LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for August 18, 2007
photo
Your next Mayor?









Mayor Walsh isn't sure he will run again. Now Councilman Pielin aka "Sleepy Gene" was quoted in the Loveland Reporter-Herald saying he is the most qualified person to run.



Citizens who serve with him on committees have witnessed "Sleepy Gene" in action.  He is a tireless defender of his largest contributors, the McWhinney companies, and has frightened fellow citizens with strange predictions of the world coming to an end soon.



He arrived at the latest Council meeting (study session) in casual cloths, half-shaven with blood-shot eyes. His appearance caused concern among those attending the meeting and has sparked speculation regarding his readiness to continue serving in public office.



Please post suggestions of anyone you may feel is more qualified to run for Mayor. If the Fair Elections ballot measure passes in November, this will be the last chance for candidates like Sleepy Gene to run with McWhinney money for Council. August 27, is the deadline to file to run - do you know anyone who will?







2007-08-18 14:44:52 GMT
Comments (25 total)
Author:Anonymous
You missed the most important adjective to describe Sleepy Gene - ARROGANT. Your picture and story make him look like a nice old man. He is old but not nice. Sleepy flies into rages with staff. His latest trick of trying to find typos in city presentations when he's awake is a nightmare. Then he teases you about the typo for the whole next week.

Is anyone better going to run? If I didn't work for the city I would run. The McWhinneys are suddenly acting nice towards us - I think they are getting the message - stop bossing people around in Loveland. Walsh and Pielin are their puppets and NEED TO GO NOW!


--Frustrated
2007-08-18 15:17:31 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I read the article in the Rocky Mountain Chronicle this morning about this website. Great going! There is intelligent life in Loveland!

Anything I can do to help get these hired bums out of public office?
--Kerin V.
2007-08-18 15:19:49 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Intelligent life in Loveland? First, the last meeting was a study session and not a council meeting. If you notice, most of the city council will dress casual at study sessions.

Who's really worse...the owner of this blog trying to push his own agenda by using misleading candid photos or the Mcwhinneys trying to get council approval?

I was at the study session and Gene did come in late with whatever clothing that he had on instead of going home and making a change. Is that bad?

Two young men were seated in front of me, one taking pics with a camera. Are these the two that show up to take candid pics so the blog can pic and choose the ones which support their objectives?

I used to believe that the Reporter-Herald was bad at reporting the news but this site is way beyond that.

Arn't you people smart enough to know that the owner of this blog has his own agenda and is at odds with anything the city does? He has fought with the city for years. Talk about slanted reporting!

--ouch
2007-08-18 16:59:53 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How can a picture be both misleading and candid? Sorry, but I don't know how honest the Council is since they decided to keep the public out of their discussion about the trolley deal.

I think the trolley thing going secret was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know who does this site or what historical fight they have with the city (please fill me in) but I do know they have found a popular cause in attacking the McWhinney apologists on the City Council. Whether they have credibility or not seems a secondary issue. I know the Council lost theirs. And like they say, credibility is like virginity, once you lose it you can't get it back.

Nobody believes they do it for the city anymore since NO doesn't appear to be in their vocabulary. I live in West Loveland and don't care about cheap shopping centers East of I-25.

If Pielin can't dress in clean cloths for a meeting at city hall (I don't care what kind) he doesn't deserve to me Mayor. He looks like a guy who has been out of circulation for a long time.
--Karl
2007-08-18 19:08:13 GMT
Author:Anonymous
YOU PEOPLE ARE AMAZING> GENE IS FACING PERSONAL PROBLEMS AND YOU MAKE FUN> GO AHEAD AND KICK HIM WHEN HE IS DOWN> HE HAS DONE MORE FOR THE CITY IN THE PAST 4 YEARS THAN ANY OF YOU AND THE CURRENT MAYOR HAVE DONE IN A LIFETIME
--Gene for Mayor
2007-08-18 19:12:04 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, you seem very defensive. Don't you agree enough is enough? The impropriety of this Council has made Loveland a laughing stock and denied us the important RTA opportunity.

Look at what the Rocky Mountain Chronicle says:

Plans for a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) in Northern Colorado have collapsed. Some people, including officials from neighboring cities, have faulted Loveland

I was looking forward to having the transportation improvements. Maybe if Loveland has concerned citizens on Council instead of McWhinney promoters they could have held the RTA together.
--Kerin
<mailto:KerinV@aol.com>
2007-08-18 19:17:42 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I don't understand "Gene for Mayor" posting. Are you serious? I don't care if his problems are health related or some type of chemical dependency or just poor judgment. Rolling into a Study Session unprepared, under dressed and looking groggy will raise questions in the public. He needs to get some realignment before he considers asking us to elect him to be Mayor.

Most of all, he needs to show he can run for office without so much money from the McWhinneys.
--Frustrated!!!
2007-08-18 19:25:57 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Hi everyone! Thanks to all of you who helped us get the ballot initiative signed and ready to be on the ballot!!

Ouch, you must be seriously living in another city if you don't know how people feel. Get a clue.

I want to challenge everyone running for City Council to limit themselves to $100 per contributor. This way they show people they will be honest.

Ouch - Please don't waste your time. People taking so much McWhinney money have no business pretending to be honest when making decisions over McWhinney projects. That defies human nature, logic and oh ya, everything we know about politics. Money corrupts.
--K.T.
2007-08-18 19:31:28 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Just one month ago a person I know on Council told me they were putting the RTA thing on this election and that campaign reform "crap" would never get enough signatures.

Wrong on both counts! He is a good person but spends too much time in city hall and the Chamber. They had no influence over which measures would be on the ballot and will have no control over losing their offices. Its too bad but very true.

--Walt
2007-08-18 19:35:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
pielin for mayor? NO

Can anyone tell me where to get the Rocky Mountain Chronicle article?
--Carol
2007-08-18 19:36:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes, it is online at http://www.rmchronicle.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=26
--Jimmy
2007-08-18 19:37:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Karl: Yes, candid and misleading. I take tons of photos (candid and posed) and I can show you pics of many friends and family members who don't drink but based on the look of the photos, one would assume they were drunk.....especially with the right caption....that's a candid pic that is misleading.

K.T. So, $101.00 or $200.00 will corrupt whereas less than $100.00 will keep you honest? Get real...we're not talking about big bucks here. Even a $1,000.00 donation and used for signs, newspaper ads, etc is not going to make a honest person dishonest. Look at the members on the council and decide if they are that hard up for money that a donation of over a hundred dollars will make that much diffence to them. I think the poorest of the group may be Rousey, Dozier and maybe Brown...not Walsh or Pielin.

Maybe millions or hundres of thounsands but a few hundred bucks..you can't rally believe that.

If your saying that someone running for council may be a dishonest person...Ok. But don't tell me that a few hundred dollars is going change anyone.

Kerin: One of my earlier posted said that the RTA would not make it. If you read this blog, you know that a lot of people who post here were against the RTA because they believed the extra tax money would somehow help the McWhinneys and allow them to use RTA money for regional improvements that are to be made from URA monies.

Read the news, Kerin. First Fort Collins dropped out then Greeley. Loveland was left to make the biggest contributions to the RTA, with the county wanting millions of dollars to go to some county road that runs from Red Feather Lakes to I-25. Loveland residents would have loved that regional improvement!

I have heard that the executive session was used to determine the amount that may be permitted for the trolley and parking (public only). I don't believe that the McWhinneys should be told before hand at a public meeting what the council's limit may be for monies spent on these two items. It's like telling your real estate agent what the max is you'll pay for a house and have the sellers sitting there.

No corruption here..just good common sense.
--ouch
2007-08-18 21:48:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, why do you keep saying a few hundred dollars when the McWhinneys have provided over 100,000 dollars to local elections in the past three years. Look at http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/campaignfinref2.html on this website to see the THOUSANDS of dollars they gave the Mayor and Pielin in 2003.

You are right, it doesn't buy them completely or make them outright corrupt. Instead, by being the single largest contributor to most of the Council they have access to these people the public does not. We get three minutes when they present their trolley idea and their time is unlimited before the Council.

When regular developers or downtown business want something it is often denied. We cannot stand-up and threaten the Council not to vote no or else. Chad Mchinney did with immunity.

If your intent is to convince people they don't control the City Manager and most of the city council in this town you are barking up the wrong tree.

People who read and participate in this blog are informed, smart people who can smell a rat. The McWhinneys just want to use public money for private benefit - it really isn't complicated.

If you are indeed correct and the City Manager held the closed session to see what amount the Council is willing to allow in tax dollars for Mchinney's trolley than he and all the Council broke the law. The Council never directed him (as the law requires) in a public vote to begin a negotiation with McWhinney on "how much" they were willing to fund. An honest Council would have voted no or voted yes but with direction to the City Manager to negotiate a different number. Once they decided to vote yes, the amount would be private, maybe, of how much but I still fail to see why it needs to be since the City Manager will tell his McWhinney friends the amount anyway.

Taking so much from McWhinney makes it difficult to vote against them even when 90% of Loveland is furious with the deal. Instead, the dirty business was brought into private so the people whose money they are giving away couldn't see what was happening. This is a violation of the law and it was campaign contributions that made the Council take the risk. Nobody in this city is afforded the same accommodations as the McWhinneys.

You remember the Churchill quote to the woman who would agree to live with him for all his wealth? Then he asked about sleeping with her for 5 pound sterling? She angrily protested being called a prostitute. He said, Madam, we have already established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price.

The price isn't important Ouch its what the Council is willing to do to get it that matters.
--Art - Kick the bums out
2007-08-19 03:43:40 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Art: Thanks for the web site address to find McWhinney's contributions to Mayor Walsh. Our math must be different. I show $2,600.00 to Walsh. Please tell me where you are finding the $100,000.00 you quoted. Let's see...$2,600.00 to the mayor..that leaves $97,400.00 to other council members??
--ouch
2007-08-19 12:46:44 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The 100,000 dollars is the total to all local elections. County Commissioners to State House, State Senate and even Congresswoman Musgrave. To be more clear, that is the total to all Northern Colorado politicians. Anyone can confirm this by searching the McWhinney contributors to Walsh on the Secretary of State's website.

Loveland City Council, you are correct it was $2,600 or something like that to Walsh but also Pielin and some of the others. All the same amounts, from the same holding companies and all it appears on the same day. I was astonished to read that Rocky Scott and Chad McWhinney pretended not to know about any contributions and claimed since they were a large company this was expected. All the same amounts to the same Council candidates seems a little to coincidental to me.

During the McWhinney's "get the facts" presentation both Chad and Rocky pretended they didn't know McWhinney Enterprises gave to local candidates. Trying to maintain the cover they thought was created by the multiple smaller contributions. And you call this website irresponsible?

Loveland Commercial is a more direct contributor. They just give $1,500 or $2,000 and don't try to hide their enormous contributions to our City Council. They, like the McWhinneys, have been handsomely rewarded for their large political contributions.

McWhinneys constitute the single largest contributors to a number of Councilors. Do you really think it is appropriate when they come back asking the person they sponsored for Council for our tax money?
--Art
2007-08-19 18:33:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ahhh. I though you said over $100,000.00 to "local elections"...Wait a minute...you did.

Now we're talking about state and federal elections...a lot different than "local elections" ...don't you think?

Kinda of like the pics that are misleading to the readers of this blog. You say over a $100,000 to local elections and many of the people reading this blog believe that it is indeed contributions to the Loveland City Council (local elections). Then these people write in and say that it's the only site where they can get the truth!

I'm wondering if you were going to amend your statement without my questions being posted first.

You say "enormous" contributions. Our opinion differs as to the what enormous really means. If you believe a couple of grand to one candidate is enormous and that amount buys votes, then so be it.

I'm not sure where you get your information that Loveland Commerical has been hansomely rewarded. I recall that the city council (mostly the same members as today) turned down Loveland Commerical's request for city monies for the sugar factory.

So much for their huge contributions.

My problem is that over the years I've known many people who don't get a promotion and they blame everyone else but themselves. The city does something they don't agree with and they say that the council is corrupt. Anyone thinking different then they do is wrong. I've even know people who get what they want and still believe that there must be some other motive for it.

For me, the glass is half full...for you, the glass is half empty.

I would be willing to bet that if every current counicl member running is defeated and the new members vote for anthing related to the McWhinneys, you will still believe that it's because of some other reason than just voting for what they may believe is best for the city.


--ouch
2007-08-19 19:06:42 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Again you are terribly mistaken. My email says, "....website to see the THOUSANDS of dollars they gave the Mayor and Pielin in 2003." How is this not accurate? Despite your angry protest I never said City Elections - anyone can read the posting above to see this. Yes, Loveland's State House Representative, State Senator and Congressperson WHO REPRESENT LOVELAND are local politicians.

As for the pictures, I suggest you complain to the people responsible for the website. If they are using pictures of other people or from a different time I would join you in condemning such a thing. However, if they are, in fact, pictures of that meeting you can hardly claim they are out of context. And I think you identified yourself as being there and seeing a person taking pictures.

Yes, Ouch, no matter how much you protest you cannot deny it is inappropriate for Councilmembers to vote over matters involving tax dollars to their SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR for City Council. All they need to do is recuse themselves or not take all that money. It really isn't so difficult.

You seem quick to accuse me when you know nothing about me. You imagine future and past actions I will or have probably taken in your mind that are simply that - artifacts of your vivid imagination.

Pielin's last race would have been competitive if he hadn't received money from LC and McWhinney. Simply that. He likely would have had to run a real campaign in our community and raise money from people who didn't need favors from Council. Wow - what a concept!
--Art
2007-08-19 20:39:14 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Art: This is probably enough on this issue but you said: "...when the McWhinneys have provided over 100,000 dollars to local elections in the past three years."

You continued with the following: "...this website to see the THOUSANDS of dollars they gave the Mayor and Pielin in 2003."

So, I guess you said both. And I agree you never said "city elections" but when you say "local elections", readers will take that as city council and mayor elections. Not local people running for state and federal office but people running for local office.

I really don't know where we draw the line. The real estate board donates a couple of hundred and the coucil should recuse themseleves on issues of any new subdivision when a real estate company may sell some of the homes? Or donations from a downtown business owner who may someday receive the benefits of money going to the downtown area? Or a local contractor who may come before council sometime with a proposed development? Or a resident who may wish to have his street widened?

They may be all smaller amounts but the principal is the same. Maybe you know where to draw the line...I sure don't. Do we only ask that the council recuse themseleves when it involves their biggest contributor? It may be different for each one.

As a side note...just received a phone call about a third candidate who is announcing a bid for mayor. Should be in the newspaper tomorrow.

My opinion is that HE will stand a good chance to get elected.


--ouch
2007-08-19 22:33:14 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I agree with everything you said.

It is always difficult to know where to draw the line when there is no limit. By the way, I believe the Realtor PAC gives $1,000. The difference is that it is coming from hundreds of people with diverse interests and opinions so no one individual or company has a clear advantage.

Where do you draw the line? At $100. Because most everyone can contribute that amount so a local homeowner can contribute equally to the race as a big developer with proprietary interests. I hope the ballot measure passes as a starting point. For $100 nobody is unduly influenced and no Councilmember needs to recuse themselves.

Is the candidate a current council member?
--Art
2007-08-20 04:33:36 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The argument about whether or not campaign contribs "buy" a Council member's vote is moot. Again, the main points are that
1) "Pay to play" is a well known and easily documented condition, and contributions (especially larger ones) buy more access to decision makers than is given regular citizens; and
2) because of their large contributions, those with special interests are able to get elected the candidate who is MOST LIKELY to give them what they want. (Those who are ideologically most likely to support them.)

In the mayor's case alone, more than 95% of the money over 2 election cycles came from those in the real estate industry, with much directly from businesses. To DENY that there is any relationship between such campaign contributions and the decisions of a Council (as Ouch persists in claiming) is simply intellectually dishonest.
Why, if that was the case, would such developers (as McWhiney) invest so much (many thousands in municipal elections alone), if NOT because it is an investment towards policies that will benefit them?
Please don't try to suggest they do this because they just like to give money away.

And the "new" candidate is probably Ken Morey, another developer, who will likely get plenty of money from the real estate industry because he has ably represented them on the Planning Commission. It remains to be seen if he would be any different from the other bozos.

--Digger
2007-08-20 05:00:56 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Is that it then? Sleepy Gene and Lousy Larry didn't get the node since the McWhinneys and Loveland Commercial will run Morey? Wow.

Ouch and Art, try to keep your comments brief - you are wrecking a great Loveland blog by your long ramblings. You must both be politicians.

Anyway, thanks Digger. I won't have to buy the paper tomorrow. Do you agree with Ouch that Morey has best chance to get elected?
--Karl
2007-08-20 05:11:46 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well guys, I am going to bed but I enjoyed the dialog. I think I remember Ouch saying Glenn Rousey would run if Sleepy and Walsh were out of McWhinney favor, did I get that wrong?

Anyway, good night and don't forget to volunteer with Lovelander's for fair elections. They are a great group working to improve the process.
--K.T.
2007-08-20 05:22:36 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Karl: Sorry for not being brief on the comments. Maybe Art and I just have more to say that you. I think you just proved one of my points...people read this blog and believe everything.

Morey had already announced. Karl, go buy the paper this morning and you can read about Troy Krenning announcing that he will run for Mayor and Walsh has dropped out.

Digger: Yes, you are correct...no person or company gives donations because they just like to give money away. They/we make donations based on supporting a candidate who's most likely to support our own beliefs.

It's not that we are buying votes...we assume the votes are already likely there when we support a particular candidate.
--ouch
2007-08-20 12:48:12 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Dear Ouch...
Thank you for noticing me and my right to attend and photograph a council meeting. Also, I love how you make us out to be evil conspirators of some kind, it's very flattering.
--that young man with the camera
2007-08-24 01:46:02 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Your welcome. Anyone can attend a council meeting. You, me, anyone.

I'm sure you're not evil. It's just the improper use of the photos that are in poor taste.

Oh, and don't feel too flattered, the pics arn't that good.
--ouch
2007-08-24 22:47:22 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS