LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for September 17, 2007
photo
The City of Loveland poll results are in and it doesn't look good for Council. The comments this time were saved (thanks to Councilman Skowron's appeal not to dispose of them as in years past) so the public may now review the notes provided by residents in response to the survey.



You can read the story by clicking here.



Please feel free to read it and give us your comments.



Thanks

2007-09-17 08:04:17 GMT
Comments (18 total)
Author:Anonymous
Thanks for reporting the news the Reporter-Herald never wants people to know. The news gap in Loveland has been filled!

I took time to read the actual survey - what a waste of tax dollars. How can anyone on the COuncil pretend this wasn't fore their benefit. Anywho - it backfired since most people think they are a bunch of idiots!

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of cowards.
--Howard
2007-09-17 20:31:47 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ok dear readers: Once again this blog has decided to slant its reporting. Do what the blog owner and I did...stop by city hall and get the council's agenda which includes the survey.

Under "Quality of life" you find responses to rating Loveland as a place to live. You have 30% excellent, 51% good, 10% fair and 1% as poor.

Under "Issues facing the city in the next 3-5 years", the biggest isssue is how to control, limit or manage growth with 45%

"Speed of growth" is broken into poplulation, retail and job growth. The responses were 'much too slow', 'somewhat slow', 'right amount', 'somewhat too fast', and 'much too fast'.

For population, 'somewhat too fast' had the largest percentage with 45%

For retail, 'right amount' had the largest percentage with 42%

For job growth, 'somewhat too slow' led the way with 52%

Under "Public Trust", you had 5 areas where you could mark either excellent, good, fair, or poor.

Under "The value of services for the taxes paid to the City of Loveland", the largest percentages fell under good with 48% and fair with 37%

Under "The overall direction that the City of Loveland is taking", you had good with 49% and fair with 36%

Under "The job the City of Loveland does at welcoming citizen involvement", had good at 47% and fair at 35%.

Under "The job the City of Loveland government does at listening to citizens" had good at 30% and fair at 45%

Under "The effectiveness of City Council", you had good at 29% and fair at 44%

There was also a question dealing with giving incentives to have businesses either locate in Loveland, remain in Loveland or expand their current business in Loveland.

The percentages for using incentives to "Locate in Loveland" saw 45% under 'strongly support' and 40% under 'somewhat support'. Only 4% marked 'strongly oppose'.

The highest percentages for use of incentives for businesess to remain in Loveland or expand their buiness in Loveland were found under 'stongly support' and 'somewhat support'.

What do the numbers tell me? That most people are concerned with controlling, limiting and managing growth. While at the same time, most people rank Loveland as either a good or excellent place to live with regards to quality of life.

Most people belive in incentives for businesses locaing in Loveland and that current retail growth is the righ amount, population growth is somewhat too fast and job growth is somewhat too slow.

Most people also believe that the city and city council is doing a fair to good job. Not excellent but not as poor as this blog would have you believe. As I said before, pick up a copy and read it for yourselves. Howard, you really should read it.

A very nice place to live with excellent city services, and an average city council. Not much different that the last several surveys.
--ouch
2007-09-17 21:38:20 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, you must be politician - you just took 20 paragraphs to tell the guy to read what he already told you he read. Apparently, you just posted a huge speech against this blog but failed to read what the blog says or even what Howard said.

The webpage has a link to the actual survey and Howard told us he read THE ENTIRE SURVEY ALREADY.

Ouch, the current City Council had nothing to do with the things that make Loveland a nice place to live. Benson Park, Ole Course and downtown all existed long before the current council. Cherry Hills, Country Club Estates and other QUALITY improvements to the city happened when Kodak still controlled the council - I was here and remember.

The current Council has approved the Marostica strip malls and given away 25 years of tax base to McWhinneys. Nothing to boast about.

The satisfaction reflected in the survey are the result in our council 15-20 years ago NOT giving away tax base to developers but instead building quality of life around the lake and other important features in the city.

