Longmont Advocate

Go to new site - Lightning Rod!

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:00 +0000

Hello, Longmont Advocate fans (and haters). If you haven't heard by now, most if not all new posts will be at our new site Lightning Rod Blog. Update bookmarks/favorites accordingly.

Turning campaign laws into a political weapon

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:05:00 +0000

Have our municipal elections in Longmont suddenly become so corrupt and rotten that we need a draconian version of the already confusing state and federal fair campaign laws to bludgeon our neighbors over the head with, in case they step out of line? I don’t think so. But that’s what the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act seems to be turning into – just another political weapon.

Forming the city election committee may have been a good idea; but it quickly became immersed in the same old political infighting. The best remedy is to put this subject of political wrangling back into the judicial system, where it belongs.

When an attempt is made to criminalize every little detail of campaign contributions, the matter of fairness arises -- the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that’s where the government authorities are expected to be involved. It’s their job, not a committee’s, to examine, investigate, and prosecute any alleged electoral wrongdoing.

The LFCPA eats up a remarkable amount of time in city council business.

Councilwoman Sarah Levison, in an opinion piece in the 5/26/10 Times-Call, took conservative blogger Chris Rodriguez to task over his LFCPA criticisms, likely bringing thousands of new hits to his website Longmont Advocate. Rodriguez, as his writings show, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself—mentally, physically and ideologically. Most of the big boomer letter-writers around town have attacked him and failed.

But Councilwoman Levison didn’t stop there. Rather than debating the issues of fairness that Rodriguez raises over certain parts of the LFCPA, she uncharacteristically questioned the personal integrity and honesty of her four fellow council members, by accusing them of “disassembling the LFCPA,” causing the city “to go back to a closed door review” where “the council now can effectively shield campaign finances from public scrutiny.”

I say uncharacteristically, because I didn’t think she could be that extreme. Yet those are her words. Although she apologized. I do not know why the four targeted could not be expected to react.

But that’s what we’re into, with this contentious campaign law stuff – in Longmont.

Longmont needs you (and your car) to help to make history this Friday for satellite from space photo

noreply@blogger.com (Longmont Examiner) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:06:00 +0000

How many cars, when placed in a lettered row in a high school parking lot, does it take to spell out the letter "L" in the name Longmont? Five. How many does it take to spell out Longmont? Forty-four. Add the word "Google" and you need a total of 82 cars.

Read the article by the Longmont Examiner about the community effort being planned for a photo shoot from space by Longmont's own Digital Globe in our city's continued plan to win the Google Fiber Project...

Levisons "Chicago" moment

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:00:00 +0000

The June 8, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting might turn out to be one of the more dissected, now and in the future. This is Part 3 (of hopefully 3) of what occurred that night, this time it's the Sarah Levison Show. She had a "Chicago" moment. Not the city, the band. Remember the song that had the line "hard for me to say I'm sorry"? Switch the word hard with impossible.

For those that haven't been paying attention to this story, here's a quick re-cap: 5/18/10 - City council starts acting on recommendations to change the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA), Councilmember Sarah Levison throws a tantrum. 5/22/10 - my Guest opinion "Councilwoman's lack of decorum at council meeting unprofessional" runs in the Times-Call (their title). 5/25/10 - Ms. Levison gets voted 5-2 to represent Longmont in the Colorado Municipal League (CML). 5/26/10 - Ms. Levison's reply to my editorial runs in the Times-Call where she goes after me personally, and the rest of city council for their actions at the 5/18/10 meeting. 6/4/10 - the agenda comes out for the 6/8/10 council meeting, and it includes a reconsideration of the vote to endorse Ms. Levison for CML. For context, see Part 1 with the screaming loony citizens, and Part 2 with Councilmember Alex Sammoury explaining why he brought this back for consideration.

...and now the video for Part 3, Levison's littany of non-apology apologies

My guest editorial was scathing, and it was a shortened version of what is on this blog due to newspaper word limits. It was nearly all written in a matter-of-fact kind of way, with the final argument being Ms. Levison represents the worst of Longmont politics. How she responded, and the above video further proves that point. Her mistake in going after me in a petty way was including the rest of city council in her tirade, again, very unprofessional and unbecoming of an elected official.

I've been personally aware of her temper after she tried to berate me, in front of my kid, over a piece I wrote about the LFCPA long before the amending process was complete. In the end, I was vindicated by a federal judge in our lawsuit against the city, and by the electorate who unceremoniously booted Karen Benker and didn't elect a single liberal/progressive like Ms. Levison. Lucky for her she wasn't on the ballot, but she will be in 2011. I heard of her brow beating of former and current councilmembers when she isn't getting her way. And like I wrote in my piece, she even went after our fine City Clerk, trying to include unnecessary language in the LFCPA to punish and maybe even fine that office.

And let us never forget her trolling of estate sales - you know, selling dead people's stuff - and asking about taxing those and garage sales. And her actions lead directly to the BMX track people to leave the city - she tried to gouge just a little more money out of them. This is politics and governing at its worse, yet she's championed by the leftwing nutjobs in this city as actually being effective, oh, and prepared. Prepared to destroy Longmont's image.

But the performance at this meeting shows much more than that. It shows someone who can't even squeak out a little apology. All you hear are repeated non-apologies, here's Wikipedia's definition:

"A non-apology apology is a statement in the form of an apology that is nothing of the sort, a common gambit in politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation.

An example of a non-apology apology would be to say "I'm sorry that you felt insulted" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and, additionally, it subtly insinuates that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place." (emphasis mine)

Other councilmembers and members of the public insinuated Mr. Sammoury was making a big deal out of this because his feeling were hurt - they were complicit with this weak human trait of repeatedly making non-apology apologies. Do I ever expect an apology out of Ms. Levison for her abhorrent behavior, or Sean McCoy for that matter? No, that takes character and class, something they clearly lack. The larger problem is that they embolden their nutjob followers to be even more abrasive and feel it's alright to take liberties and slander and libel me at will. Why not? Their "leaders" do it, must be okay. It's nearly daily that I'm attributed with writing something somewhere that I didn't write - classic disinformation campaign to undermine the messenger, and the message.

For Ms. Levison to continue to have the gall to think, especially after this meeting, that she is acceptable as a representative for Longmont - in any capacity, CML or City Council - is just plain ludicrous. If she wants to do a real apology, apologize to the city. And make it as part of a resignation letter. No wonder why she wants the city to publicly finance her next campaign.

Sammoury shines in otherwise ludicrous council meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:16:00 +0000

This is basically Part 2 of 3 of the June 8, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting. First was "Longmont loons on parade" where I showed a group of citizens basically making themselves look like the south end of a horse. Thankfully, now I'll go from shameful to uplifting, as I present you the presentation that Councilmember Alex Sammoury made. And attention nutjobs: his name rhymes with the spanish word amore, not Toyota Camry. This video is solid gold, the best of the group (mainly because the next one of Councilmember Sarah Levison is mostly pathetic).

When I wrote in "Free to be deranged and delusional" that "Maybe it's time to invoke RULE 19 she (Sarah Levison) so loves where someone on council who voted in favor of something can bring it back for reconsideration. It's in the charter, lets put it to good use", I didn't actually expect it to happen - nor did I write council members demanding or asking for it either. I'm actually more pragmatic than people may assume, and figured this was going to be more than a hassle than it was worth. Even though Ms. Levison tried repeatedly to invoke this rule to oust me from the Airport Advisory Board. I hoped that if anyone tried it, they'd better make it pretty damn convincing.

Alex Sammoury did.

As you can see in the video, he went point by point quite methodically why it was appropriate to question the judgment, fairness, and representational skills of Ms. Levison. He also answered many if not all of the ridiculous charges and insults by the people who yelled at council during Public Invited To Be Heard. Those people were Sarah Levison's people, make no mistake, and she is their councilmember - along with Sean McCoy and Brian Hansen (all up for reelection in 2011).

I especially liked how Mr. Sammoury answered the critics who go on and on about democracy. Someone has to say the following, and this is me talking, not Mr. Sammoury: Their brand of "democracy" isn't what you and I think it is - it's closer to things like Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), German Democratic Republic (the old communist East Germany), and various groups with "democratic" or "democracy" as part of their name who are really Socialist or Communist in nature. And no, I'm not talking about the Democratic Party in this country, although their big tent no doubt includes these people. Use extreme caution when people overuse that word (unless their oblivious to how others are using it) as their agenda is often the complete opposite of democracy. Their intent is mob rule - not what our country was founded on.

He went through actual votes, not the mob's twisting of what they think occurred. This was all fact-based, and brilliant. See, some play on emotion and the hope that the casual observer will buy their particular brand of swill - why not, it worked for Barack Obama. Serious people can just present the facts, as boring as they may appear to the screamers and drama queens. The other thing to keep in mind is that the loons are not very original and have been stealing ideas for quite a while now. I'm not going to bother going down the long list, but the latest is now assign the word "bloc" to some on council in the way it was correctly assigned to the former "Benker Bloc" that was in charge from '07-'09. Mr. Sammoury destroyed this concept as he pointed out that 74% of the votes taken since the election of 2009 were unanimous (for you in Boulder or leftwingers in Longmont, that means 7-0). Only 8% were 4-3 with the same four council members.

Then other councilmembers said Mr. Sammoury got his feelings hurt, or some such nonsense, nevermind the factual argument he presented. It's funny how the followers of those three councilmembers (Levison, McCoy, and Hansen) say how smart these elected officials are - they looked anything but intelligent at this meeting. Mr. Sammoury made it clear that it wasn't himself that was offended, but that she disrespected the office of City Council - by her childish and vindictive behavior (my words, not his).

Mayor Bryan Baum was right on the money that people "shouldn't be given a pass" for how Ms. Levison conducts herself. He and Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Santos both said they voted against her the first time (and then a second time) because she was not what they considered to be a good representative for Longmont. And they're right. Unfortunately, Councilmember Katie Witt again voted to endorse Ms. Levison for the Colorado Municipal League (CML), which based on the video was obviously a difficult thing to do. This was a mistake.

I am no fan of "go along to get along" when you are dealing with agenda-driven partisan ideological goons, which is exactly what we have with Progressive Majority-trained hacks like Karen Benker and Sean McCoy - and their fellow travelers like Sarah Levison. Try as they may to act like they're just like your next door neighbor, normal everyday people - they're not. They're groomed by the same failed leadership of this (currently) blue state and federal government. They wanted total control, and got it - and are failing miserable at every level. Longmont was quick in correcting this mistake in '09 and not a single liberal/progressive was voted into office (one was voted OUT as a matter of fact).

Alex Sammoury called it like it was, and is sure to become Public Enemy #1 for daring to do so. I say don't worry about it - they were never going to vote for him anyway and good riddance to bad rubbish. Job well done.

Longmont loons on parade

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:23:00 +0000

Enjoy the video below of highlights of Public Invited To Be Heard at the June 8, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting. It's bad enough unedited, but I had to add my special touch to help get you all the way through it.

In the video I reference some articles, and here they are:

My guest editorial which started quite a firestorm, in it's full unedited version, was called "Tantrums as a tactic" and had to do with Councilmember Sarah Levison's abhorrent behavior during a council meeting.

Also, the piece I wrote that Strider Benston labeled as "assault" was "Neverending record correcting". I won't let these bums (literally and/or figuratively) lie about me or what I've said, regardless if they're elected or not. Everything I write is right here to be read and verified.

Lastly, in the paper, online, and in this video Sarah Levison keeps being described as "prepared". Too often to be a coincidence. So here's a new product with this in mind.

Communique to City Council

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:07:00 +0000

To me (and I’m writing this in first person to emphasize that these remarks are mine) the dust-up over the appointment of a Longmont City Council member to the board of the Colorado Municipal League is not worth the flared tempers it ignites when the real issue of contention—especially during a stubborn recession like the one we’re in that requires serious cuts in the city budget--is whether the taxpayers of Longmont should continue throwing their money (upwards of $45,000 a year) at this primarily social organization which also performs lobbying. CML depends solely on dues it collects from nearly every city and town in Colorado. Last year the take totaled around $1.765 million, yet CML pays no property taxes on the $1.594 million headquarters property it owns at 1144 Sherman Street in downtown Denver to help support city services and the schools. I say cut the umbilical cord and use these CML dues locally—where the need is greater.

Free to be deranged and delusional

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:37:00 +0000

You may have noticed our motto on the right as "a mentally balanced community of adult contributors". If on the other hand you'd like to see what the alternative looks like, I can point you in that direction if you prefer.

It would be a full time job correcting the lazy writing and fact checking of our local leftward loons, but that would assume they have much of an audience, so why waste the time? Previously, they claimed my wife was at some function she was miles from, and now one of their contributors claimed I wrote something I didn't, and that I "write for big money". I'll wait for you to stop laughing.

I guess it's an easy mistake...if you can't read or comprehend. The story in question even says within it who wrote it. I may agree with the sentiment of the letter, but alas, I didn't write it. And this "big money" thing - I wish! These goofy concepts, and the tinfoil conspiracy title of "Is there a pattern here?" was by James Kenworthy. He and others are big into this goofy Transition Longmont concept (where we should all live in mudhuts, with no electricity, and employ and enjoy the use of an outhouse) and "Peak Oil", which lately has been shown to be as equally hoaxworthy as manmade global warming. Just keep watching that oil gush out in the Gulf of Mexico as you ponder the "end of oil supplies." Which reminds me, their fearless leader Barack Obama sure took some money from BP and other oil companies, didn't he?

And the bigger fraud behind anyone on the Left making any complaints about "big money" need to be reminded of the "Fab 4" (Gill, Polis, Stryker, and Bridges) and the millions they threw into Colorado elections. They paid astroturfers to canvass the state, people similar to who you'll see spew the above nonsense. Sure they'd want the rules changed now, they wouldn't want anyone doing what they just got away with.

Amongst the other tripe posted is the same old replies to my scathing review of Councilmember Sarah Levison's performance at a recent meeting - (go ahead, get it out of your system, but know you're being laughed at) including one from Ms. Levison herself. Don't bother with the lackeys playing defense for her, read her own words. Again, this is the beauty of free speech and why I'd never want to squelch it. Given enough rope, these people hang themselves.

What you'll see in Ms. Levison's reply, in addition to insulting the majority of her own council, is the same nonsense and deflecting (in addition to endless yammering) she employs at council meetings. I spoke about specific unprofessional activities and an overall lack of decorum - and gave examples. She whines about my "typical unrelenting and spurious personal attacks" and uses Ronald Reagan not once, but twice - which is hilarious coming from a committed leftist who probably hated everything he ever said or stood for.

She then said I tried to "deflect attention from the reality that the current City Council has disassembled the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act". Deflect? She must be kidding. I've written about the LFCPA probably more than anyone, including a letter to City Council (which unfortunately and hopefully temporarily includes her) that the LFCPA should be disassembled, and exactly how I'd like to see it changed. Perhaps she discarded that email, but it's not my fault if she ignores some constituents. I also posted it on this site here. My bet is she read it.

And then the gall for Ms. Levison to say that "now we must go back to a system where campaign reports have a closed-door review" when it was her who tried to push an "ordinance review committee" which would have made a system where this law would go under its own "closed-door review". She says I might distract you by my "pugnacious tone", whatever, I couldn't care less what she and her moronic drones say about me - but you also shouldn't be distracted by her smokescreen approach to honest government.

I reiterate that people who can't control themselves on council, and who are part of a group who make personal attacks on citizens (as long as Ms. Levison is on that website, she's one of them) - have no place in elected office. Ms. Levison was just elected the Longmont representative for the Colorado Municipal League (CML) by City Council, a mistake in my opinion. Maybe it's time to invoke RULE 19 she so loves where someone on council who voted in favor of something can bring it back for reconsideration. It's in the charter, lets put it to good use.

Message to City Council

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:10:00 +0000

Re: the proposed use of cameras in Longmont to nail traffic violators, “Local police field camera concerns,” Times-Call 5-27-10.

I think that, at some point in a supposedly civilized culture, we’ve got to ask ourselves just how far we should go in removing the human element from our law enforcement activities as we go about policing one another in the public domain, and instead rely more and more on robots and machines to carry out those duties and serve that purpose.
The deterrent factor of using hardware is obvious but what kind of a community is it that finds it necessary to line its streets—as eventually will happen--with cameras to try to catch traffic violators? Is the situation here in Longmont all that bad, and is our police force really that understaffed?

Some who promote this camera idea say, “oh no, revenue is not the reason.” Well, it is for somebody in the food chain. That another city or 10,000 other cities use this stealth methodology should make no difference; this is our community and perhaps we don’t want to see our police activities become depersonalized.

No one has explained why, when the camera arrests you, you are automatically guilty but no points are added to your driving record. That’s odd. Indirectly, however, there’s a numbers angle. People’s names scarcely mean a thing nowadays – everywhere we go anymore we’re just a cold, calculated number. In this remote traffic-photo game, you won’t get to talk to the arresting officer or a judge; you’re just another number to be processed through the system. No plea-bargains here; pay up and shut up.

Lest anyone believe from my remarks that I’m in favor of lawbreakers, forget it. One cop on the street in my estimation is worth dozens of undercover cameras. When drivers see a police cruiser their driving habits usually improve, often dramatically. In a small, friendly city like Longmont, I believe it’s still good policy for the police, who we should regard as our friends, to be visible.

Drop the gadgetry and patrol the streets.

Local angle on potential national bombshell

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 28 May 2010 07:24:00 +0000

That ever so subtle whiff of possible felonious activity you may or not be aware of at President Obama's cabinet level is also something addressed at the local level in Longmont. The current Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act has a provision for "encouraging withdrawal from a campaign". The federal version is an impeachable offense and could land one in prison, the local version carries the highest penalty ($499) of any any offense in the ordinance.

If you're totally unaware of what I'm talking about, you should get up to speed, this could get interesting - and it has local implications. It's understandable if you haven't heard this yet as some of it has been fairly buried since a September 27, 2009 Denver Post article, but has gone from a little noticed story to a question in President Obama's recent press conference, which he said he'd get back to them about.

For those that don't know, or don't think it's such a big deal, it's against the law to offer someone money or some other benefit to get out of a campaign. Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman and Senate candidate Joe Sestak said he was offered a job in the Obama administration if he pulled out of the race against the Obama supported candidate Arlen Specter. As usual, every Obama endorsement pretty much turns to crap, as did the one he granted Specter, and Sestak won. Sestak repeated the charge when asked recently, but now won't talk about it anymore.

The 9/27/09 Denver Post article talks about a similar situation involving Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, where he was offered a job at USAID by Jim Messina, Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff. That would be Rahm Emanuel's #2 guy. An interesting line from the DP story was this: "Yet several top Colorado Democrats described Messina's outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject." It then quoted Colorado Democratic State Senator Chris Romer as saying the White House has "every right" to get involved in the race. Does that right include breaking the law?

And I wonder who these "top Colorado Democrats" were? If they weren't elected ones, could they be those famous, or infamous, Colorado Model people? As of this writing, a few prominent leftwing blogs haven't said a peep about this story as I'm sure they get some funding from the CM'rs and others who would like to see this all just go away. That's not very likely. Heads might roll on this one, question is, who's?

What will be entertaining to watch are all of these people hauled into court and put under oath. That includes the Denver Post's temporarily "anonymous" sources. That includes Sestak, Romanoff, Messina, Emanuel, and yes, Obama himself. What about Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, the person Obama endorsed and theoretically tried to help by getting rid of his competition? What about other state and federal Democratic operatives? This is going to get good, and right in the middle of an election season.

Tick tock, tick tock.

Money didn't buy seats

noreply@blogger.com (Longmont Examiner) — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:50:00 +0000

(As printed in the Times Call opinion section 5/24/10)

At the May 18th Longmont City Council meeting, I found it deplorable that a representative from a local partisan group would insinuate that because city council candidates who were appointed received more money, that they were only elected because they brought in more money. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Candidates who lost...lost because they were inferior candidates.
Voters who took the time to vote aren't stupid. Then to read a letter from this partisan party representative in the Times Call looking for more volunteers for petition distributors to help push for Clean Campaigns to keep ‘special interests’ out of elections. Since when is a partisan group not working for their own special interests? Seeing how known members of one party keep speaking about this, it’s apparent that this is a partisan backed, agenda driven petition.

One candidate who overwhelmingly beat the incumbent raised a lot of money in this election because multiple community members donated to her (check her reports, most were small contributions). If her opponent was separately assailed by outside groups, it’s because her opponent had a lousy record of service while in office and angered a lot of people. The majority of the campaign literature circulated during the campaign was information that had been public knowledge for awhile amongst those who take the time to follow council. I'm disgusted by all the hidden conspiracy rhetoric being thrown around and I'm sure we'll be hearing more from the partisans who gather as a group at council meetings and file down one by one to gripe about how their party line candidates lost the election. Here’s a tip: Get better candidates. The election rules will be ironed out, but the motives of those who question the process with nonsensical rhetoric need to be transparent as well.

-Brigette Rodriguez
Coordinator of Vote! Longmont

Tantrums as a tactic

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 21 May 2010 07:01:00 +0000

(Subheading: At-large and not in charge) The May 18, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting was excruciating and embarrassing. I suggest every citizen slog through the video of it, either online or from the library, for examples of what is wrong with government. To be fair to members of council, it was mostly just one person. No, not the screaming from the podium during Public Invited To Be Heard, as bad as that was. It was Councilmember Sarah Levison’s actions and demeanor, which was about the worst I’ve ever seen in all the years I’ve watched these sessions – and that’s saying a lot.

(Below is the original extended version of what ran in the 5/22/10 Times-Call. I've also added time codes from the video so you can follow along. While the discussion of the LFCPA starts at the 42:30 mark, the more interesting council discussion, and the basis for this article, starts at the 1:00:00 mark) Ironically, it was Ms. Levison who pointed out that the public has “very, very little confidence in national and state government” (1:33:30), which of course is lead by her own Democratic Party leaders. She did all she could to destroy what little confidence citizens have in local government as well with some of her antics.

A fairly basic rule of decorum is to speak only after called upon by the chair of the meeting, in City Council’s case that would be the Mayor. Ms. Levison repeatedly talks over others and speaks out of turn during these meetings (2:34:16), and has been reprimanded for it (2:35:38). At this meeting though she did something I’ve yet to see: she tried to block a councilmember from seconding a motion. (1:09:15) She cried “But I was next in line with the mic, can someone just shout out a second?” Mayor Baum reminded her she does it all of the time, as do all council members. But regardless of her place in line, no speaker “has the mic” until they are recognized from the chair. She’s done this long enough on other boards, there’s no excuse for this.

She was upset that council was going to go through the Election Committee’s recommendations for changes to the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) one by one, and give each recommendation either a thumbs up or thumbs down vote. In a brazen show of hypocrisy and double standards, she complained about “picking items out that we want to vote on immediately”, forgetting this is exactly what she and the previous council did in 2009 when they made disastrous changes to the LFCPA (1:35:35). She also must forget all of the “last minute” changes she attempted to make to the city budget after first and second readings and public hearings.

Next, she wanted to invoke Section 4.8 of the City Charter (1:31:15) for an obscure and rarely used provision to form an “ordinance revision committee”. Other council members rightly pointed out that during the process of amending the LFCPA in ‘09, when she was in favor of those changes, there was no request of this committee (1:35:35). This was obviously a stalling maneuver, a filibuster if you like, but it was also much more than that. She wanted to take the policy decisions from the elected City Council members and place it in the hands of a 3 person group of unelected individuals (1:40:20). This would take the important discussion that should be open to the public and place it in a back room, more than likely untelevised. This proves any and all calls by Ms. Levison and her fellow travelers for transparency to be a total sham, at least when it doesn’t serve their purposes.

When council voted to end the Election Committee’s role as judge and jury, which in reality was mostly a self-serving kangaroo court, Ms. Levison drew comparisons to the “Saturday Night Massacre” and President Nixon’s search for someone to fire a special prosecutor (2:11:30). Seriously, this is the kind of tripe you miss when you don’t watch these meetings.

When it was clear Ms. Levison was going to lose every argument, she went into what can only be described as a tantrum and lashed out at city staff. Our City Clerk’s Office does a great job of posting all election related reports quickly. Ms. Levison wanted to put it in the LFCPA ordinance that the clerk will have reports online within 24 hours, which is done anyway. Is this to assume that there will be penalties and fines on the City Clerk if it’s an hour or a day late? (2:31:00) This may seem far-fetched but it’s not. The LFCPA was written to lay out the rules for candidates, committees, and citizens, including the penalties for wrongdoing. Ms. Levison, by this motion, is adding city staff to the group of those that could face fines and penalties. Keep in mind it’s the City Clerks Office that determines if a violation occurred in the first place! But at this point in the meeting, Ms. Levison was blinded by anger and was barely coherent. Finally, after wasting hours on something that should have taken 30 minutes, she asked that the discussion of the LFCPA end (2:38:48)and be brought up at a later date. In other words, she encouraged the punting the previous council was famous for, and that voters wanted to see stopped.

Unbelievably, there’s even more that occurred at this meeting, and you should watch it for yourself. The main takeaway from it is this: Sarah Levison showed herself to be a spiteful and angry politician who can’t govern when she doesn’t get her way. She owes citizens an apology for her abhorrent behavior, but don’t hold your breath. Her baby, the amended LFCPA, has rightly been defanged by a federal judge, citizens, and now the city council. All candidates supporting the changes to the LFCPA were soundly defeated in the ’09 election; as they say “the voters spoke”.

If Ms. Levison cannot act professional and show the slightest bit of decorum, she should resign immediately. She will be up for reelection in 2011, or a rumored run for Mayor. Either way, she’s yet another example of what’s wrong with Longmont and should not remain on council in any capacity.

Repeal the LFCPA

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Sun, 16 May 2010 17:53:00 +0000

I appreciate and agree with Chris’s cogent LFCPA analysis here, but I would take it one step further: Repeal this local version, which has become a political football, and adopt by reference Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.
This would at least help channel enforcement procedures back into the judiciary, where they belong. And just how the Council could expand the election commission beyond that which is set by the Longmont City Charter, which cannot be amended without a vote of the people, is not clear. Here’s what the Charter says (and no, I’m not criticizing committee participants):

“2.2 REGISTRATIONS, JUDGES, CLERKS AND ELECTION COMMISSION
The Council shall by ordinance establish the method for the registration of electors; the qualifications and compensation of election judges and clerks, and the boundaries of election precincts. The Council may by ordinance establish an election commission consisting of the city clerk as chairman; and two additional members to be appointed by the Council with such powers, duties, terms and qualifications as provided by ordinance.”
(Emphasis mine.)

I also believe that the voting public lost a lot of faith in the Fair Campaign laws when McCain tried to adhere to his McCain-Feingold principles and ended up spending $333 million on his campaign, while Obama spent $730 million on his. Don’t tell me that this huge amount was mostly in $5 and $10 donations. And no, I’m not in favor of taxpayer-funded campaigns.

Meanwhile, from the outside, one of the most unregulated and effective political weapons of all time, the Internet, is becoming increasingly involved in local campaigns. I don’t see anything in the LFCPA or anywhere else addressing that "lack of transparency."

Suggested changes to Longmont's campaign law

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 15 May 2010 23:56:00 +0000

This coming Tuesday May 18th, the Longmont City Council will once again consider changes to the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA). Here are the suggestions I sent them:

Mayor Baum and members of council,
Unless the council is interested in one sweeping vote to get rid of the LFCPA completely, or accept all of the advised changes from the Election Committee in one vote – I recommend you make individual motions and votes on each recommended change. Think of it as your own little “line item veto”.

The main point I want to get across about the LFCPA is similar to what I’m proposing to the Airport Advisory Board when it comes to our regulations (specifically the Noise Abatement Procedure): the further you get away from state and federal standards (in campaign law, that would be state statute, etc – in aviation that would be FAA rules and regulations), the more confusion you will create for candidates, committees, and individuals. That’s not to say I’m advocating for scrapping the LFCPA and reverting to state statute, I’m not. But with slight tweaks and simplification, we could have a useful document.

If nothing remains of the LFCPA, at least keep decriminalization intact.

Contribution limits – The recent election showed that contributions limits are fairly meaningless as more contributions than ever were received by candidates, all within the limits. This is a pointless “feel good” provision, but if it makes you feel good, keep it. Do you really want an ordinance with pointless provisions in it? That, in my opinion, doth not make a good lawmaker. You should consider increasing the $500 for committees to at least $1,000 or more. This was proven to be another pointless provision as it just pushed groups into forming their own committee’s and spending far more than $500 each. This would also alleviate some of the angst amongst those who feel the “little guy” gets hurt with higher limits, as they could pool their resources together and contribute a larger chunk as “other than natural persons”.

Disclosure – accept the change from $20 to $50.

Reporting – Since the current LFCPA is stricter than State Statute, and the fines are steeper than State Statute, this needs to be balanced out somehow with either a) less reporting points, or b) lower dollar amounts for fines, or both. Also, there was talk of changing what “election cycle” meant, but it’s not depicted in the table you received. I heard the “election cycle” would basically become “at all times”. Seriously, do we really want that?

Independent Expenditures – State’s reporting threshold is $1,000, ours is $100, proposed is $250. I’d suggest $1,000 to match the state, or at the very least $500 so some of you can tell your constituents something to make them/you feel good. This is another pointless exercise, it doesn’t stop the spending, it just means more reporting. Try as some might to end spending from outside-of-Longmont sources, it’s just a scare tactic to try to intimidate them from getting involved in our elections. How did that work out in ’09? Save some future embarrassment and match the state’s level.

Also, why have a 72, or any hour, limit when the City Clerk’s Office isn’t open 24/7/365? How about a “business day” amount? I suggest 5. The other major glaring problem with this entire provision was brought up in the hearings: money spent or obligated can be days (or hours if you prefer) apart, and sometimes money is spent but some or all of the materials may not go out for whatever reason. So was it “obligated”? This is the “tree crashing in the woods” argument; did it occur if no one heard/saw it? In court, the city looked a little silly about this entire provision.

Enforcement – Leave it up to the City Clerk, and possibly an “Election Commission” as spelled out in the City Charter. The Election Commission at most could function as an advisory board, but definitely not as a quasi-judicial body for all of the reasons brought up in the last several months. If the LFCPA was trimmed down and simplified, mostly leaning on State Statute, there would be no need for even an advisory board. If you’re looking to set up a convoluted process in need of a bureaucracy, congratulations, you’ve achieved it with the LFCPA and the Election Committee respectively. I’d hope you’re not looking to do that.

To give EC members a chance at applying to other advisory boards, I suggest you, a) do not fill current or upcoming vacancies, b) publicly thank Task Force and Election Committee members for their work, and c) dissolve the Election Committee at the conclusion of the changes to the LFCPA.

Sanctions – Some on council have argued that on a percentage basis, some limits for Longmont compared to the State make sense ($1,000 State vs $100 Longmont, etc). Apparently they don’t feel the same way when it comes to fines, since in most cases Longmont’s fines are multiples of the State’s. The State fines $50/day for late filings, Longmont’s is $100 for the first day, $200 for the second, $300 for the third, plus the possibility for $400/day for up to 10 days. This is ridiculous, and opens up the possibilities for unintended violations if individuals/organizations, including those based in Longmont, look towards State Statute for guidance.

While we who pay attention to such things know the LFCPA applies just to municipal elections, this could cause confusion amongst some who may be in or outside of Longmont contributing to a candidate who partially represents Longmont (State or Federal House districts, County Commissioner, etc). Yes, it is true that ignorance of the law is no excuse or defense, but do you really want to make it more complicated than it has to be? Frankly, I think some of you do, but that does not make good or coherent policy.

The LFCPA, together with our more than competent City Clerk’s Office and our existing charter take care of Item 7 in the communication you received from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Election Committee. I agree with “local control” when it comes to these and other matters, and I believe we’d have that with the changes I’m suggesting – and that the Election Committee and the LFCPA as approved by the previous council, based on its performance in the last election cycle, didn’t enhance the process, but was mostly a lightning rod and harbinger for attention (read: lawsuits) Longmont didn’t want or need.

Don’t delay making the necessary changes.

Survey smurvey

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Larison) — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:29:00 +0000

Ever notice how the Dems and left wing politicians love their public surveys?

A few weeks ago the Longmont city council deliberated ad nauseum in shaping questions for the biannual city Customer Satisfaction Survey coming out this summer at a cost of over $27,000. Leading the way in the minutia parade were the three far-left members of council, Brian Hansen, Sean McCoy, and Sarah Levison. They acted as if the survey was the infallible Magna Carta of all things relating to Longmont policy.

Councilman Hansen even had the audacity to suggest that the survey results might be more representative of public sentiment than actual election results. That's curious, considering the progressive agenda was overwhelmingly rejected by Longmont voters in the November 2009 election.

Conveniently omitted in the council's survey discussion was the fact that only 738 people responded to the 2008 version of the survey out of 3000 surveys sent out, a response of less than 1% of Longmont's population. Yet Councilman Sean McCoy suggested that this borderline scientific sampling was the most important element for him to form his decision making?

By the way, I have lived in Longmont for over 30 years, never miss a vote, and I have never been chosen at random to participate in a Longmont city survey. Maybe it's just the odds, but a former city councilwoman who has lived here longer than me relates that she has never been picked to respond to a survey either.

On equally shaky footing is Boulder County's Issues Survey just released from a telephone sampling of the county as sanctioned by the BoCo commissioners. The numbers with this survey were even more meager--a sampling of only 603 people (registered voters) out of Boulder County's population of just over 300,000.

Of course the county commissioners got the answers they wanted--a favorable rating for a new social services sales tax and the usual Boulder-dominated support for any kind of open space tax or extension. It's all "feel good" stuff, without the mention that Boulder County is nearly $300 million in debt for enviro programs such as ClimateSmart, open space, etc.

I contend that typical public surveys are of minimal value since the questions rarely tell the full story, especially when it comes to economic cost. The BoCo commissioners and the Longmont Left may think their programs are popular with the public, but just wait until November to see the only survey that really counts from the voters...Election Day 2010.

No one ever said anything about corruption?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 05 May 2010 06:52:00 +0000

The May 4, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting was full of all kinds of twists, turns, surprises, and laughs. There was also some mass amnesia going on amongst some in the crowd, City Council, and the Election Committee.

(As a side note, it was painfully obvious the sore losers from the 2009 election are still mighty sore (and still mighty losers). It’s a shame when, a) the relatively uneducated jump into local politics and have a whole few months under their belt and think they got it all figured out, b) play dirty during the campaign, c) lose, and d) still can’t believe they lost and lash out in all directions. Go back to being Obama Zombies, that isn’t too tough. There’s serious work to be done here at the local level, go play on the freeway)

Back to this mass, and convenient, amnesia. How many times was it said “there was no corruption“, “who’s saying that?” and Councilmember Sarah Levison saying it was only fellow Councilmember Katie Witt that was bringing up the charges of corruption. How soon they forget.

Flash back to around March 2008, the Benker Bloc and their toadies (eh, it’s a lame term the leftwing losers use, I’ll borrow it) were like pigs in slop (some more than others). They were going to fundamentally transform Longmont because the voters spoke, or didn’t you hear? And the first thing they were going to do was reform the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Richard Juday lead the charge with the support of the same old useful idiots, and of course some on council. Contrary to how it was spun later by others, the main drive wasn’t to decriminalize the code, which is a good idea, it was because of one thing: the $5,000 contribution to Gabe Santos from the Longmont Association of Realtors.

They went on and on about how wrong that contribution was and that it could sway his vote – which is something Ms. Levison went to great pains tonight to say that no one on council made that charge. Wrong, she did. Brian Hansen even said, sort of sympathetically, that he might be swayed by such a large contribution. With that as the main impetus, charge onward they did and crafted the LFCPA we have today, lost lawsuits and all.

Ms. Levison said she didn’t appreciate some of the things said about her votes and contributions. What were they? Let’s recap: Councilmembers/candidates Benker, McCoy, Levison and Hansen all got money from the Fraternal Order of Police/Longmont Police Officer Association which just about equaled the $5,000 Gabe Santos got from LAR. To date, Mr. Santos has not voted on anything related to LAR favorably or unfavorably. But the story is not the same for Ms. Levison and the others – they did vote in favor of the PD/FD when they needed it. (I even wrote about it way back when.)

The good ol’ double standard again, happy to point it out for those that weren’t paying attention at the time (like the above group that probably didn’t even know there was a Longmont City Council), forgot, or would like it not dredged up again.

This change in the LFCPA was borne out of politics and spite. That doesn’t mean the work of the election Task Force and the Election Committee wasn’t important, or that they were all agenda driven, although some were. But Councilmember Alex Sammoury put it best when he asked the simple question of why? Was this a solution in search of a problem? Basically, where’s the beef?

Reality is catching up to the radicals who really wanted to make hay while their sun was shining, and they must see it by now. I see some serious gutting in the future: no more quasi-judicial function for the committee, maybe not even an advisory board role for the committee. If the ordinance is written simple and straight forward and not loaded up with gotchas and political traps, there’s no need for a committee or a board. I’m not sure if the entire ordinance will be scrapped, but I see things happening that these people wont be happy about, like higher contribution limits and thresholds for reporting.

These outcomes are based on the reality of the situation. These people and their ideology got clobbered in the recent election, and their ordinance got spanked in a federal court. Why are we still listening to them or giving their flawed ideas much consideration? Just because?

BEST EXAMPLE OF IGNORANT EDITORIALS

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 01 May 2010 06:02:00 +0000

BEST EXAMPLE OF IGNORANT EDITORIALS
Boulder Weekly’s pick for dirty politics by Katie Witt’s supporters

In the ongoing need for Boulder to assert its unquestionable dominance over its neighbor to the northeast (for you in Boulder, that would be Longmont), the staff of the Boulder Weekly has selected as their “Best example of dirty politics” Katie Witt’s supporters. In a cute, snarky, and mostly factually challenged diatribe, it decried the fact that the person they preferred to win the Longmont City Council race, Karen Benker, got hammered by (now Longmont City Council member) Ms. Witt.

Contrary to what they may have thought they read somewhere, Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) did not “bankroll” Ms. Witt’s or anyone’s campaign. They made independent expenditures for candidates (and not just Ms. Witt), but Boulder Weekly knew this several months ago, and for this nice little hit piece as well since they mentioned the lawsuit WTP was involved in. That lawsuit was for, wait for it, independent expenditures, which it won.

What BW failed to mention in their “best of” piece is what brought on this lawsuit: a misguided change to Longmont’s campaign law that was spearheaded by none other than, wait for it again, Karen Benker. And guess who tried to use this ridiculously written new law against WTP and others as her main campaign tool? Once again, Karen Benker. She did squeeze a few hundred dollars out of them during a kangaroo court proceeding, but they got back tens of thousands of dollars out of Longmont in federal court over this campaign law.

I was part of that lawsuit. I wasn’t backed by WTP, nor did I fight the lawsuit for money (nor did I receive any). Ms. Benker, Longmont City Council, and the task force who wrote much of the new law were warned before, during, and after the new ordinance took effect that it was wrong for several specific reasons – yet not only did they plug along anyway, City Council made it even worse than the task force dreamed of. These changes lead directly to the costly court loss for the city, and the changes that are being made currently in the ordinance. We beat the U.S. Supreme Court and the State to the punch on similar changes to campaign laws.

WTP, the mailers, or any push-polls didn’t cost Ms. Benker the race, as much as her supporters in and out of Longmont would like to believe. She ran a terrible campaign including a weak to non-existent ground game, a less than popular voting record to run on, she brought in less than half of campaign contributions than her opponent, she didn’t have the “likability” angle working for her, she made too many people in the city angry, and she was part of a Democratic Party machine that was becoming increasingly unpopular. This all occurred before anyone in Longmont had ever heard of WTP.

To assume WTP ran the show, and that all of Katie Witt’s supporters engaged in “dirty politics” is disingenuous, ignorant, and an insult to supporters and volunteers who are still probably unaware of who or what WTP even is. Her contributor list is open record information; it’s by far made up of small contributions from people, not organizations or corporations. The miles of walking door to door were done by volunteers, not some faceless organization.

Try as you may to paint it otherwise, Ms. Witt won fair and square (and overwhelmingly) using old school campaign techniques. If she was the beneficiary of outside influence she had no control over, it couldn’t have been any greater than the built-in advantage of running against an inferior candidate.

Boulder Weekly, next time try to find out what’s really going on up here in Longmont, or just stick to Boulder. This kind of shoddy journalism sprinkled with partisan commentary won’t be missed.

Just asking . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:20:00 +0000

Why, in this modern age, does it take so long--usually over two months after work starts--to replace a road bridge in Boulder County? Recent examples: the bridge just completed on 95th Street over Boulder Creek; now one on Niwot Road over the Feeder Canal, and another one on 95th Street just south of Longmont over Lefthand Creek—all with closures and some with seemingly lengthy detours. Still being worked on is a bridge over Boulder Creek at Highway 52 and east county line. Fortunately, one lane has been kept open there for traffic.

Meanwhile out on the range: Boulder County is seeking volunteer open space patrollers for the county’s parks and open space areas, a news item said. They will undergo two days of training and wear a park-patroller shirt and nametag.

“Patroller” sounds ominous and too many people tend to let a little bit of authority go to their head. Will these people be deputized and armed? Will they write tickets? Will they be insured if a rattlesnake bites them? Doesn’t the county’s OS Dept. already have a fleet of four-wheelers of its own with trained personnel for patrolling. Where are they?

Why is it that tobacco smoke, even secondhand, has been declared a serious health hazard, while marijuana smoke escapes this aggressive condemnation? Both add particulates to the lungs and to the atmosphere -- as pictured at the April 20 Boulder smoke-out, where CU police issued a dozen tickets.

How can an organization that’s pushing pot get away with threatening the DA when he’s carrying out his official duties? Certainly the Cannabis Therapy Institute has free-speech rights and its promise to derail the Boulder DA’s quest for higher office (state attorney general) unless he drops the 12 ganja-related cases may be seen as politics by some. Yet it unnecessarily puts the DA on the spot: If he acts to strictly pursue the laws to their disliking, he could be called retaliatory and prejudiced; if he fails to act or dilutes the charges, then he could be regarded by others as being soft on crime. The media can’t have it both ways.

On the sports scene: Why does the Denver news media let the NBA get away with scheduling most of the Nuggets playoff games, even those played at home, so late in the evening? The Denver market deserves better. Oh well, pay-to-view is in store for all the major sports, so maybe we commoners should be grateful to see any game for free –- no matter the time frame.

More on “sports”: The NFL suspended Pittsburgh’s Big Ben Roethlisberger for his indiscretion, while MLB’s Mark McGwire (back with the Cards), Sammy Sosa et al., NBA’s Kobe Bryant and PGA’s Tiger Woods all escaped that stigma for theirs.

Finally, what’s this business with telephone surveys? Do people with cell and gadget phones escape this annoyance? I don’t know how it is at your house, but at mine hardly a day goes by without the phone ringing with someone taking a survey on something or other. I think it’s an invasion of privacy—after all, our home is supposed to be our castle. Furthermore, because they’re closer to the people, our representatives in local government should be able to monitor public sentiment themselves without investing our scarce tax dollars in long questionnaires. That’s one reason for the neighborhood ward system, and the casual vis-à-vis sessions with constituents are not exactly a waste of time. Otherwise, we may as well go completely plebiscite.

Most noise coming from airport neighbors

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:39:00 +0000

Most of the noise regarding Longmont’s Vance Brand Airport isn’t coming from the airport itself, but from neighbors who aren’t Longmont residents or taxpayers.

No airport complaint-fest would be complete without mentioning it’s #1 detractor farmer, that would be the Zweck property. They are correct on one point: their family was here before the airport, even before airplanes existed. The Zweck name predates Longmont itself, and the history of the family is not in question and not being disparaged. What is inexcusable is the ongoing questionable activity of Tom Zweck, who apparently thinks it’s acceptable behavior to threaten to shoot pilots, including myself, and skydivers. No one has that birthright, I don’t care who you are.

Our little dust-up 8 years ago has apparently festered into the impression I “dive-bombed” his house, when of course I was following the existing Noise Abatement Procedure, and even exceeded the then 800′ Above Ground Level (AGL) restriction (it’s now 1,000′ AGL). Since then, the Zwecks have sold their property to Boulder County and are receiving a sum of $250,000 a year for 20 years followed by a $5.12 million payment at the end. Might as well buy their vegetables, you’re paying for them one way or the other. That land was bought for Open Space and to continue the St. Vrain Greenway – like most Open Space that we continue to pay for, it’s not exactly open to the public. Yet the endless complaints continue, there is no placating or appeasing in this situation.

And then there’s the issue of the neighbors west of the airport, again, not Longmont residents or taxpayers. These homes are on 65th and 66th Streets and are 1.5 miles from the existing end of the runway. In the flier below (click to enlarge) where they talk about “beautiful, pristine, quiet-country-setting, Hygiene” they don’t seem concerned that they polluted the area with these fliers and that they not only aren’t in Longmont, they aren’t in Hygiene either!

Based on two Times-Call Open Forum letters, the wording and style appear to be from a Mindy Eckhardt. In one of her letters, she had her stomach turned by the thought of more lead coming from jet fuel. Oddly, the flier said lead from “piston- engined aircrafts“. Somebody must have educated her to the fact there is no lead in jet fuel. Two of the three aircraft (the main two) from the airports largest operator, Mile-Hi Skydiving, are turboprops that use jet fuel. But since she errantly brought up lead, a majority of the piston aircraft actually can fly on automobile gas (MoGas), which of course is unleaded – as in, has no lead. But aviation gas (AvGas) actually leaves behind a smaller carbon footprint than regular old unleaded car gas. Look it up, I already did.

The problem with Ms. Eckhardt and others whose aviation knowledge could collectively fit into a thimble is this: In her letter she said “It took me about two hours to educate 38 people“. This education was one half-truth and mis-truth after another, yet obviously some people bought it. I’m sure, based on the flier that it was mostly emotional claptrap (…where our families fish, we will overcome, opportunity to stand together as a community side-by-side…) and over-the-top lines like “…it will seem as if we’re residing next to O’Hare Int’l Airport, in Chicago !!!” (is there one anywhere else?). Before you get too sympathetic to the “We chose to live out in the country” line, look again where these homes are:

That’s pretty close to an active, and potentially expanding, runway. One that was there long before they were. Yet they are pulling out all the stops, including the ever popular class warfare. See how many times anti-airport types say “corporate executives“, “CEO’s“, “select few“, “corporate welfare“, and “heavy duty suits“. Nevermind these homes and the land they sit on are more expensive than most homes in Longmont. They got theirs, to hell with the rest of you, and to hell with the possibility of economic development for Longmont. Why should they care about that? There’s always the option of putting their property up for sale if they’re so concerned. Don’t forget to make the potential buyers aware of how horrible it is. Then again don’t bother, it’s public record.

But each side of the debate would do better just sticking to the facts. The opening shots from the anti-airport folks have clearly failed to accomplish that. This is why I’m such a believer in free speech, it exposes brilliance and ignorance in all their glory. There will be plenty of time in this debate for everyone to be heard, it’s not as if any expansion is going to occur any time soon. This is a long process and there are lots of steps, all public, along the way. (Friendly advice: some of you might want to re-educate yourselves, or find a more competent and coherent spokesperson.)

City and County barking up wrong tree

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:22:00 +0000

With apologies to the renowned poet Joyce Kilmer, I too think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree. There may be justifiable reasons for totally eradicating a certain variety of these living organisms, but in at least one case I have my doubts.

Having grown up on the high plains of east-central Colorado at Calhan (alt. 6,507 ft. vs. Longmont’s 4,979 ft.) and not being an arborist, I can only cite my experiences. In that region it was difficult to grow almost any kind of a deciduous tree, especially out on the open prairie, because of the soil condition (mostly adobe), scarce moisture with a lack of live water, and little or no irrigation. Evergreens thrived in the rocky hills to the northwest of Calhan in the Black Forest. But out on the prairie the most likely to adapt were deciduous trees, notably the Cottonwood, which in comparison is truly a water guzzler, the Chinese Elm, and the Russian Olive. Fruit trees and most hardwoods were scarce. Hardy buffalo grass, chokecherry and lilac shrubs, soap weeds and pear cacti rounded out the greenery.

In defense of the lowly Russian Olive tree, Elaeagnus angustifolia, which the U.S.D.A. 50 years ago recommended for planting but later declared it a noxious weed and ordered its eradication, most of the farmers and ranchers that I remember let it grow because it provided not only cover and sustenance for birds and wild animals, but shade and often windbreak for domestic animals as well. In the rare riparian areas, its roots helped knit the precious topsoil to keep it from washing away when the rains did come. Like some varieties of locust trees, the Russian Olive does produce thorny limbs.

But that unpleasant feature can be forgiven for the beautiful silvery leaves it produces which offer an interesting contrast when mixed among other tree varieties, as currently seen in the grove along the east side of Highway 42 just north of Baseline Road in Lafayette, at the old Beauprez dairy farm. Those beautiful Russian Olives have been there a long time without spreading.

It would be a shame to deliberately kill those trees “because they’re weeds,” and I’m sorry to see our Longmont and Boulder County open-space authorities engaging in this senseless war against a tree that has gotten a bum rap. Let them live , , , for only God can make a tree.

Democrats having LBJ moments

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:50:00 +0000

"...I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party..." President Lyndon B. Johnson - March 31, 1968

With the recent announcement by Democrat Michigan congressman Bart Stupak that he wont seek reelection, it continues to be clearer that these members of the House, Senate, and some state Governors (like our own Bill Ritter) put party above country. If they're not prostituting themselves for special deals for their states or big money for their campaigns (like our own Betsy Markey and the Service Employees International Union - SEIU), they are taking themselves out and refusing to have their constituents judge them on their recent voting record. True cowardice.

They see the handwriting on the wall, that a large majority of U.S. citizens are against ObamaCare, and that their favorability ratings are about as low as they can go. They hoped that these citizens would not remain engaged and would forget all of this come November. Betsy Markey, according to the usually Democrat-friendly Associated (De)Press, and Washington (Com)Post wont even talk about her ObamaCare vote.

Did Colorado get deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback" or "Louisiana Purchase"? No, the voters of Colorado were given the gift of endless SEIU commercials thanking Betsy Markey for contradicting all of her previous NO-vote comments last year and succumbing to the will of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Any and all thoughts of Ms. Markey having a spine and an independent streak should, along with Ms. Markey, be put out to pasture. She puts party above you. (Pop question time: how many SEIU members are even within the 4th Congressional district?)

It's hard to say who's more cowardly, those that are easily bought or those who would rather retire than face the voters wrath, the ultimate poll. People like Bill Ritter, Evan Bayh, Bart Stupak and others are getting out of the way to pave the way for those Democratic seats to remain Democratic seats. Politicians have monster egos, I think everyone can agree with that. For these politicians to step aside and not show pride in their increasingly unpopular voting records and agendas really says something.

Much like the Politburo in the old Soviet Union, they have either been told or figured for themselvesthat to save the Mother Party they should step aside. These are the same people who so proudlyclaimed the people spoke in '06 and '08 but fear what the people will say now. Watch how their surrogate candidates (like John Hickenlooper) run from the records of those they wish to replace.

But there's an easy end run around these slimy and cowardly tactics: Deny a vote to anyone with "Democrat" attached to their name, simple as that. They've proven a) there is no bribe/kickback/payoff too high, and/or b) party always comes before country. Show them the door in November, and vote early by denying them your contribution dollars.

(Pic sources: Matthew Staver/bloomberg News / moonbattery.com)

YouTube Videos worth watching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX2pNUevUn4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn-VwMLh9Nc

Some on Left show hypocrisy on race relations

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:34:00 +0000

The following appeared in the Sunday April 4, 2010 Times-Call as a Guest Opinion. Further comments follow at the bottom.

I know I can’t be the only one who’s sick and tired of hearing this feigned outrage from the Left about racism and bigotry in America. The recent guest opinion of Tom deMers and the ongoing vitriol from other local and national mouthpieces has further upped the ante of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to race relations. This laughably coming from the pro-slavery party of the 1800’s, deniers of funding for a Washington D.C. charter school made up mostly of African-American low income children, and pushers of abortion in the inner cities. Yet they mistakenly think they have some moral high ground in this area. Based on what I ask, the old “lie told enough times” theory?

Mr. deMers trotted out the question of Glenn Beck’s wearing of “white hoods”. Quite often, like minds bring up the history of the KKK in Longmont. I’m sure that must be very reassuring to the minorities they pretend to care about. Key word: pretend. I don’t buy it for a second, and for good reason.

Ever since making the apparently dicey decision to speak up and out, I’ve been reminded where my place is, with quite bigoted undertones. My ethnicity is not something I make a big deal about, but I’m sure reminded that I probably should stick to “mowing lawns” or other things “my kind of people” do. Pop quiz: from which direction do you think those slurs come from? I’m not going to lump every Democrat together, that wouldn’t be fair – but none of these were right-wingers. To put it bluntly, these comments come from people who associate with Obama’s Organizing For America, the anti-LifeBridge faction, and the pro-Benker Bloc of 4 types. The very intolerant of the supposedly tolerant.

For a town of so many Hispanics, I’m surprised they put up with the obvious race baiters and race hustlers who are in our midst. You’re only worth something to them if you’re of a specific political bent. Hispanics and other minorities are referred to as “political footballs” by these people – that’s all they are, a group to be conquered for electoral purposes. How very flattering. And if you dare step out that expected circle, you are dealt with harshly.

For instance, let’s say you’re the only Hispanic elected official in Boulder County like Longmont City Councilmember Gabe Santos. El Comite Director Bob Norris during a KGNU radio call-in show in November stressed the importance of inclusiveness of Hispanics but didn’t hesitate in the next breath to acknowledge Mr. Santos’ only apparent accomplishments as being “Tom DeLay’s aide” and “not necessarily being progressive”. This apparently is the behavior that wins one the Community Unity Award.

These are the same types of people who lament over Longmont’s lack of “inclusiveness”. If someone is truly interested in inclusiveness, true inclusiveness includes everyone, not just those who share your political philosophy. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not impressed by anyone feeling a little white guilt with meaningless overtures of inclusion. Actions speak louder than words, and all I hear is talk.

But I do hope I speak for others when I say I don't need some political philosophy's approval or blessing to feel part of society - which is exactly what the Left in this country pushes, whether intentional or not. If it's not intentional, they need to do some serious inner searching because it comes across as elitist, pretentious, condescending, and patronizing.

Unfortunately, based on the previously mentioned guest editorial, even worse comments posted on the Internet, and personal experience, I believe this is completely intentional. If they can get you to gullibly believe that Tea Partiers spit on and use ethnic slurs against a black congressman, even if that congressman will not verify it – without any proof whatsoever - they have your sympathy, and vote. If on the other hand you question bullflop that seriously takes a willing suspension of disbelief, they’ve lost the argument, your ear, and your vote.

I suppose I’m not towing the expected line. Don’t bother saving me a place in that line.
-------------------------------------------------

As to be expected, there are a few miscreants in town that really hate it when I get printed. Take this befuddled and relative Longmont newcomer Don Coulson. In just a short year or so he's been quickly educated by the loons in town and pretty much knows everything that's gone on and going on. Whenever I write, he tries to dissect it with a stunning lack of reading comprehension. I mean what I say and say what I mean, and I'm sure he saw the piece on this site that lead to the TC piece. So let's go through his pointless diatribe.

He mentioned "perceived insults", no they were actual insults, in writing. As far as the "unidentified sources", in my original piece on this site, I identified them, and he cavorts with them and posts on their website. "50 percent" of Longmont residents are registered Democrat? Really? (No, actually Unaffiliated has more than Democrat or Republican, and none have 50%, nice try though). "Councilman Santos was racially slurred" - read the above, do I say he was racially slurred? No. That's the perception of someone wanting it to say that. And again with the "perceived Progressive had somewhere, somehow cast a racial slur" - it wasn't perceived, it happened. Would you prefer I call these people something other than "Progressive"? How about Statist, Socialist, Communist? That work for you? I can do that.

And the real laugher is "what civility upheld, what standard of decency observed...?" line. This guy and the crowd he hangs out with throw out one bigoted and charged line after another. Perhaps you recall an earlier letter he sent in to the Times-Call where he intentionally butchered the term "nattering nabobs of negativism" and made it "niggling nest of nattering negativism" to his complete post at Free Range Longmont where he complains that the Times-Call left out his use of the "N" word and the "F" word in his Open Forum letter. The ease this guy and his FreeRanger pals throw around such words are something to behold, they even made sure to make those words as bold as possible. And these guys have the nerve to ask if others wear hoods?

I wonder why "Longmont's Man of Peace" Strider Benston, who also posts at their website, and endlessly tells of his Selma stories has been surprisingly quiet on this subject? Selective outrage is pretty convenient.

Longmont in talks to leave Boulder County?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:34:00 +0000

LONGMONT - An idea that many in Longmont say is long overdue. A City and County of Longmont? Not exactly.

Longmont's Mayor Bryan Baum and Firestone's Mayor Chad Auer, along with administrators from Mead, Dacono, Lyons, and Frederick are in talks of creating a new county - with the working name "St. Vrain County".

It would encompass those cities plus extend westward to the Grand County line to include the Eldora Ski Area, which has complained for decades of living under the "iron fist of Boulder County".

"We see this as a great opportunity to expand our resort and make it the premiere ski attraction on the Front Range", said Eldora Resorts manager Jeff Johnston.

The proposed county would also closely resemble the school district that shares it's name - the St. Vrain Valley School District, one of the largest in the state. "This would help us streamline our operations and cut down on costs, which is at the front of everybody's minds right now," said Superintendent Don Haddad.

The news comes on the heels of a Daily Camera report of a Blue Ribbon Commission that ripped Boulder over its budget process, dedicated funding, and managing of city assets. Boulder has been requesting Longmont join the rest of the county in revenue sharing, as its own revenues continue to plummet. Recently the Longmont City Council again denied this request, which many believe was due to the behind-the-scenes meetings at forming a new county and leaving Boulder and the remaining Boulder County cities - Erie, Superior, Lafayette, and Louisville - to deal with their own shortcomings and mismanagement.

Besides Eldora Ski Resort, there were two other entities that were excited to hear this news: Rocky Mountain Christian Church and LifeBridge Christian Church, both of which are in the middle of legal battles with the county, Longmont and Firestone. As part of the agreement between the two cities, LifeBridge would be annexed into Longmont and Firestone would get some of the water rights to Union Reservoir, along with some of the sales/use tax revenue from the new Super Walmart at Hwy 119 and County Line Road.

Mayor Baum and Mayor Auer agreed this was the best possible deal for each city and looked forward to being good neighbors in the future. Talk of revenue sharing between municipalities broke down when Lyons proposed a toll booth for traffic bound for Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, which would not be part of the new county.

Lib/Progs unsurprisingly play race card

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:54:00 +0000

This site and its authors have more interesting and important things to do (and say) than respond to gutter techniques of the Leftwing nutjobs in Longmont. Apparently they aren't getting the attention they need, so as if right on cue they go down the racist route.

On one of their sites (which also ran in the Times-Call) they posted some rantings from a "Tom DeMers" with the line "Makes you wonder if (Glenn) Beck spends his weekends under one of those white hoods." Always be careful when you see the telltale signs of race baiting when you see other lines like: "...a socialist African American president with a funny name". Try as they might to paint everyone who disagrees with President Obama or the liberal/progressive agenda as racists, well, it takes one to know one.

Recall the "provocative victimization" piece I recently wrote. This is where they poke and prod hoping for a reaction, and when they get a reaction they cry like the stuck pigs that they are. Well, one of their main stuck pigs continually uses the imagery of a chihuahua to describe myself, yes I'm partially of Mexican descent, as are many Longmont residents. Keep in mind, these are the same people who couldn't use any racial epithet too low on the former East Boulder County Politics website, reminding me I should return to mowing lawns or what it is "my people" do. The fact they constantly bring up the KKK in Longmont I guess should be considered a threat. Something I'm saying or doing is apparently getting under their own "white hoods".

(They can't get enough of me, but refuse to link to my website. Not being an internet hog, I'll point you in their direction as I'm certainly not hurting for traffic or visibility. You can find them at Free Range Longmont, Whisky Tango Foxtrot, Muskrat Hunt, and Dooty & Honor. Be warned, much of it is not PG-13 rated. It's basically a couple of people - mostly and almost exclusively M. Douglas Wray aka "doogman" and "MacWebGuru", and Kaye Fissinger - plus a few random nobody's and kooks. Freedom of choice and information is a beautiful thing, if they're more your cup of tea, have at it. You're welcome for the free plugs.)

When people perceived to be on "my side" say or do something stupid, I just start the stopwatch to see how long it takes for the screwballs on the "other side" to make hay out of it. It's to be expected and not a big deal. But when they go out of their way to show their hateful and often bigoted side, and then preemptively whine about the expected backlash for doing it - that's just a sign of someone that's not mentally balanced. Here's an example: "John Doe is a crimminal, he's German so he's sort of like a Doberman, and I'm gonna post pictures of him on the internet - oh woe is me now that he'll probably respond and hurt my feelings." Well, this is exactly what they just did, with the preemptive whine "...anonymous hate comments on the TC in three... two..."

I often don't go for the easy, low hanging fruit. I also don't have to post anything anywhere anonymously. Again, do I really hold back here? No. I guess it would be easy to go after their spouses (as they often do with me) but I feel sorry enough for them as it is (their spouses that is). It's not in my genome to go after their race (as they often do with me) because, well, I don't know or care what it is. I don't go after their job/career (as they often do with me) because from what I can tell they don't really do anything, anything productive anyway. They're obsession with me is legion, and fairly unhealthy. I even addressed it as far back as my second podcast, figuring early on that if I spoke up and out I'd be targeted. Little did I know the lengths the local paparazzi, or stalkerazzi more accurately, would go.

Could be worse, could be irrelevant. But that would entail me copying them, which so far has been their sole province. But something they aren't copying from me is their racist leanings, that sadly is done all on their own.

Dems launch propaganda barrage

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:35:00 +0000

Obamacare

After turning one-fifth of the nation’s economy, our once-private health-care system, over to the federal government at God only knows what cost and in defiance of the people’s wishes, the Democrats are frantically attempting to save face by unleashing a propaganda barrage the likes of which this country has never seen. Already their clever handiwork is showing up in the local media.

Immediately responding and to no one’s surprise, The Denver Post posted in its Sunday edition a story with two huge photos, praising Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey of the 4th District, whose allegiance in the crucial showdown-vote was in lockstep with the Obama, Reid, Pelosi & Stern group, not the folks back home in her district. (Show me the poll where a majority of voters in the 4th District approved of this bill.)

The Post’s puff-piece on Markey included some flattery from John Straayer, a political science professor at Colorado State University. It’s remarkable that no conservative political science professor is ever quoted by the reporters who write these stories. (Show me an example.)

Arrogantly pouring salt on the wounds of the awe-struck people “back home,” Andy Stern’s rich and powerful Service Employees International Union is running ads on Denver TV praising Markey’s courage and righteousness. For this, the folks back home might ask what sort of a political debt their congresswoman now owes to a key member of Obama’s inner circle.

To his credit, Steve McMillan, the Post’s business news editor, published in the Sunday edition a guest commentary by Robert J. Samuelson who writes about business and economic issues for Newsweek and the Washington Post. Samuelson brought at least some clarity to the extremely dangerous and confusing long-term debt risk that we all must now face.

Meanwhile, at our local Times-Call, business section editor Tony Kindelspire seems pleased with the bill and other than being happy about chain restaurants being forced to post calorie data spent most of his Sunday commentary chastising the 13 attorneys general (including Colorado’s) who plan to test the constitutionality of this massive, unprecedented centralization of power. And why shouldn’t they test it? It’s hard to believe that an editorial writer at the Las Vegas Sun (whose material Kindelspire quoted) has any special knowledge of what’s constitutional and what’s not, let alone Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen who is on the same wavelength. Do they really know more about the Constitution of the United States than 13 attorneys general? If they do, perhaps they should run for the office of attorney general.

Let it be said here and now: I’m glad my 50-year career as a reasonably successful independent, self-employed small business owner engaged in publishing small-town newspapers ended in 1998. For one thing, the bureaucratic red tape was already intractable and will be 10 times worse under Markey’s new law. With the government running the banks, the automobile industry, the energy industry and now the health-care system, I just don’t see any of the incentives any more that made so many of us want to thrive and achieve. And we did, despite poor health, economic hardships and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

America, America, have we lost our way?