Firestone and the Times-Call.  It will hurt a little bit now, but much more later if these pointless cases continue.

Options in this LFCPA matter:

1. Put the ordinance on hold while it is rewritten to reflect the Federal judge's preliminary injunction (Independent Expenditures, electioneering changes, etc)
2. Dissolve the LFCPA and the Election Committee (EC) completely and hit the "reset" button
   

Cold hard truths
Let's face some facts:  This entire exercise starting in early 2008 was a tool of the now deposed "bloc", with some outside help and cheerleading by Richard Juday and some loyal bloc mouthpieces.  It was a direct shot at Gabe Santos and the Longmont Association of Realtors (LAR) because of their (completely legal) $5,000 contribution to him.  LAR is also a plaintiff in this lawsuit, currently the legal bill to settle this case is $75,000!  That's what the City of Longmont will dish out to settle this case, and that bill goes up every day.  Thank you "Bloc et al"!

I believe most on the Election Task Force had the right idea (that's been tossed around for years) to decriminalize the election code, but some members of that task force and city council wanted to go way too far, coming up with the monstrosity we're now stuck with.  It's an ordinance that a federal judge and the Election Committee's legal counsel and prosecutor have told them repeatedly has some possible unconstitutional aspects to it.  And now we must deal with it.

The Election Committee

I'm the only member of the public that has attended every single Election Committee (EC) meeting, other than some of the members themselves.  It's a shame that current city councilmembers didn't witness these meetings, but probably a blessing that the general public didn't witness them.  These meetings ranged from excruciating, to interesting, to embarrassing - and I'm not just talking about the committee members, but also witnesses and complainants.  Far from a high point in Longmont's history, take my word for it.

Some of the members at times showed blatant bias and favoritism, complete ignorance of the LFCPA, or both.  The financial cost to the city (special counsel and prosecutor) was in the thousands, while the fines levied were barely in the hundreds.  The EC should be stripped of all enforcement actions involving violations and fines - and if there's still some version of an election code, just be tasked with amending it as necessary and then be dissolved.  This has turned into the kangaroo court I had predicted it would because of some, not all, of the members and their actions.

What to do with the LFCPA

This ordinance has been a monumental failure.

• It hasn't lowered the amount of contributions as desired, there was more money contributed.  
• It didn't lessen outside forces getting involved in our election, it increased them.  
• It didn't produce a fair and unbiased body to deliberate possible violations.
• It invited a huge and costly lawsuit to the City of Longmont.
• It got regional attention for its unconstitutionality.
• It echoes the disastrous McCain/Feingold federal campaign law and the headaches that has brought us.
• It will more than likely be used as case law and precedent for other lawsuits against municipalities with similar intentions.

Is this really what we want Longmont to be known for?

Luckily we can fix the mistakes of the past, but city council should not wait too long.  We're under more of a microscope than some people may realize, we need to do this quickly, and right.  End this fiasco, and put this ordinance temporarily or permanently out of its misery.  Or at least severely overhaul it.  Give us something we can be proud of, and not embarassed over.

Read more

Enviro board stopped in its tracks

It's becoming obvious that radical environmentalism is one of the chief weapons left-wing Progressives use to impose their socialistic will on individuals, businesses, and free markets. We see it on the national scene with a deluge of climate change propaganda and carbon cap & trade talk, and locally with green building mania and open space overkill.

It seems the city of Longmont's Board of Environmental Affairs (BEA) wanted to get in on the act as well, not surprisingly with lefty zealots Kaye Fissinger and Richard Juday onboard as dominating members. The BEA proposed an ordinance to change the municipal code so they could "proactively" provide input to city council. In other words, they could stick their noses in all city business and affairs as only enviro-Statist types know how to do.

But newly-elected Longmont Mayor Bryan Baum would have no part of this Progressive power play. In perhaps his finest moment to date as mayor, Baum put the BEA in its place as seen in this council meeting video...



The BEA ordinance was subsequently tabled on first reading with Councilmembers Baum, Santos, Witt, and Sammoury voting against the proposal, and three predictable votes in favor by Democrats McCoy, Hansen, and Levison. In a related move later in the meeting, Richard Juday's seat on the BEA was not extended by councilmembers voting in the same way.

Longmont is already reaping the rewards of a new conservative and principled council majority, not the mindless left-wing activism of the bygone Benker Bloc.

Read more

Want to be on Longmont City Council?

November 2011 is right around the corner if you think you might be interested in becoming a Longmont City Council member.  The time to start planning is NOW, not in mid-2011.  This doesn't mean you should announce NOW, but it's never too early to get your ducks in in a row.

2011 should be a quite interesting election cycle for city council.  There will be 4 positions available to chose from:  Mayor, At-Large, Ward 1, and Ward 3.  The latter 3 are from the former "Bloc of 4" (we need a new moniker for these 3 - how about "Loathsome Threesome") and are of the liberal/progressive bent.  Their 4th member, former Ward 2 council member Karen Benker, was unceremoniously dumped by the voters of Longmont.  2011 gives the voters a chance to go for a grand slam and rid us of this element for at least a few years.  They had their chance, and have made a mess of things that will take some time to fix.

How to get started

At the very least you should become acquainted with how the City Council operates, and the issues of the day.  The best way to do this is attend as many council meetings (Tuesdays, 7pm) as possible.  You can also watch it on TV (Ch. 3), but being there, and being seen and heard, has more impact.  Try to get on an advisory board, committee, or commission.  While they just assigned a slew of citizens to boards, there are always openings.  Write in to the Times-Call on city related subjects.  Speak at Public Invited To Be Heard.  Attend various advisory board, committee, and commission meetings.  Basically, do your homework and get noticed.

Time and Money

Getting on city council can be an expensive and time consuming undertaking, do you have the time and energy to follow through with it?  For reference, current Ward 2 council member Katie Witt announced in March for a November election (8 months) and raised almost $18,000.  This was just for an area that was a third of the city.  At-large and Mayoral candidates have to cover the entire city.  Basically, in the last election, the people who raised the most money won.  The ones who raised little to no money lost.  It's difficult to knock on every door, especially in an at-large race, in a few months time, so mailers and phone calls become more important and they aren't cheap or free.

Be focused

Figure out which ward you live in and which race you will enter.  As stated earlier, Ward 1 (Brian Hansen) and Ward 3 (Sean McCoy) will be up for re-election in 2011.  If you live in Ward 2 you can only run for at-large (Sarah Levison) or Mayor (Bryan Baum), or you could move.  As long as you've been in a ward for one year, you can run for that seat (verify this with the City Clerk).  Like Benker before them, Hansen, Levison, and McCoy are vulnerable and easily beatable - that is if they aren't recalled before 2011.  This could be the best chance for an average (non-radical) type of citizen to serve their community on council.

Make a plan

Once you decide you want to run for city council and for which seat, start a soft campaign.  This means getting your name and face out there, but not necessarily in the context of a future candidate.  People get turned off by long campaigns and announcements that are too soon, but you as a future candidate may need all of that time, and raising contributions to be in the game come Fall.  A few yard signs and appearances at a forum or two just won't cut it anymore.  People have to know your name and what you stand for, don't be shy about it.

In closing

This is not the first time I've made a call for citizens to consider serving on council.  When citizens are apathetic to what's going on in their community, we end with historical anomalies like the detestable "Bloc of 4".  They represented influences foreign, and detrimental, to Longmont and were due to voters just not paying attention.  While I did comment a little before their '07 electoral victory, like most people I wasn't very engaged in the campaign.  Since I'm interested in Longmont's future, and weeding out what's wrong with Longmont, it was obvious the first positive step was to, and is to, break up the bloc - which was accomplished and continues.

While I suppose I could always run, I'm more interested in helping someone else get elected as long as they are as far as possible from what the bloc represented, are serious, and have the time and energy to endure a grueling campaign.  But mostly, they must have Longmont's best interests at heart and are willing to serve.  It's not for everyone - as Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen have proven - much to the city's chagrin.

In future entries, I'll discuss the current council members and the seats they will be defending in 2011.  If you think it's too soon to consider these things, you're wrong.  While candidates have won riding the coattails of others and had no clue why they won, like Brian Hansen, that's the exception, not the rule.  Serious candidates and future effective representatives need to be prepared to be put in such an important position - and not the proverbial gee-whiz deer in the headlight kind of novices that have plagued us and need to be replaced in the next election.

Read more

Strange days indeed

After being involved with the Vance Brand Airport and attending Airport Advisory Board meetings for years, figured it was time to finally apply for this board and serve the community.  Despite some pretty shady and underhanded maneuvers by some council members, your humble editor/publisher received a majority of votes to become a regular member for 3 years.  Also, Council member Katie Witt has replaced Sean McCoy as council liaison.  Now there's some change we can believe in!

Read more

Big increase in city budget for legal services

Recession-induced revenue problems have forced the Longmont City Council, like other fiscally responsible governments across the nation, to trim spending and allow for only tiny increases, if any, in the 2010 budget. In Longmont City Hall, this tightening of the purse strings seems to have hit almost every department except one: that of the City Attorney, which will get a whopping 11 percent increase of $90,797 next year, according to city budget documents.

The total budget for the city’s legal department in 2008, under attorney Clay Douglas, was $813,271. In 2009, it was even a tad less, at $812,166. And, yes, Douglas was busy with litigation too.

The 2010 budget for this department, under the direction of newly hired attorney Eugene Mei, has skyrocketed to $902,963.

Details in the city’s 2010 budget document shows all of the $90,797 increase is allocated to “Professional and Contracted Services.” This indicates that despite the fact that the city already hires a legal staff of five (city attorney, deputy city attorney, plus three assistant city attorneys), the city still plans to allow Mei to step up the hiring of outside counsel in 2010. For what purpose, other than to harass a church's development project, is a relevant question from taxpayers whose budgets are also thin.

An example of bringing in expensive “outside counsel” when there appeared no pressing reason to do so, was the hiring of an attorney to oversee the Longmont Fair Campaign Act hearings. Surely, someone from the City Attorney’s department should have been able, and available, to offer advice to the city election committee, if need be.

If Longmont is going to become dependant on hiring outside counsel, as seems to be the trend, then the city council might consider outsourcing its entire legal department, as other cities have done, by inviting law firms to bid for the contract to provide legal services and appointing the winner.

Read more

Ten answers to 10 questions from the losers

Despite an overwhelming rejection of Progressive ideology by Longmont voters in the November elections, local Dem activist Shari Malloy persists on publicizing "10 questions for new Longmont City Council." It's complete with the usual left-wing undertones, and since you asked...

1. Will Mayor Baum keep his campaign promise to improve diversity on Longmont Boards & Commissions?

Improved diversity on city boards is certainly desirable, but not to the point of artificial quotas for the sake of political correctness. Prospective board members should be qualified and balanced and not appointed to serve some partisan agenda, something we saw with the previous council (by 4-3 Bloc appointees).

2. Will this City Council commit to completing the purchase of the Adrian Property by Union Reservoir for Longmont Open Space?

Unfortunately in these tight budget times, the $8.1 million Adrian property purchase is all but a done deal, pushed heavily on the city by Longmont's radical enviro crowd. You could see the entire bunch of Progressives beaming in glee at the city council meeting when the resolution was approved. Most objectionable with this financial agreement is a $2.29 million "loan" from the city's Fleet Fund, required to be paid back in 18 months with an additional interest cost of over $110,000. If the city's Open Space Fund can't support it's portion of the Adrian purchase, then tough luck, no deal. Open space is not the Holy Grail of all things in Longmont as it is in Boulder. Can you imagine how the enviros would be screaming if the city's open space funds were loaned out for a much-needed purchase of snowplows or trash trucks?

3. Will this Council work cooperatively together beginning with allowing current Council members to retain their representation on their preferred boards and commissions?

Of course they will work cooperatively, since we are now rid of the partisan left-wing Bloc and its shenanigans.

4. Will this Council keep Longmont’s ice rink open?

Yes, it's an attractive recreational resource, but with the understanding that it is not the highest spending priority should a budget crunch come down to essential services.

5. Will this Council continue to protect Longmont’s eastern border & autonomy by keeping the lawsuit challenging Firestone’s intended encroachment?

"Protect" from what, an invading army of mongols? LifeBridge Church has every right to relocate and build on it's purchased land (well east of Longmont's borders) and Firestone has every right to annex. The lawsuits against Firestone and the hate displayed against LifeBridge will go down as one of the most deplorable episodes in Longmont's history. The great majority of city residents were against the lawsuits as shown by the new Council being elected in a landslide.

6. Will this Council work with the many residents of Longmont who have identified environmental issues as a top priority for Longmont in the Focus on Longmont forums?

Sorry Progressives, but environmental issues are not even close to the highest priority in latest Longmont public surveys. The November elections proved that as well.

Specifically, will they: a) move forward with a stepped up comprehensive waste diversion program including volume-based fee structure & curbside collection of organics?

Trash collections and single-stream recycling are working fine as it is; we don't need to go overboard with enviro-madness like Boulder. You can bet a "carbon tax" would come next by following the Boulder path.

b) continue the work to humanely mitigate the prairie dog issue?

Face it, the rights of animals in no way should take priority over the welfare and prosperity of humans. Eradication is the only practical solution in most prairie dog cases.

c) work to reduce climate change by encouraging Platte Power to use less coal and more renewable energy for Longmont’s electricity? And d) Step up the green points program by following the Board of Environmental Affairs recommendations?

With each passing day global warming is being exposed as a hoax. Longmont residents should not be subject to increased economic burden due to green mania and leftist political agendas.

7. Will this Council continue to fully fund all the non profits in Longmont?

Again it is a matter of priorities and what the budget may dictate. Full funding of non-profits cannot be guaranteed.

8. Will this Council uphold Longmont’s Fair Campaign Practices Act?

Not if the gerrymandered LFCPA is full of holes and in some parts ruled unconstitutional.

9. Will this Council protect Longmont’s assets in public/private partnerships like the mall redevelopment?

Working with financial assets is right up the alley of new Mayor Bryan Baum's expertise. He'll do fine for the city.

10. Will this Council provide oversight to insure the mall redevelopment will be an economic success for the City of Longmont and not just the developer?

Refreshingly, this Council is not anti-capitalistic like Boulder and will not treat Panattoni as a big, bad, evil developer.

Read more

The answer to Longmont's prairie dog problem?

What should Longmont do with those pesky varmints known as prairie dogs?  Well, here's one idea that not only takes them out quick and painlessly, destroys their tunnel system, but also cooks them to a crisp for this great Prairie Dog Chili Festival I keep hearing about.  Hey, if Nederland can party over a frozen dead guy, why not?

The device?

The Rodenator.



What a concept! It leaves no trace chemicals behind, the local propane retailers get to make some sales, no pain and suffering (you know, that bleeding out of every orifice the rodent protectors complain about with Aluminum Phosphide) and it appears to even aerate the ground! 

I'm sure this, like any and every other method to eradicate rodents where it's not safe to have them, will be equally met with the same outrage by people that put animals far above humans.  Makes you wonder how they feel about Pest Control when they have mice or insect problems.  Having some pest control background, I know exactly how they act - "Get them out of here NOW!  Whatever it takes!"  

In a particularly humorous incident, one of these prairie dog advocates had one show up on her porch.  No time was wasted in calling out Animal Control, and do you think they just gave it a nice little ride to a burrow?  Guess again.

There are appropriate and inappropriate places for these animals, and they've started infesting areas (like the airport and near the Recreation Center and Museum) where they never existed previously.  Much of the so-called protecting some of these rodent advocates have pushed for has only increased their numbers through breeding and has resulted in more prairie dogs having to be killed.  

And they call themselves animal rights activists?  Isn't the point to kill fewer animals?  Maybe it's time to rethink that strategy, eh Sparky?

Read more

Longmont never leaned left

Here is my Guest opinion that appeared in the November 24, 2009 Longmont Times-Call.
------------------------------------------------

One of my more favorite hobbies is to collect data, sift through and crunch the numbers, and then try to make some sense out of it or look at it in a slightly different way.  I’m a political junkie, especially when it comes to elections, so I’d like to put to rest this falsehood that keeps floating around town.

There has been this repeated myth that Longmont had this Liberal/Progressive shift as of the 2007 election.  As they say though, the numbers don't lie.  I've said this before in print and on my website, but it bears repeating:  The "Bloc of 4" did not win a majority of votes in the 2007 election.  Not only did they not get a majority, they didn't even get a plurality.  That's right; they got a minority of the vote.  How's that?  Simple, add up the votes received by Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen and it equals 18,453 (out of 40,051 total votes).  That equals 46% of the vote.

Add up those who voted for the other candidates (Lange, Santos, Finley, Rawlins, Tiger, Brown, and DeVore) and it comes to 21,598 - or 54%.  The Bloc lost 46-54, a clear majority - against them.

You say some of those candidates in 2007 shouldn't count?  They absolutely should.  There were candidates in the At-large and Ward 1 races that split the vote three ways and gave us Sarah Levison and Brian Hansen, respectively, each with less than 50% of the vote.  Paul Tiger would never be mistaken as a "bloc" type.  Doug Brown pulled out of the mayoral race and supported Roger Lange instead of fellow Democrat Karen Benker.  It seems between the two remaining candidates, those on the fence threw 1,005 votes to Brown instead of Benker.  And DeVore only got 454 votes, but for arguments sake, pulling out Brown and DeVore's votes, it's still a 52-48 non-bloc majority.

2008 wasn't any better for the liberal/progressive side.  In the Special Election in January, Gabe Santos beat Richard Juday 55% to 31%, so things actually got worse for the left in the few short months after their “triumphant” November ‘07 election. 

2009 continued Longmont's walk, or run, away from liberal/progressive ideology, agendas, and policies.  The "non-Bloc" as we'll call them, which includes Baum, Santos, Sammoury, Witt, and Dloughy got 62% of the vote.  The remaining candidates (Lange, Benker, Van Dusen, and Fissinger) only got 38%.

First off, Ed Dloughy made it pretty clear of his political philosophy when he said "Democrats scare the hell out of me" at the Longmont Democrat Forum, and he said that he quit that party.  Secondly, it's quite a stretch to lump Roger Lange in with "bloc" type of candidates like Benker.  But to keep him out of that group would give the "non-Bloc" a 76-24 edge! 

While Lange voted one too many times with the Bloc, he was no liberal/progressive by any stretch of the imagination.  And the Democrats knew it as they threw money into his campaign and did what they could for him.

But the numbers show that the Left in this town barely holds any sway with the actual citizens and voters.  Longmont even had a major impact on Boulder County ballot questions by undoing the City of Boulder's vote and the rest of the county's as well.  Longmont also had a higher voter turnout than the rest of the county, which may be a first, and something to be proud of.  And how did this larger turnout vote?  Not liberal/progressive, that's for sure.

The Bloc and their followers had their high point in '07 with 46% of the vote, and it's been all downhill since.  They had two of their candidates (Benker and McCoy) groomed by the organization Progressive Majority, but there is no progressive majority in this city, as the numbers show.  Benker is gone, and McCoy has been a disaster.  Here’s to hoping he and the remaining former bloc members can undo the damage of the last two years in the next two.

ProgressNow, ThinkProgress, and the Democratic Party have spent a lot of time and money trying to infiltrate Longmont poltics - it appears it's having the reverse desired effect, for them anyway.  The message should be very clear from the voters, this year more than any other - Longmont isn't Boulder or liberal/progressive, waste your time and effort somewhere else.

The next City Council election is in 2011 (barring any re-calls or resignations) and we'll check those numbers again at that time.

Read more

Shocker! Organizing For America exploits children

File this under "too good not to repeat" - from the Daily Gut:

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

So "Organizing for America," which used to be called "Obama for America," held a contest to create an ad for health care reform. And they asked "you," to contribute your ideas. Of course, when they said "you", they really didn`t mean YOU. They meant the typical left-wing artist they enlisted to film the ads for them! That`s why it`s called propaganda, not art. Check out the winner.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08viddonatends?source=20091117_DP_ytwinner_nd

Look, there's a bottomless pit of creepiness going on here, but none of it should surprise anyone familiar with leftist propaganda. But here's a quick summary of the ad, anyway: if you don`t bend over for Obama, you`re going to kill these kids.

Which is yucky, I guess, but underneath this lie is an even more outlandish one: that these artists actually give a crap about kids. What they care about, really, is sucking up to Obama,(local examples exist as well) and the adorable brats are just props to serve that end.

Even more, it takes a special kind of filmmaker to get a child to utter, "I`m going to die of leukemia in two years." And it has to make parents of authentically sick kids feel great, watching a child play "let's pretend!" with their suffering. 

But these kids in the video are just acting, after all. Which means their biggest threat isn't illness, but unscrupulous parents who rent them out as tools for pathetic videos.

I predict raging crystal meth habits for all of them, in ten years.

And if you disagree with me, you're probably a racist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
From watching some OFA examples here in town, this doesn't surprise me in the least.  There is no act too low, no hypocrisy too high.  Is it no pride or principles - or gutter level self-esteem?

Read more

They just can't help themselves

The amount of wine (the stuff you drink, not "whine") from all of the sour grapes out there over the last election must be stacking up in cellars.  At every turn the losers (in more ways than one) of the recent Longmont municipal election are lashing out and just don't know when to give up.  The latest example was on a KGNU radio show (listen at this link) with the dubious and corny title "Whither Longmont? on the Right Swing".

As you know, I write, alot.  Too much if you ask some people.  I don't need to hide behind nicknames on the Times-Call website (it's pretty obvious who I am there) or use fake names when I call into radio shows - especially since I don't call into radio shows, they call me.  I also talk/write to a bunch of people all over the political spectrum, usually the more reasonable ones as I try to avoid the unhinged left in the area.  Two of those that I've emailed a bit lately were on this KGNU call-in show, Clay Evans and Jonathan Singer. The problem with call-in shows is you never know what kind of screwballs will call in, even if they're on your side.

I was glad to see they both sidestepped one such caller on a couple of counts.  First, this "James" (not his real name) tried a little butt kissing about dropping the Times-Call and subscribing to the Daily Camera (where Mr. Evans works) which he then paused for validation (a common practice amongst a certain type of caller, and/or the generally insecure or "bootlickers" out there) but got no response.  That made me chuckle.  Then of course the irony of half of a husband and wife team denigrating another husband and wife team.  At least what we do, whether you agree with it or not, is in plain sight on a few websites.  Cowards like this guy hide behind nicknames in the comment section of a newspaper they don't even subscribe to.  Oddly, I alluded to these people on my own radio interview a couple of days before.

Speaking of my earlier radio interview, another caller named "Dan" obviously heard it as he copied verbatim a phrase I used.  This is a trademark of the leftwing lunatic fringe in this city - they lack all originality, and steal and borrow from others at every turn.  I stopped counting how many times phrases or concepts I came up with are blatantly copied or repeated, some of it copywritten, and never with permission or credit.  I'm sure they do it partially to irritate me, but it entertains me more to know they're best ideas are from their political opposite (aka, me).  That's got to sting a little.

Strider Bentson also called in, and while we may not agree on everything, we talk every time we bump into each other and I have no personal issues with him.  But another caller "Bob", who undoubtedly was Bob Norris brought up something that needs a lot more discussion, which I will save for an entirely separate story.

The point of this exercise was the continuing sad people in town who go after the messenger instead of the message, and the price you pay for speaking up.  Thankfully, the message I was sending out resulted in landslide victories for candidates I supported.  I guess these losers will try to copy that now, too.  That should be fun to watch.

Read more

Longmont Advocate on the 11/17/09 Amy Oliver radio show

Another great big thanks goes out to Amy Oliver (AM1310 KFKA) for asking me to come on to her show to discuss Longmont politics.

Click on this link to listen to the show (approx. 30 minutes, used with permission)

We discussed several items, including

• the '07, '08, and '09 elections
• Karen Benker
• Wrongmont
• Executive Sessions and ensuing Times-Call lawsuit
• Firestone/LifeBridge annexations litigation
• The price of activism and free speech
• Longmont's Fair Campaign Practice Act
  

Read more

Longmont Mayor Election analysis

The 2009 Longmont Election had four council seats up for grabs, including the office of Mayor.  Running for re-election was long time councilmember and one term mayor, Roger Lange.  There was some chatter that he couldn't run for mayor due to term limits, but it didn't get much traction, I never gave it much credit, and it became a moot point as it turns out.  Initially, Dan Benavidez announced he was running, but dropped out before collecting petitions.  Jeff Thompson did collect enough signatures, ran for a short while, but then also dropped out of the race.  Eventually, the race boiled down to two candidates, Roger Lange and late into the race was political newcomer Bryan Baum.

Prior to the election season, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Lange would cruise to any easy re-election.  But the noise being made (by myself and others) about the numerous Executive Sessions and the seemingly endless litigation against the Town of Firestone and LifeBridge/4C started taking its toll.  The point wasn't to take out Mayor Lange, at least not on my part, it was a call to reason and to have cooler heads prevail.  But one event probably had the highest impact in not just the mayor's race, but possibly all of the races:

July 28, 2009: Councilmember Gabe Santos made a motion to end all litigation with Firestone, which was seconded by Councilmember Mary Blue.  As Santos was making the motion, Councilmember Sarah Levison tried to talk over him completely disregarding any decorum, and Mayor Lange wouldn't "allow" the motion.  This was the beginning of the end for Mayor Lange, and a beginning to the meteoric upswing for Gabe Santos' reputation which resulted in receiving more votes than any other candidate in the election.

Immediately after this event, Bryan Baum considered running for Mayor and filed his paperwork in late August.  Not long after, Benavidez dropped out, and realizing this was going to be a 2-man race, Thompson then dropped out.  Both eventually threw their support behind Lange, and the attack machine started on Baum from the left wing of Longmont.  There never was any strong concerted attack on Lange though.

What was most interesting to me about Baum's campaign, other than already being friends with him and his wife Stephanie, was how he was going to fund it.  He wasn't going to take any monetary contributions, but instead would have people spend their own money on items like yard signs, stamps, envelopes (for mailers), t-shirts, or whatever else necessary for the campaign, and it would be done as an "in kind" contribution.  This was pretty original in my book, it had more of a grassroots feel to it, but not everyone liked the concept.

I can't say I know how Lange ran his campaign, other than some big ad buys in the Times-Call and yard signs.  But I saw Baum signs at a 2-1 margin over Lange signs, for what that's worth.  In the various candidate forums Baum usually outperformed Lange as he's naturally a more dynamic speaker, with no offense to Lange.  Towards the end of the campaign I kept hearing stories of how people were turning their back on Lange, and telling him about it apparently.  I figured Lange would have an advantage because over the years lots of people had voted for him in his runs for councilmember, county commissioner, and mayor.  Baum by comparison hadn't ever run for anything and hadn't received any votes.  It's not easy to peel away a voter who has voted for your opponent more than once, you need to convince them why they should change their allegiance.

Apparently Bryan Baum accomplished this as he ended up with a 54% - 46% victory over Roger Lange.  Of the 58 precincts, Baum carried 45 of them.  Turnout (37%) wasn't as high as the Ward 2 race.

One of the stranger aspects of this campaign and the election results, was that leaders of the local Democratic Party and their usual mouthpieces campaigned for, donated to, and seemingly voted for Roger Lange - a Republican.  They wrote and spoke on his behalf, they paid for robo-calls for him, they did for him nearly what they did for Karen Benker in her race for mayor in 2007.  The results were the same: defeat.  After 2007 they incorrectly assumed they wielded far greater influence with the citizens of Longmont.  With all of their support, and the leftover Republicans that voted for Lange, it would seem he would end up with an insurmountable advantage.  It didn't turn out that way.

As I said in my earlier "2007 Progressive experiment has failed", I have a great deal of respect for Roger Lange, I thank him for his service on council, and wish him the best in the future.  I believe he would have swung back to the right and away from the "Bloc of Four" once Benker was gone, but he irritated one too many voters with the situation on the eastern border of Longmont, and it cost him.

Secondly, showing solidarity with the left wing of the city is a losing proposition.  Regardless of what they say, while this town may have become slightly bluer, it is still not Boulder, and probably never will be.  The voters sent a strong message that this is and always has been a more traditional, conservative town and it doesn't appreciate being the potential testing grounds for some Liberal/Progressive experiment. In this regard, the Democrat support hurt Lange.  Whatever votes he gained with them, he more than lost with Republicans, which was his longtime core support.

Mayor Baum and the new members of council have their work cut out for them and it won't necessarily be easy.  The bitter losers of this election have made it clear they not only will not support this council, but have said they intend to protest them in some fashion without first seeing what they might do.  Does anyone recall that occurring after the 2007 election that brought us the detestable Bloc?  Even I took a wait-and-see approach with that group, as I didn't have many preconceived notions about them because like the rest of the city, I hardly knew anything about them.  Unfortunately, they instantly played nasty partisan politics and Karen Benker just paid the price for it.

So, good luck to the new mayor and councilmembers!

Read more