The current council brought us Boise Village and other cheap crime filled areas of the city that look like South Central LA.

Stop trying to take credit for the work of others. Go into Walmart or Sam's Club and you will see the "low-income" people from Longmont, Greeley and Mexico this Council brough to this community with their "incentives."

Very clever not to ask about the tax rebates but instead use a very general term like "incentives" for business.

I would also agree with "incentives" to entice business. Many cities offer quicker approval times on planning review, reduced fees and incentives. Giving away the public's right to certain sales and property tax along with surrendering control of big chunks of the city to speicifc developers is nothing short of treason.

I have been reading you postings and getting more angry everytime without comment. Well, no more - open your &%$^& eyes and see what people are trying to tell you. You are like a chatty cathy doll - bla bla bla.

Yes, Loveland is still a great place to live because West Loveland was 80% well planned. Your sense of history of Loveland reminds me of the Planet of the APes and the views spewed by the monkeys in charge - forgetting that a greater civilization came first and they were just living off that benefit.
--Ed
2007-09-17 22:19:06 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ed, the monkies were not in charge - it was the Apes.

Sapien primates don't deserve to be compared with the likes of our city council.

Their greed and arrogance knows no boundry. Spinning a city paid for public opinion poll into an election ad and tool is shameless.

I will be voting for ANY homosapien who runs against them in November.


--Carl
2007-09-17 22:28:32 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ed, the monkies were not in charge - it was the Apes.

Sapien primates don't deserve to be compared with the likes of our city council.

Their greed and arrogance knows no boundry. Spinning a city paid for public opinion poll into an election ad and tool is shameless.

I will be voting for ANY homosapien who runs against them in November.


--Carl
2007-09-17 22:29:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ed: If you read the survey and then Howard's comments you assume that he did not read the survey. Howard said the survey "backfired". I guess I just don't get it since previous surveys also had the council rated about the same as this one.

Ed, you need to travel to Californa and vist south central...it's about as far removed from what Loveland is as possible.

You like the west portion of Loveland better than the east? You hate low-income people? You like the quality of life around the lake? Lake Loveland? You live there?

Ahhh, I see. Isn't it terrible that other people moved here after you. Maybe you should have put up a wall around the city and kept out everyone. Then you could have kept it all to yourself.

I guess some people just like living in the past.

Ed, you know there are still small towns in Colorado. If you ever decide to move, just make sure the wall is in place.
--ouch
2007-09-17 23:52:23 GMT
Author:Anonymous
It's not the size of the town, but the quality of planning. Unless you favor strong growth control, growth, be it regional or local, happens. And the market may even bring lower income people to Loveland - after all, they work here, don't they?

BUT, why did we subsidize retail development 5-10 miles east of town along congested HWY 34 when we have retail areas that can accomodate more growth right now, near where people live? Why did we approve subdivisions that often look like crap? It seems we can do a better job about how we grow, but it will require the will to do things that some developers won't like. Until we have a council who are able to put the interests of the people ahead of a few developers, we'll have these problems.


--Anonymous
2007-09-18 05:00:41 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I think it is time I spoke to a major problem in this city. Namely, "small town mentality". Regardless of "he said this" or "he/she said that", until the City of Loveland as a whole, inclusive of citizens, business owners, developers, city employees, and, yes, city council, begin to realize that this is no longer a "small town", then the depth by which we will be measured by the year 2010 will become.. "you know, that is a great little place to visit, but they never seemed to look to the future; look how far behind they are now".

Personally, I think the need for an entire "new regime" will become necessary if we ever wish to see Loveland realize it's full potential for the gateway city that it could become.

Having lived in Colorado for over 14 years, we area behind a giant expansion curve that has already struck Adams County, Boulder County, and esp. Broomfield county.

If serious forethought and vision for the future is not taken seriously now, then Windsor, Fort Collins and Greeley will be the major contenders for business, growth, and future revenue investments... not Loveland.
Wake up people, the time for change is now.. not a year from now.. WAKE UP PEOPLE! STOP THE APATHY! GET INVOLVED!


--troubled
2007-09-18 05:22:13 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Surveys such as this one such be taken with a grain of salt, tongue in cheek, given they contain as much truth and fact as the propaganda pass off as news in the pages of the Reporter-Herald, the world's most worthless and useless newspaper.
--David
2007-09-18 14:07:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thank you troubled. For years Loveland politics has been portrayed as a fight between two groups, neither of whom get it: those who are staunchly anti-growth, be they native Lovelanders or "pull up the drawbridge" types; and those who are so pro-growth they are willing to give away vast amounts of taxpayer money to retail development, bringing in poorly planned growth, traffic and low-paying jobs. Both of these suffer from what you call small-town mentality. Let's face it, the McWhinney brothers probably came here from California, took one look at our Council, and said, "there's nine hicks we can take to the bank."

We need to wake up and deal with growth in a way that makes us a better community. We need more moderates (on this growth issue) on the Council.
--Anonymous
2007-09-19 04:57:21 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The survey and some of the comments about it here indicate "cognitive dissonance"; i.e. internally conflicting attitudes or beliefs. For example, the poll would appear to suggest that some of the same people who are clamoring for "higher paying jobs" may also be decrying growth - either the rate of growth or the shape of it...or both.

Notwithstanding the fact that the questions themselves don't allow for nuanced responses, it might be true that some don't actually see the conflict in their demands. In any economy, it is not likely that you can have all high-paying jobs or that you can restrict development to provide only that. For every higher-wage "primary" job, there is a multiplier effect creating many more low-wage, service jobs. The higher-wage earners must be accompanied by retail and fast food and dry cleaning and lawncare and trash hauling, day care, pet sitters, etc. etc.
The principle also applies to the mistaken notion that one area can just become a tax magnet by developing retail to extremes, as the race to develop every highway interchanges shows. The retail needs customers. The infrastructure for the retail will be used by residential rooftops; and municipalities will want to recapture investment in that infrastructure. Market forces will attempt to create a natural balance.

Those who get caught up in some imagined competition for development often ignore the costs of unwise choices. Not only is quality of life eroded as community identity is lossed to the kind of sprawl that destroyed S.California, (where one can cross streets a couple of times and be in 3 different "cities" wihtout any apparent change), but the residents face costs of living which escalate far faster than inflation. To talk broadly about "growing revenue" without considering this in the context of the cost side of the equation is pretty valueless. I agree with those who say we should have good planning, but it should be to fulfill the goals of true economic vitality...based on economic diversity, well managed growth (that pays its way), and a balanced budget. To rely on growth alone is to become addicted to something that is itself not sustainable.
--Roger
2007-09-21 04:30:57 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thank God for LovelandPoltics.com

Great discussion and really on track. Politics are secondary to competence. Everyone in Loveland who has a college degree (and many more who don't) know our City Council is being taken advantage of by the McWhiners.

Development takes many forms and can have very negative or very positive impacts on a community depending on the local government.

The natural "push" to make developers create better quality and protect the quality of life of existing residents is absent in Loveland and everyone knows it. Our parks, schools, roads and especially local services are not keeping track with all the new homes. No city in the front range would allow developers like those near 43 and Wilson to build hundreds of new small track homes without a regional park, new school or feeder roads. Not to mention a little landscaping in common areas.

The McWhiners figured they would add such benefits to their latest development "The Lakes at Centerra" but have the future homeowners pay with future taxes. A smart SHORT TERM business profit for McWhiners and a LONGTERM catastrophe for the rest of us. Despite what the Council was told, MANY communities have gone broke trying to pay bonds developers created but couldn't be paid years down the road when the profit mongers were long gone from the community.

My hat is off to Walt Skowron who voted no. The rest need a swift kick in the rear and go back to the blue collar jobs they understand.

I don't care if someone is Democrat, Republican or maybe even Green. We need representation on City Council that can understand an excel spreadsheet and the consequences of LONGTERM debt for the community.

Time for a big change.
--Carl J.
2007-09-21 05:38:45 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Carl J: Tell us how the city is responsible for bond payment in case of a default by the McWhinneys. It's a private development and to my knowledge, a city government is not responsible for bond payments on bonds issued by a private developer.

There are several metro districts in the city and any home buyer in a metro districts is told before purchase what the increased mill levey will be. You will find metro districts thoughout the county. I'm not a big fan of the districts but they don't shift any burden of bond payments to the city.


--ouch
2007-09-22 12:44:29 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Subsidizing one developer with bonds for more residential building in Loveland is one of the worst ideas I have seen in a long time.

The bonds payback is fixed on future taxes assessed on the value of the property. The City Council did something really stupid by allowing the time for the building of these items to stretch until 2015.

Ouch, if the city relies on special tax district bonds to build needed public infrastructure in a project - the city is clearly at risk since the city is responsible for making sure the infrastructure gets built properly and is maintained - they can't leave 1,000 homes in Loveland without sewers - for example.

These bonds can only be paid back if two things happen - property values increase as projected and interest rates don't exceed 12.5%.

In the early 80's and even on the mid-70's many municipalities (including New York) defaulted on BILLIONS of dollars in bonds. Either because interest rates were too high (70's) or the property values plummeted (early 80's).

While Loveland claims its not on the hook, 1,000 homes that need roads, sewers and other amenities are not going to be ignored by the city. If 20% of the residents move-in and McWhinney's house of cards finally falls, who will be to finish the infrastructure needed for the project? Those homeowners are obligated through the bond to pay higher taxes but if they don't get the benefits they were promised they will sue the city. It seems fairly obvious has this has happened before.

Ouch, go take a look at FITCH the bond rating website. They have lots of information about why these types of bonds are higher risk and thus receive higher yields for investors.
--Carl
2007-09-22 19:30:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Anonymous

Thanks for the support on your comments; however, we are just a couple of individuals with scope, education, and forethought. Unfortunately, and believe me this is rhetorical, how do you educate and spirit others within this community to do anything?
Run for a political office? hmmm...
Or maybe "disclose" facts you are already aware of that is an embarrassment the current city council? The Chamber of Commerce? The DLA?

.... food for thought
--troubled
2007-09-23 07:48:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Carl J

Look a little further than just city bonds; go ask the city about developers that have already finished many subdivisions, and see if they have any "bonds" that were approved for that development. You might be surprised at what you find... and by the way, better also look into "which city councilmen/coucilwomen" would gain from such concepts. This one could be, again, the good old boys benefiting and the citizens taking it in the shorts later.

--troubled
2007-09-23 07:57:04 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Carl: You may be correct, but what I'm finding is the bond defaults in New York City was with municipal bonds.

It's my understanding that the bonds which the McWhinneys will market will be issued only after certain phases of the development are completed..when the homes are in place and the metro tax is assured of being collected.

The streets, curbs and gutter, water and sewer systems will be place. Just like any other subdivision. If they were not in place, then the homes/lots could not be sold and the metro taxes could not be collected. In which place, the bonds would not be issued. Again, the bonds are to be issued after homes are in place with the appropriate improvements.

If your 'house of cards' fall, there will be no need to complete any additional imporvements....which should already be in place.

In any event, the bonds ARE NOT issued or backed by the city and I don't see where the city would hold any responsibility.
--ouch
2007-09-23 20:51:57 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, every other developer in this town pays for these things as part of our total project budget. What I do also is "presell" lots to other developers to raise the money I need for streets and sewer and of course recapture that in the final property sale at the end. The cost of money rising has hurt me but I am still building without city or bond dollars.

I think you are one of the Councilors who ignored our plea to you about how unfair the "use tax" is in this town. If so, good luck because builders will not vote for you again.

This town is about a lot more than just McWhinney only our council doesn't seem to care. That is when builders stopped caring about this council of McWhinney ninnies.
--Pro-Growth not ninnies
2007-10-15 18:29:18 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS