LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for October 5, 2007
photo
The first candidate forum took place Oct. 4, 2007 in Loveland City Hall.  The three candidates for Mayor and all City Council candidates were in attendance.



Ken Morey, candidate for Mayor, said he is running for Mayor because he doesn't like the direction the city is going while the other two candidates for Mayor, Troy Krenning and Gene Pielin, emphatically defended subsidized sprawl, secret meetings for taxpayer funded trolley and large special interest contributions for city council candidates.



In the four City Council Wards (only three contested) the three candidates challenging an incumbent (Cecil Gutierrez, Don Archuleta and Kent Solt) supported Measure 2c to limit special interest contributions to city campaigns, promised to conduct the city council meetings in a more transperant manner, focus on revitalizing downtown and listening more to citizens instead special interests.



The incumbents, Jan Brown, Steve Dozier and Larry Heckel all defended their secret meetings, subsidies for sprawl (especially McWhinney) and don't support Measure 2C that will limit special interest contributions to their campaigns.



The choice seem fairly clear.  What do you think?
2007-10-05 18:18:46 GMT
Comments (99 total)
Author:Anonymous
I found Troy Krenning's presentation to be very polished but not very genuine. He kept saying he would be a cheerleader - what a joke. We don't need more rubber stamps cheerleading staff from the dais.
--Art
2007-10-05 18:21:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I tried to watch this on channel 16, the RH said that it would be on live. It was not, does anyone know if it will be aired on TV?
--Julie
2007-10-05 19:15:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes, it was taped and will be aired on channel 16 a number of times between now and the election. You will not see some parts of the forum as the moderator asked that the tape be stopped. A citizen asked that they say the pledge and a short argument took place. The moderator asked the camera guy to cut that out of the tape.

Later, Pielin tried to censor the comments of Mr. Solt by trying to stop his closing comments. I don't know if the city will allow Pielin to edit out his angry and disruptive outbursts.
--Kyle
2007-10-05 19:20:34 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Who does your reporting?

Your words, not the candidates:

"subsidies for sprawl"
"secret meetings"

What was acutally said were subsidies for growth and executive sessions.

I'm not a big fan of the Reporter-Herald but at least they don't make an effort to mis-quote people.

Kyle: Pielin didn't try to censor anyone, he tried to stop Solt from making personal attacks..which was not allowed in this forum. Solt wasn't making closing comments, he was attacking Dozier on his attendance at study sessions. All the candidates were told before closing statements that they could only talk about what was brought up during the question and answer period. He, instead, started to attack Dozier.

Kyle, do you work for this blog or did you not understand what the forum was all about?
--ouch
2007-10-05 20:53:28 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, have you ever had a job? Imagine not showing-up 30% of the time. Would you say you were fired for personal not professional reasons? Would your boss be making a "personal attack" when he pointed to your poor attendance?

The League of Woman Voters asked the question to all the candidates of why they were running for office. In Solt's case, he is running because he wants better representation for his ward. He promised to attend study sessions unlike the incumbent who doesn't bother to attend all the council meetings. It is a matter of public record - a record the public has the right to know.

Gene Pielin is an angry and arrogant old man. He has no more right to interrupt the moderator than anyone else running for office. His outburst was wrong.

Telling people what they can and cannot say at a candidate forum is CENSORSHIP. Steve Dozier has been hiding for too long and now needs to face the music. It is time to stop supporting McWhinney SPRAWL while hiding from the people he is supposed to represent.
--Kyle
2007-10-05 21:42:57 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I wonder if "Ouch" works for the Reporter-Herald.
--Scott
2007-10-05 22:26:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Great job on the debate coverage but I am still waiting for you to post the Ward IV details.

Jan Brown's face on the Ward I site is so funny - I had Cecil as a teacher and he is one heck of a guy. His integrity cannot be bought by McWhinney or anyone. His lifetime of service to the public shows where his priorities are in the right place.

I cannot believe Brown said she isn't going to talk about McWhinney! He bankrolled you campaign and gets everything he asks for - of course, you don't want to talk about it.
--Janey
2007-10-06 02:13:45 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Kyle: Well stated but the point is that this forum's rules were set by the League of Women Voters not by your or I. I can't say that what Solt stated was in error but he violated the guidelines as set forth.

Telling the cadidates what may or may not be said is the right of the moderator and the organization hosting the forum..it is not censorship.

There is enough personal attacks between candidates at the federal level without having it at the local level.


--ouch
2007-10-06 12:45:22 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Again: I wonder if "Ouch" works for the Reporter-Herald.
--Scott
2007-10-06 13:33:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
No...nor would I
--ouch
2007-10-06 19:09:22 GMT
Author:Anonymous
An elitist and a coward? Such a pillar of the community you are, "Ouch".
--Peter
2007-10-06 22:12:44 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Peter, your comments are not welcome and I suggest they remove them from this blog. I don't care who Ouch is but appreciate his contributions. However, he is wrong this time.

Kyle is in error, Dozier only ATTENDED 23% of his council's study sessions in one year not missed 23%. If you are running for City Council and fail to attend meetings, pointing this out is NOT a personal attack but a very valid issue the voters deserve to know. What is his excuse?

This might explain why he almost never talks at Council meetings. As Mark Twain once said,

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

If Steve is skipping study sessions he is well advised to remain quiet at council meetings!
--Carl
2007-10-06 23:05:58 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I really enjoyed watching the forum and don't agree with some of what is written here.

Ken Morey is a very handsome man and looks just like Robert Duvall. His rugged looks and kind manner make him the real kind of man for our Mayor. Troy Krenning is a nice young man who needs more experience before running for Mayor and Gene is just cantankerous.
--Grace
2007-10-06 23:13:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I know Ken Morey professionally and find him to be a genuine, fair, thoughtful and independent-minded man who would represent the citizens of Loveland, not special interests seeking our tax money. He seems to understand why we need a local economy that supports quality jobs, not taxpayer-subsized and poorly planned growth. He is really the only choice for Mayor and to be honest probably the best of all the candidates if you ask me. That said, I don't have any views on Grace's comments.
--Anonymous
2007-10-06 23:27:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Politics is all about timing. I think the time is right for Ken Morey. He isn't a no growth type because he is a developer and understands the industry and its issues very well.

At the same time, he will not be taken advantage of or provide special treatment to a few well healed individuals - all developers will be treated equally and fairly. The McWhinney backed candidates (Pielin and Krenning) will do none of the above.
2007-10-07 04:21:17 GMT
Author:Anonymous
OK, I don't admit to friends I read this site because they hate it and say the news on it is way over the top. But, I didn't see the forum and did read what was written on LovelandPolitics on the forum answers. The paper barely covered it. I doubted that Troy Krenning said he thought the Mayor's job was to be a cheerleader....my friends who support him told me that LovelandPolitics intentionally misquoted him on that one.

Well, I opened this morning's paper (Reporter-Herald) and WOW! He not only described the mayor's job as a cheerleader but also said he WANTS THE POM POMS in another interview with them!

OK, the ballot is secret so neither the cheerleader or sleepy will have my vote for Mayor!

Thanks for what you do in Loveland. I want a city council that stand-up for the city and takes their jobs seriously! We already have too many cheerleaders on council who do what the McWhinneys and city staff tell them to do.

I don't want a sleepy senior citizen or cheerleader as Mayor! I will also vote for Ken.

Maybe coming out of the closet while running for Mayor isn't really good for the city'
--Stop the Cheerleader
2007-10-07 13:36:31 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Advocating censorship? Carl, YOU MUST work for The Reporter-Herald, since they practice it as a religion. I suggest you rethink such remarks because you are now on very dangerous ground with such remarks since this great country was founded on freedom. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn YOU work for the The Reporter-Herald and ARE a Democrat - two requirements of employment there.
--Ann
2007-10-07 15:35:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Hey guys, I think the incumbents are on the run because they realize the community doesn't trust their judgment anymore. I went to the CSU game yesterday and didn't see the usual City Council suspects sucking down McWhinney's free beer (Jan Brown is off campaigning)at their big "tail gate" corporate tent before the game. I am only welcome there because they don't know I also read and love LovelandPolitics!

Anywho-the evidence for my conclusions is easy --- look at how many signs the McWhinney candidates (Krenning, Brown, Heckel and Dozier) have on rental and commercial properties and empty lots waiting development. OK, so a few people who own property want the council to continue favoring their big contributors over the hard working folks in town.

I have also seen yard signs for Gutierrez and Archuleta on the lawns of real residents of our community. Pielin might be the exception because he does have some too.

As a guy in the trades, I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat, I just want the McWhinney butt kissers off the Council for good!

I also like Ken for Mayor because he is not one of them but certainly not a no-growther as the McWhinney goons were telling me yesterday.

The beer was nice and cold so I hung around for that.
--Tradesman
2007-10-07 22:25:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Tradesman, I am glad you enjoyed the Mchwinney's free beer. As a Loveland taxpayer, consider it a gift from me. Did they have their slogan "bring us your dreams"?

They brought us the nightmare of excessive traffic, sprawl, ugly big-box retail and empty promises to fix I-25 and 34 inter-changes. So their real slogan should be "bring us your dream and we'll give you a nightmare."
--Carl
2007-10-07 22:31:40 GMT
Author:Anonymous
It's good to see the Council may be going back to a more balanced approach. I agree with you all, this isn't about growth vs anti-growth, but about responsible government that doesn't corruptly support one or two developers with our tax money while neglecting the rest of the community. We can all see the main supposed benefit of the McWhinneys - additional sales tax revenue - isn't materializing.
--Jake
2007-10-08 00:38:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Tradesman: You'll sit down and drink someone's free beer when you don't like them?! Something is not right about that.

If you really look around as you drive through the city you will see all the cadidates having yard signs in private yards.

Jake: Do you really believe that the coucil only support a few developers? How about the non-McWhinney subdivisions around town, Loveland Housing Authority, Walmart, Kohls, Home Depot, Lowes, the new hotel on west 34 and Cascade and others?
--ouch
2007-10-08 12:47:47 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yeah, you have never heard the famous Teamster who said the sign of a good legislator is one who can take the lobbyists wine, women and money and still vote against them?

This is what the council needs to learn and the McWhinneys may stop being so generous!
--Tradesman
2007-10-08 16:32:46 GMT
Author:Anonymous
With respect to the issue of favoritism to McWhinney over other developers, it goes far, far beyond the huge financial subsidies, they receive blanket exemptions from City standards for traffic that other developers must comply with and thru the development process special consideration on a routine basis, they even commonly violate their own rules. The public has no idea of the true extent to which they are favored above other developers and the citizens of loveland. The Council even has no true understanding of this, not the full extent.
2007-10-08 18:16:51 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I agree, a friend recently told me he couldn't get help from folks in planning because they said they were assiged EXCLUSIVELY to McWhinney related projects. If this is true, you would think the cost of this would be easy to track if some employees support nothing but their projects.
--Disgusted
2007-10-08 19:03:30 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Tradesman,
Teamsters suck.
2007-10-08 19:51:35 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Tradesman: Thanks for the quote.

Here's one from Willliam Hazlitt 1778-1830, British Essayist.

"A hpocrite despises those whom he deceives, but has no respect for himself. He would make a dupe of himself too, if he could"

Kinda fits dosen't it?


--ouch
2007-10-08 21:41:36 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes it does. Is that why you must deceive us about your true identity?
--Tradesman
2007-10-08 22:45:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Please take you bikering elsewhere.

Thank you LovelandPolitics for the great debate coverage. I couldn't make the meeting but really appreciate the pictures and quotes so I know who to vote for this election.

However, you haven't told us which rascals took McWhinney money last time. That would really also help some of our neighbors in making their desicion.

Thank you

Sincerely
--Warren
2007-10-08 22:52:20 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes, McWhinney is assigned the exclusive attention of the most senior, capable staff of the City. No one is served in Loveland until McWhinney is served and get what the want. They all take McWhinney money, that's why McWhinney pulled Grand Station, they know they have it either way, regardless of who's elected. The only way for any fariness is for a complete overhaul of the public process. They own this town unlike anything I have ever seen. They even have their own personal advocate that seems to do nothing but spend his time posting on their behalf on this blog. They are everywhere. Lovelanders need to take their town back.
2007-10-09 04:13:38 GMT
Author:Anonymous
In order for Lovelanders to take back their city they need to be able to get facts and truths relevant to life in Loveland. For that to happen Ken Amundsen and his mud-slinging hacks at the Repeater-Hairball must be sent packing. Amundsen is the biggest liar and scumbag to ever be the editor of that rag of a paper and the fact he is is why Lovelanders do not get the information they need when they need it.

--Neil
2007-10-09 15:21:13 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Why does everyone go back to the McWhinneys? This thread was on the cadidiates not your incorrect assumptions dealing with the city council and the McWhinneys.

Did everyone read the Reporter-Herald today? The newspaper came out in favor of Cecil Gutierrez over Jan Brown. For all those who want a change, is the local newspaper only terrible when they disagree with you? What about now?
--ouch
2007-10-09 18:34:11 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Any endorsement made by the Reporter-Herald should be considered suspect.
--David
2007-10-09 19:32:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
aaah, so it starts. Paranoia runs wild....even with a new council.
--ouch
2007-10-09 21:36:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
To Ann, who wrote that one must be Democrat to be hired by the Reporter Herald. Not so, my friend. The Lehmans and most of their management are Republican, as well as editors and reporters. Not to suggest that they hire only Republicans.

However, they are very much the preservers of the status quo and the benefactor of the powerful because they share their intersests. They make their money selling ads for big box retail, real estate and car dealers.
--Sally
2007-10-09 23:29:17 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch - Have you never heard the saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

Look, there are one of two explanations. 1. The Reporter-Herald believes Jan will not win re-election and therefore are doing what Chad McWhinney likes to advocate - "to be successful you must get in-front of the inevitable."

I read the editorial carefully and find it to be well thought out and well stated. Yes! I subscribe and enjoy reading our local paper everyday. Jan Brown's continued support for McWhinney on complicated tax deals she cannot hope to understand makes her dangerous on the Council.

Ouch, not everyone on this blog hates the Reporter-Herald. There are a few bomb throwers who don't represent everyone and want to trash the paper.

However, lots of people really dislike this City Council in town, old, young, conservative, liberal, the few minorities in town not to forget sports fans, downtown shoppers and most anyone who pays taxes.

I think that covers it, success has a million fathers while failure is an orphan. The recent disowning of Brown by the Reporter-Herald is a reflection on just how unpopular this Council has become that not even the Reporter-Herald wants to stomach another 4 years of Jan Brown.

Downtown Loveland hasn't failed but Jan Brown failed downtown. Her play possum strategy to the McWhinney demands has meant subsidizing the destruction of downtown Loveland.
--Walt
2007-10-10 03:13:11 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt, to suggest that downtown Loveland has been destroyed would imply that it was once successful. This statement is completely ridiculous. Do the citizens of Loveland not deserve a choice as to where they will spend their hard-earned money? Perhaps my family prefers the convenience and prices available at McDonalds (or Walmart), should I then be forced to eat or shop in downtown Loveland just because you think the old buildings are pretty?
--Lovelander for choice
2007-10-10 14:46:13 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Choice implies a free market economy "Lovelander for Choice."

The farmers who sold low-cost options on their land to McWhinney didn't have the "choice" to develop the land themselves because the speedy approvals, waiver of use taxes, metro districts and LURA tax diversions were only provided to McWhinney and no one else in east Loveland.

Yes, people do deserve a choice. If McWhinney wants to build big box stores in Loveland again may he do so with his OWN MONEY?

Subsidizing millionaires with tax dollars from a town where the average family only makes $50,000 per year is wrong.

Ft. Collins and Johnstown leaders are smart enough to know that creating public debt (bonds) for retail buildings that lasts 25 years (the debt) means a little tax revenue today for debt and despair in the future once people start shopping somewhere else. In 25 years when Loveland can finally receive the sales taxes the McWhinney big box stores of Centerra will lilkely have exceeded their useful life leaving us with more urban blight.

Our City Council reminds me of all the people 5 years ago who were getting into ARM's and adjustable rate mortgages to buy bigger houses for lower payments. Yes, they laughed at my modest home and 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Today, they are on thin ice and can't sell their homes.

Creating "propserity" through debt only postpones the day of reckoning. Loveland is headed for a shaky financial future if we don't stop all the the runaway debt train this council has us on!
--Walt
2007-10-10 15:39:34 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How can the editor of the Reporter-Herald be the moderator of the canddiate forum Thursday night? He has already endorsed certain candidates. Can't they find a better moderator?

I understand Jan Brown may not attend the forum in protest of their bias editorial. She has done a lot for the city and wasn't recognized for her accomplishments by the Reporter-Herald. Jan told me the new reporter (Cara O'Brien) came from Firestone or something and doesn't know anything about Loveland so her reporting is terrible. Jan also said she has only written for a trade press and doesn't understand how the media should work in Loveland.

In any event I hope Jan decides to boycott the forum. The Chamber doesn't deserve a candidate like Jan Brown if they can't do more to protect her re-election campaign from attacks.
--K.W.
2007-10-10 15:51:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How can the editor of the Reporter-Herald be the moderator of the canddiate forum Thursday night? He has already endorsed certain candidates. Can't they find a better moderator?

I understand Jan Brown may not attend the forum in protest of their bias editorial. She has done a lot for the city and wasn't recognized for her accomplishments by the Reporter-Herald. Jan told me the new reporter (Cara O'Brien) came from Firestone or something and doesn't know anything about Loveland so her reporting is terrible. Jan also said she has only written for a trade press and doesn't understand how the media should work in Loveland.

In any event I hope Jan decides to boycott the forum. The Chamber doesn't deserve a candidate like Jan Brown if they can't do more to protect her re-election campaign from attacks.
--K.W.
2007-10-10 15:51:29 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The city does recieve the sales tax from Centerra. It is the extra sales tax which is diverted to the metro district. Ft Collins is currently in the process of setting up several metro districts. As for Johnstown, they have annexed an interchange (I-25/US34) which is a full 5 miles away from the Hwy 60 interchange, quite a smart move. If I was you, I would point out that the Centerra mall will probably need to be redeveloped in, say, ten years, at which time a metro district would be more appropriate. Lastly, we are all impressed by your stoicism and the conservative lifestyle you lead. Have a good day!
--Tlaw (opposite of Walt)
2007-10-10 17:02:11 GMT
Author:Anonymous
If Brown sits out the debate, she will only be hurting herself. The Reporter-Herald's political leanings (republican) are not important in a city election, only that the paper has a "no growth" agenda.
2007-10-10 17:46:09 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I also talked to Jan and encouraged her to end the boycott and attend the debate. By the way, the Reporter-Herald DOES NOT have a no-growth agenda.

Jan is still on the fence and very hurt she wasn't endorsed. She told me she even asked the Rocky Mountain Chronicle if they were going to endorse candidates hoping someone credible would support her floundering race for council.

Personally, I told her to fire Kitty Wild and find a more credible campaign manager.
--Concerned Friend
2007-10-10 18:04:06 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Hey Concerned Friend-

Jan Brown's refusal to explain her uncompromising support of McWhinney and voting for eminent domain for KB Homes over local property owners only helps Cecil Gutierrez.

A good campaign manager would keep her at home and only send mailers to the community using dated photographs of their candidate (oops Heckel is already using this strategy).

Jan Brown and Steve Dozier are the two most inarticulate people I have ever seen serving in public office!
--Kick the Bums Out
2007-10-10 18:09:58 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I just talked to the Chamber of Commerce. They have all the questions from the audience already written for Thursday night so don't bother asking anything - your written question will go in the trash. They also pretended not to know about Jan Brown sitting this one out.
--Angry Resident
2007-10-10 18:13:45 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Concerned-The editorial staff of the R-H is most definitely "no-growth". If you don't agree than you should explain the paper's endorsements thus far this election season. If loony Don is their pick in Ward 4, you will know the fix is on.
--Concerned for Concerned friend
2007-10-10 19:34:44 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Dear Kick,
The eminent domain angle is way overplayed. That intersection, as it currently exists, is one of the most dangerous in this area. There is a big difference between the type of eminent domain the Supreme Court upheld last year (which is wrong) and the type for road improvements necessary for public safety. Many times people will use a negative sounding accusation to try to convince people who don't understand the associated issue. I think you are trying to do this, and also don't understand the issues.
--Concerned, Angry Bum
2007-10-10 20:00:45 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Dear Mr. Bum:

I am VERY familiar with the eminent domain issue. While only one party was ultimately a victim of eminent domain, others (including relatives of mine) were told to sell to the developer or face loosing their land to eminent domain at a lower price! Which choice would you take?

When the council pretends that means they didn't use eminent domain on those people is like a bank robber claiming he didn't use a gun in the robbery since he never fired it. This City Council (excluding Klassen since it was Don Marostica) USED EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE AWAY PROPERTY FOR A DEVELOPER.

The intersection was only required BECASUE Aspen Knolls was to be approved by Council. All the Council should have done is tell the developer that if they can't buy the property at a fair price from those people than they clearyl haven't boutght all the property they need to develop!

How dare you excuse my concern - it is exactly what happened in New London, CT!

By the way, Don Archuleta is 10 times the man Larry Heckel ever will be. He looks you in the eye and talks straight to you instead of in circles.

The Reporter-Herald can't be called no-growth for endorsing anyone since none of the candidates are no-growth.

Don Archuleta will be the next Councilman from Ward 4 so get used to it!
--Kick
2007-10-10 20:22:30 GMT
Author:Anonymous
K,
I too know folks who live near the intersection of Taft and Cr16(28stSW) and they believe, as I do, that the intersection there is dangerous.
In the Kelo decision you cite, a neighborhood was taken for PRIVATE use (much by Pfizer). These takings by the City of Loveland are for PUBLIC (road) improvements. I can make a distinction there, and you apparently cannot. You can go ahead and be mad, insulted or TYPE IN ALL CAPS if you like, but we are going to have to disagree on this matter.

P.S.-A monkey could be elected to the council seat in Ward 4, I would get used to it, and Mr Monkey would probably do as good of a job as "Drowsy Don" will do.

--Bum
2007-10-10 21:22:38 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Your argument is specious and needs to be examined.

1. In New London the land went not to the city but instead directly to the developer – Oops, In Loveland it also went directly to the developer and not the city.
2. In New London, many of the private homes sat right where the developer wanted to put roadways that would eventually be turned back to the city when complete – Ooops, again, in Loveland the private property sat right on an area the developer needed to build roadways that would eventually be returned to the city.
3. Finally, the New London case was especially controversial since the EMINENT DOMAIN wouldn’t be necessary except for the proposed PRIVATE development. Ooops, your argument again falls short, in Loveland the improvement wouldn’t have have been made by the city except for the PRIVATE development.

K.B. Homes was allowed to STEAL people’s private property using the power of Eminent Domain wielded carelessly by bought local elected officials. It is shameful and something many of the people who believe in private property rights in Loveland will not soon forget.

The final proof is that once the developer decided against the development the city has done nothing to improve the intersection

Get lost you Bum.

--Kick
2007-10-10 21:53:06 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Eminent domain was not used with the Aspen Knolls development (KB Homes). The parties reached an agreement without the use of eminent domain.

What was needed was only a portion of land for public improvements, a temporary construction easement, drainage and utility easements.

The Ray Hein Family trust would have benefited with such improvements if their land were ever to be developed.

KB later asked for a metro district and with the council leaning towards a denial, they pulled the item from the agenda. They (KB) have since sold the property.

In cases such as this, the city does not make road improvements but rather has the developer pay for the needed costs. Otherwise, the city would be making improvements and then waiting for development to happen if it does happen at all...a bad thing to do.

With regards to ward 4...be very careful of what you wish for. Larry Heckel has long been a respected member of this community with a heart in the right place. It would be a total shame to have him replaced...especially with Archuleta.


--ouch
2007-10-10 22:38:50 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Larry Heckel is a developer. Don Archuleta is a consultant working for communities throughout the U.S., chaired the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan and sits on the City's Public Safety Commission. Let's see developer vs professional community development consultant actively involved in the Community. Yes, so is Larry, but he clearly has a conflict as does Dave Clark, Gene Pielin, who sells landscaping to development interests. Who would be less biased and self served by being on Council? Before the recent controversy and delay of Grand Station, all of the incumbent members stated openly that they were not going to run, as soon as Grand Station became controversial and was pulled, all but the mayor are now running. Gee, I wonder what could have changed their minds??????
2007-10-11 04:52:51 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well put. Gene Pielin is likely posting the derogatory comments here about Don Archuleta.

Don is a concerned citizen who will make an excellent member of the city council. Larry Heckel is a tired and bitter old man who spreads only ill-will and bad feelings - whenever he does decide to speak which is very infrequently.

We love Don Archuleta and have no doubt he will listen to residents unlike the incumbent he is running against.
--Cary
2007-10-11 05:06:58 GMT
Author:Anonymous
As I said before, paranoia runs wild....especially on this blog.

Larry Heckel is retired as a developer. Not that it matters. Archuleta is a retired air traffic controller or at least worked in the aviation industry. So if we use Anonymous's way of thinking, any decision that Archuleta would make about the Fort Collins-Loveland airport would be tainted or based on something he would be getting in return for his vote.....get real.

Cary: I can only assume you do not know Larry Heckel or listen to any of the council meetings. Larry has never spread any ill-will or bad feelings...except maybe in your own mind. As to being a tired and an old man, he's over 10 years younger than Archuleta. Again, not that age makes a bit of difference. Except maybe to you.

Archuleta has an axe to grind and will only cause problems when dealing with the rest of the council. During the last candidate forum he was getting direction from someone in the audience as to how to answer the questions.
--ouch
2007-10-11 12:41:06 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch,

Please stop trying to impugn the integrity of the people on this blog as you spew false information. On March 16, 2004, the Loveland City Council VOTED to impose Eminent Domain on the Hein family property on behalf of KB Homes. According to the agreement with the city, KB Homes paid Loveland all the costs associated with the imposition of the Eminent Domain action and the maoney paid the Hein family trust. The city made KB Homes pay all the city’s cost because, as the city’s own agreement states, the action was taken on behalf of KB Homes since the property once stolen by the city was immediately deeded over to KB Homes. Go look it up.

The other frightened property owners who were protesting the action quickly agreed to sell their properties since the “compensation” offered by the city’s Eminent Domain process was less than what KB Homes was offering. The City Council simply stole private land to help a developer – not complicated really.

Ouch, go to the front page of LovelandPolitics and read the voting records of the City Council. Since you are likely a member of the unpopular Council that voted for it, you might want to go back and read the documents regarding what you voted for instead of relying on the City Manager Don Williams to spoon feed you a child’s version of events through his folksy tales and false antidotes. Even Gene Pielin felt it was outrageous and voted no (maybe he read the information).

People in Loveland and especially this blog are much smarter than you or Larry Heckel ever imagined. The good ‘ol boys’ Council is quickly disappearing this election cycle.

As far as Heckel being rude, I was told one petition circulator was told something like “get that crap away from me” by Larry Heckel when asked if he would sign the petitions supporting Measure 2C. That really isn’t the kind of person we need in public office in this town. Don Archuleta will protect the rights of residents instead of just voting for a few developers on City Council.

Don Archuleta is tough, brave and speaks his mind. What a refreshing change that will be on Council!

--Walt
2007-10-11 17:26:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
In this morning's paper, Don Archuleta advocated building a branch library to keep traffic OUT of downtown. I thought the idea was to get people to go downtown! I almost hope "Drowsy Don" gets elected so we can listen to 4 years of his ridiculous commentaries!
--Tlaw (opposite of Walt)
2007-10-11 17:42:28 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Again, Ouch your facts are wrong. The City Council did vote to impose eminent domain. The subsiquent metro district request by KB Homes was not pulled from any agenda. Pielin, Rousey, Dozier and Clark all voted but the others voted no so it failed. This is a matter of public record you need to check before posting here. How each Councilmember voted was carefully charted by whoever does this website and accompanies the Cascade Ridge story - go check it.
--Walt
2007-10-11 18:34:38 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Tlaw, the library is a city service. Locating the service where is is convenient to your residents is the kind of "customer service" this Council appears to ignore.
--Carol
2007-10-11 18:36:08 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Do you really deny that a settlement was reached without eminent domain being used? As you say, that's a matter of public record. There were 13 of the 16 landowners who had already reached an agreement with KB prior to any city council action.....that also is a matter of public record.

As to Heckel being rude, if you base your beliefs on what someone told you and not personal experience, then you and others are in for a rude awakening if Archuleta is elected.
--ouch
2007-10-11 19:16:46 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Talk about mean. Check out Drowsy Don's post (available here - http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=11328)

"The brief period of time I spent on the planning commission really opened my eyes to the notion that McWiener and company really had their hooks into the city council and by extension into the people on the planning commission.I guess logic dictates that some developers in our community all bathe in the same tub of water.It doesn't surprise me ,that now the tail is trying to wag the dog.The question now,is the council going to roll over and lick the mustard off McWeiners hands or stand up and bite him on the ---
donald archuleta, loveland, co. 7/18/2007 4:08:49 PM"

Walt, if this is how he "speaks his mind", then I can only hope he will spare us further vulgarities
--T-law
2007-10-11 20:02:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Talk about mean. Check out Drowsy Don's post (available here - http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=11328)

"The brief period of time I spent on the planning commission really opened my eyes to the notion that McWiener and company really had their hooks into the city council and by extension into the people on the planning commission.I guess logic dictates that some developers in our community all bathe in the same tub of water.It doesn't surprise me ,that now the tail is trying to wag the dog.The question now,is the council going to roll over and lick the mustard off McWeiners hands or stand up and bite him on the ---
donald archuleta, loveland, co. 7/18/2007 4:08:49 PM"

Walt, if this is how he "speaks his mind", then I can only hope he will spare us further vulgarities
--T-law
2007-10-11 20:13:15 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The City Council voted to impose eminent domain. Are you hoping people forget that? Yes, of course, once its imposed (like having a gun to your head) people will act to sell property they previously said they would never sell. Just like I might say you can't have my wallet, until you poke a gun in my face. Are you arguing that unless you actually shoot me than I can't say you used the gun? The council voted to shoot - simple.

Excuse him for talking like a regular guy. Yes, Archuleta's his setiments are clearly a reflection of how many people feel. When Larry Heckel says nothing to his constituents about the Trolley and will not vote no - after McWhinney publicly scolds the Council not to vote no - that is clearly the tail wagging the dog.

Larry Heckel and the others have given up the sovereignty of our fair city each and every time they surrender control of local taxes to a developer appointed board instead of elected officials. Wow, how vulgar, citizens who are angry about a Council giving the sovereignty of local governance away to their contributors?

What I find vulgar are your ad hominine attacks against Don Archuleta. Get out of your house and talk to a few people in town, you will find Don Archuleta is the voice of the common man in Loveland. Everyone is sick to their stomachs watching the City Council giving away 25 years of future sales taxes to a developer. The only difference is Don Archuleta chose less vulgar terms to express himself than I hear from most working people in town. Half a billion to your friends in future taxes, that makes me think of a four letter word.

--Walt
2007-10-11 20:24:34 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I just looked-up all the money McWhinney gave Heckel in his last election. Under names like FDC Partners, Holding LLC and other names poeple may not recognize.

Wow, he is sure a pillar in this community. That sneeky old b%$^&#d took thousands from McWhinney in smaller amounts under different McWhinney companies so we wouldn't know the truth. That must be why he calls campaign finance "crap."

Heckel hardly appears capable of standing-up on his own let alone carrying the responsibility of Council on his weak and compromised shoulders. Give it a rest buddy. Heckel's arrogance and indifference towards the good people who pay taxes in Loveland is why people feel sold out. He couldn't even defend himself in the last forum so I can't waite until tonight. I hope Don Archuleta steps on his neck and tells him how people feel about his selling-out this city to his biggest contributor.
--Angry As Hell
2007-10-11 20:33:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Go get 'em Angry As Hell. I am also tired of Ouch pretending that laundering campaign money coming from McWhinney is OK. It is not. Good and honest people just don't do things like that. That is why everyone needs to vote for measure 2C.

Don Archuleta isn't vulgar he is indignant in the face of corruption in this town. God bless Don for giving a voice to the people who think clean government is worth fighting for again.

All is not lost - I will not vote for any McWHinney sponsored candidates - Brown, Heckel, Dozier and Peilin and Krenning. I hope they all lose big time!
--Don
2007-10-11 20:41:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt, it is sales tax revenue from an additional sales tax that goes back to fund the metro district (as you well know). Apparently your ad hominem (or ad hominine, if you prefer) attacks on Larry Heckel are acceptable,but to quote Don Archuleta (and cite the source) is not. At least you expose how irrational your positions truly are.
--T-law
2007-10-11 20:49:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Don-Clone yourself, and move your clones to Wards 1,3 and 4. Then you can truly vote against them all. Bozo!
2007-10-11 20:53:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well, I am just trying to keep up here. A man of good judgement would see Rocky Scott and Chad McWhinney approaching you with a dozen checks for the same amount from different McWhinney LLC of various (non-McWhinney) names and snickering at how clever they are would say, sorry I can't do this. What was Larry thinking?

The truth is this council recruited nothing and just sat in their expensive chairs believing the rationalizations from retail developers about the importantce of retail sales tax.

Why are we as a city so very competitive about retail with our neighbors but cooperate together when it comes to primary jobs recruitment? It indicates a lack of energy or strategy and really an ability to buy any snake oil salesman they meet. Whatever their contributors want is rationalized as good for our city.
--Walt
2007-10-11 21:29:22 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Thanks for agreeing with me. If you look back in this thread, you will find that I said eminent domain was not used. I never said it was not voted on by the council. In fact, the council directed HB to go back and try to reach a settlement on at least one occasion. Was the settlement reached because of the threat of eminent domain? Perhaps. I don't agree that eminent domain should ever be used only so someone can build a subdivision...in this case, it was believed that the public imporvements were worth using eminent domain if necessary.

I'm sure most of you will vote for Archuleta but be careful of anyone who needs to be prompted by someone in the audience when answering questions at the last forum.

Who really speaks for him? What special interest groups are pushing him for a council seat?

Remember the city council years ago? With all the bickering and in-fighting? With some council members walking out? That's what you'll get with Archuleta.

Don: Your comments make no sense. "laundering campaign money" How is accepting contributions for one's campaign laundering money? Do you even know what it means?
--ouch
2007-10-11 21:32:37 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes, Larry Heckel took multiple contributions from what appeared to be multiple sources (lots of differnet LLC's like foxtail etc.) but in fact were from a single source - Chad McWhinney.

The definition for money laundering is "the practice of engaging in specific financial transactions in order to conceal the identity and/or source of the money."

Larry Heckel was involved in a text book case of laundering campaign contributions to conceal the true source of those funds. Shame on him.

Measure 2C will make his unethical behavior a violation of the City' charter. OK, Ouch, what a scary group of people - expecting ethics in local office - WOW - watch out you are next!
--Don
2007-10-11 21:49:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well said. In any event, YES, Council voted to use eminent domain to sieze privately held property to facilitate a private development.

Ouch, stop trying to rationalize what they did. It was wrong, your arguments are identical to the corrupt City Council in New London, CT. Well, it needed the improvement anyway.

Read Loveland's agreement with KB Homes. It was written by the City Attorney and makes KB Homes pay the city's court costs of eminent domain since it was done "on behalf" of KB Homes so they could get their proposed development approved.

Again, stop trying to rationalize bad behavior - it is realliy making me feel sorry for you.
--Walt
2007-10-11 21:53:08 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I really doubt Don Archuleta posted that comment. His generation ALWAYS capitalize their name. Some Gen Xer working for McWhinney impersonating him likely.
--Jenney
2007-10-11 23:17:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Larry is not retired. He still builds and has significant land holding and development interests in the community as does Dave Clark. They are both routinely at the City's development counter and get special attention and consideration as does "McWiener". This is first had knowledge, not assumptions, not gossip, first hand experience. They exert their interests very directly and openly because they are allowed to by the City Manager and City Council, as does McWiener. That is the culture. As did Marostica when he was on council, now he has a surrogate. McWhiener calls the staff and tells them what to do. When they whine, the staff jumps to their needs like little lap dogs. The City of Loveland should be called the City of Lovedeveloperletthemdowhatevertheywantandgivethemanythingaslongastheyareoncounciloraremcwiener. I will be the only one that thinks that's funny. McWiener, McWiener, Mcwiener. Its just funny. I love it.
2007-10-12 01:21:20 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Don: Thanks for the definition. Now tell me how Heckel concealed where the money came from. It has to be reported and is available for anyone to look at. That's a long way from money laundering. Even though you may have found the definition, you have no idea as to what it means. Multiple subsidaries of a company, each making a contribution to a candidate is not "money laundering". When the the companies are know and the contributions are reported it's not hidden.

Using your thinking, if my wife and I both made contributions it would be money lanundering because we both are the same household but made the contributions under separate names.

In your spare time, try to read some more.

By the way, your assumption that I am next is so wrong it's funny.

Read Archuleta's letter in this mornings edition of the Reporter-Herald. He fits in so well with a lot of people posting on this blog. A bunch of assumptions that the council is corrupt. A lot of negative comments with very few ideas to implement. A mistaken belief that something is broken. A bitter person who needs a forum to spout his displeasures. He wishes to use the council chamber while most of you wish to use this blog.

Don, are you working on Archuleta's campaign? A little tacky to use this forum in hopes of obtaining votes.
--ouch
2007-10-12 12:46:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
"The Lehmans and most of their management are Republican, as well as editors and reporters. "

The Lehmans and their management are Republicans only if it goes to sell their newspapers.


--Ann
2007-10-12 12:52:34 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I'm sure Don (known hereafter as "Village Idiot") is also up in arms about Don Marostica "buying" his House seat. What Village Idiot fails to realize is he is in part responsible for this because he is in favor of contribution limits. Look for more rich guys, funding their own campaigns, to start getting interested in Loveland city council seats. Is that what you hoped to accomplish, Village Idiot?
--T-law
2007-10-12 15:00:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
well said T-law, well said.
2007-10-12 16:08:22 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch (aka t-law), keep struggling. The childish name calling and personal attacks are the last refuge of people who can no longer make a reasoned argument.

You and your wife likely share the same last name. Of course, if you both give to a candidate there is no attempt to launder the contribution - this argument is a straw-man you created to knock because what Heckel really did is unpardonable.

Read carefully and try to keep up. The LLC's were all in DIFFERENT names than McWhinney so anyone who obtains a copy of Heckel's contribution list would be unable to identify all the money being sent to his campaign by McWhinney. At first glance, one might be left with the false impression that many different companies OF DIFFERENT names each gave only $250 to McWhinney.

The truth is Heckel got all the McWhinney money in different named companies to hide the true source. This is wrong.

Heckel is a bad guy who doesn't honor this city or the people who entrusted him to serve on Council. The very bad apple needs to go.
--Don
2007-10-12 19:22:54 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Don: Sorry, I don't use two names for this blog. I have no idea who t-law is. Again, Paranoia runs wild and you are the living proof.

How you can come up with the conclusion that Heckel was trying to hide the contributions is beyond me. How can they be hidden when someone like you can even find where they came from?

You can argue forever but your assumptions are clearly wrong.

If Archuleta or anyone were to obtain a donation from a company owner and one from an employee of the company or from another company owned by the same person (differnt names) then you would assume that they are trying to hide something and you would call it money laundering. How sad!


--ouch
2007-10-12 19:56:31 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Don: My last comments for you...getting tired of trying to make you understand the obvious. I just remembered who you remind me of. I had several liberal profesors who sounded the same. They believed that all government was corrupt and wrong on every issue. Anytime a decision was made at the local, state, or federal level, they could not help themselves but to find fault with the decision. Even when they were proven wrong, they refused to admit it. Common sense would not work with these people.
--ouch
2007-10-12 20:14:12 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Village Idiot,
You have failed to respond in substance to my last post. How unexpected. I am not "ouch" (although like everyone else I have an opinion as to who he is). I have posted under a number of names on this blog in the past. As for the corporate donations you speak of, apparently it is simple enough to figure out who made them based on the fact that a complete idiot (you) figured it out. Here's a clue for you sporty: the first candidate financial disclosures are due October 20th, and will be available in the City Clerk's office. I cordially invite you to be the first to get your hot, little hands on those reports so we will all be able to benefit from the genius of your insight.

P.S.-I could adopt "Nod-opposite of Don" as my blog name if you like. Just let me know. Have a great day!
--T-law
2007-10-12 20:14:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
As further proof that I am not ouch, please note that we have just posted 47 seconds apart.
--T-law
2007-10-12 20:18:24 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well, I guess personal insults are the last refuge of those who cannot find merit in their own arguments or the vocabulary to express themselves appropriately in public.

Look, you are angry and I understand. Ouch, how many times are you going to set-up a straw man argument and then knock it over to prove your point? How about trying to respond to the issue instead of trying to invent a fake identity for me and pretending we are talking about one or two contributions. I am not a Professor but a businessman and I am talking about many contributions to Heckel not one or two.

Larry Heckel, the candidate, accepted in his last election at least 10 contributions from McWhinney in the name of various front companies or LLC’s. I am not saying husband and wife, I am not saying one or two companies (your last example). No I am saying at least 10 that I know about.

In fact, I only found them after seeing on LovelandPolitics (look under elections and find Larry Walsh story) the list of McWhinney companies giving to Walsh. I checked Larry Heckel’s filings and found the same names. Here they are, FSB Partners LLC, FDC Office II, CBC Partners, VWD Properties, FDC Office I, Rocky Mountain Village, Stonebridge LLC and Foxtail and so on. Identifying these with McWhinney from the other contributors would not be easy for anyone.

I know you expect people to believe that McWhinney just decided to write many different checks from various other companies not named McWhinney they own or control because it is ------hmmm easier? Common, we aren’t that stupid.

Of course I don’t believe everyone in government is corrupt. Again, you are inventing arguments you hope I will make to discredit me. The truth is many very credible, honest and hardworking folks in this town no longer trust the Council.

I challenge you to provide any reasonable argument, rationalization or explanation Heckel could possibly have for accepting so many contributions from McWhinney in so many different names. You have only offered reasons for examples that are not comparable to the facts. Common, 10 different front groups giving to candidates many thousands of dollars over the years – you say it was not to hide the true source of the money – well, please tell me why they did need to create all these extra checks and paperwork. No, it wasn't easy to find and they apparently were able to get away with it until now.

--Don
2007-10-13 04:50:28 GMT
Author:Anonymous
May I just respond to one thing the crazy Ouch guy said earlier. He keeps saying the people behind this blog hate the city.

The contrary is true. I think they love and respect the city so much they are willing to fight for the city's interest over McWhinney and and other profiteers who have their hand in the cookie jar trying to get our tax dollars.

I am glad some people still believe in doing the right thing in a world of cynical people. I don't see too many advertisers on the front page so this must be people acting out of love and care for our city and protecting its many treasures.

May God bless you all and I wish you every success in defeating these evil and rude people who have taken over our city.
--Ruth
2007-10-13 04:58:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Don, I suggest you move on to the next topic. Their behavior on this blog beautifully illustrates why the council got into trouble with the community in the first place.

They apparently believe that loyalty to friends comes above good judgment, common sense and especially personal ethics.

I count myself lucky not to have "friends" like Larry Heckel. If he is willing to cheat voters by not accurately reporting who contributes to his campaigns than he is likely cheat his friends as well so I am glad not to be his friend.

By the way, I am wondering if all of Heckel's talk at the forum about the need to fix-up the "underground" conditions downtown with city money isn't related to the fact he owns a building there that was built in 1800's and may be looking for his own subsidy for his building's underground renovations. Just a question not a comment.

Thanks

FYI Ouch, even the paranoid man who thought he would be captured was right when they finally ordered him locked-up.
--Walt
2007-10-13 05:16:41 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ruth: Why do you read something and believes it says something different? I never said the owner(s) of this blog hate the city. The simple truth is that they hate the current council.

Walt is back to using quotes....how about "Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas" Shoseki

Most people on this blog have preconceived ideas that the council must be corrupt. Based on what? Donations? Endorsements?

One writter on another thread even said he/she would not be voting for Pielin because the Reporter-Herald endorsed him. Forget the person, forget the issues, just base your vote on the endorsements. How very, very sad.

I guess those of you living in ward 3 will not be voting for Solt. Why? He was just endorsed by the Home Builders Association (as reported in the newspaper on 10-12-07.

Another preconceived idea is that when Heckel accepts a donation from a company and it is reported as required by law, it is cheating because he didn't name the parent company. If he did, then he would be in violation of election laws by not putting down the actual company who made the donation.

Don would have you believe that Heckel is corrupt because of several (10) donations were made by companies either held or affiliated with the McWhinneys. The peconceived idea is that multiple donations made under the same holding company or parent organization makes the elected offical corrupt. Any logic class or course would disprove this assumption.

I stated some time ago that any company such as the McWhinneys, will make donations to those candidates who they believe support activities that the company is involved in. Makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make the candidate or council member corrupt. The current or future council member already is in favor of certain programs or policies....that's why they get donations. It helps to elect or re-elect something who the company believes will supprt their own beliefs.

Rousey would probably get donations from Firefighters..it's where he came from.

Pielin would probably get donatons from landscape companies...it's where he came from.

Jan Brown would probably get donations from the downtown people...It's where she came from.

So forth and so on. It makes sense people. It doesn't make them corrupt. It only make them attractive to the companies or groups that have the same ideas.

Don, is that so hard to understand?
--ouch
2007-10-13 13:48:35 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Personally I don't care what the Reporter-Herald says or does. My respect for that newspaper ended years ago. I won't vote for Mr. Pielin because he has given me no factually based reason to do so.
--Kyle
2007-10-13 16:40:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Kyle: Thanks. At least that makes some sense.
--ouch
2007-10-13 17:17:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
And they all get money from McWiener because that's what they su...
2007-10-13 23:55:50 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch,

You still haven't answered my question. Why do you think McWhinney hides its donations through all these LLC's?

You are correct, it doesn't make Heckel corrupt. It does make me question both his judgment and that of Rocky Scott who i understand cooked-up the scheme to hide the McWhinney donations.

Ouch, I don't like the fact Loveland Commercial also gave thousands of dollars but I am not complaining since they and the candidates honestly reported the contributions.

You know as well as I that having 80% or some large number of your contributions from McWhinney in this town will cause a candidate to lose votes. So be it. The poor judgment involved the scheme of trying to hide them. I haven't alleged its illegal or anything like that but it is certainly immoral and wrong.

Can't you accept that games to hide one's financial backing from McWhinney make a candidate look really bad? What happened to honesty and being forthright with people?

Now I just read they are planning to divert $6 million away from capital projects (that could help downtown) in buying property on I-25 to help some developers. I wouldn't be surprised if Don Marostica owned the land.
--Don
2007-10-14 00:38:18 GMT
Author:Anonymous
No, Don doesn't own the land, its some good old boy long timer Lovelander, can't remember his name right now but the likely beneficiary of this will be one of the good old boy developers. They will hide it, though, they'll put it through a no-name LLC and McWhinney and Marostica will be in the deal. Loveland Commercial will most certinly make a fee on this one way or another, just like the campaign contributions, it will happen after the election and you'll never trace it. Just like McWhinney took a fee on the sale of the land for the Loveland Sports Park sale. It's all one big happy family in Loveland.
2007-10-14 02:03:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Go to the thread on this land purchase and see my comments. If you go to the city's web site you will find another item on the agenda to purchase land in the downtown area...as recommended by the downtown committee.

Don, you may be correct as to why McWhinneys made contributions via different holdings. They are aware that some segments of the population don't care for them or their developments, but I'm not sure that Heckel would even know all the names of the seperate companies under the umbrella of the McWhinney organization...I sure wouldn't. When you accused Heckel of participating in 'money laundering', you were accusing him of criminal activity. Thanks for now saying the donations do not make him corrupt.

If someone, say Roger Hoffman for example, were to run for council and received several donations from a group that has similar beliefs (Sierra Club, Green Peace) and each donation came from a subsideary of the parent company, I would not expect Roger to know all the company names and I would never accuse him of either money laundering or being corrupt.

To the other comments:

Any farmer who has been here forever is considered to be "some good old boy"?!

McWhinneys owned the land where the Loveland Sports Park is....not sure what you mean by "fee".

"good old boy developers"?? What does that mean? I guess you believe that any development should be conducted by someone out of state or by someone who has never developed anything before?

You didn't put down any name..how about I just call you "ignorant"
--ouch
2007-10-14 13:35:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The defense by "Ouch" of Mr. Heckel makes me think he IS Mr. Heckel.

--David
2007-10-14 15:16:58 GMT
Author:Anonymous
It looks like Cara O'Brien got a spanking for writing the article about the 97 acre land deal. Today's headline says "prudent" purchase of land for downtown. Oh, back on-track to help the right people look good again before the election.

Read between the lines, they are buying the building where Mr. Neat was but don't have the funds to create the walkway until some uncertain time in the future hmmmmm....could it be because they need $6 million for the Sprawl purchase next to I-25?

The downtown purchase makes sense if the land is to be used for a PUBLIC PURPOSE. The Sprawl on I-25 doesn't - what they will buy from the rancher and sell to private developers? What happened to the free market? What business does the city council have using tax dollars for land speculation? They didn't earn that money it was taken from average citizens to provide government services not make speculative land purchases. This Council really is nuts!

Hmmmm.....limited funds available to catch an active rapist in the community, only $450,000 available for downtown building but not enough for walkway, public parking is still out of the question and roads all over town in terrible shape -- oh, hundreds of miles of new roads in Loveland but hardly any new snow plows for winter?????

Ouch, spending $6 million for a speculative land purchase in order to resell the land at some unknown future date to developers IS NOT A PUBLIC PURPOSE.

I wonder if Ouch will explain to the next Loveland rape victim that city services are in short supply (no police or fire anywhere east of I-25) but that land purchase Don Williams and the City Council are working in secret is an excellent use of her tax dollars.

Incompetence does cost lives. Stop this runaway council from further destroying Loveland!!!
--Gale
2007-10-14 15:47:40 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I agree with Gale. As a single woman I do not feel safe in Loveland anymore. The only police service that seems to keep pace with growth is traffic cops trying to give tickets. That is because Don Williams believes the city is a business and getting revenue for the city is his primary concern.

I know catching a rapist doesn't create revenue but it is the job of the council. I have lived in other communities that can really mobilize to protect its citizens when a killer or rapist is loose in their community. I called and complained and was told they are "doing everything they can." Well are they?

I am just one more woman who no longer feels safe in Loveland. The only way Loveland Police will catch this rapist is if he decides to speed in a school zone. Otherwise, he has little to worry about.
--Private
2007-10-14 16:14:50 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The Loveland Police Department, when not violating the civil and constitutional rights of legal American citizens, when not working for the McWhinneys as their private security detail, couldn't find a hooker in a whorehouse. Many of the officers in the Loveland Police department drive dangerously, recklessly, and abuse their positions because they have a gun and a badge.

Barney Fife looks quite competent next to that bunch of overweight doughnut chompers.

Don't expect the rapist to be caught by the Loveland Police department any time soon. They have more important things to do than 'serve and protect'.
--Nany
2007-10-14 17:08:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes, McWhinney owned the sports park land and was obligated to dedicated it to the City to meet demand for parks created by their development, and yet their real estate branch still received a brokerage fee paid by the City on the transfer of the land to the City. Let me translate, the City paid McWhinney to dedicate the land to the City. There are dozens of such transactions involving McWhinney, Loveland Commercial and the other developers that are part of the "good old boys." Reimbursements, waivers, exceptions, to development obligations, special zoning approvals, etc. It is a "good old boy" way of doing business because it benefits the developers and land owners that have ingratiated themselves in the political process through mutual individual benefit, not public benefit. This type of thing goes on because of an unaware and inactive public, a general acceptance of bad government, and the lack of scrutiny that you find in places where the public is either ignorant or benefits from the system. That system of doing business is starting to slip away which is the real reason this has all become so contentious. People like OUCH that benefit from this way of doing business risk losing their previliages. That is why they react so strongly to all of this and are willing to do anything to defend the status quo. The mistake was getting greedy, the public seems to have finally awakened. Thanks in part to the hubris of the good old boys who finally pushed the envelop of incredulity by asking the public to pay for a trolley and structured parking while at the same time asking the public to pay for transportation improvements they were obligated to make. Now they want to use public funds to buy development land. Unbelievable.
2007-10-14 20:42:18 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ignorant: Nice try but I have no previliages nor have I ever received any priviliages with the exception of living in a city that I believe does a good job and now being able to shop in Lovleand instead of driving to some other city.

Your are really very transparent. You have posted here many times before but this time you choose to post without any name. Afraid that your paronia is getting tiresome?

Why make readers believe that's more like you than there rally are.

Remibursements, waivers, exceptions, etc. You fail to mention that these were used for Habitat for Humanity, Loveland Housing Authority, Boy and Girls Club, developments contaning affordable housing, hospitals and other projects.

You're only concern seems to be with the McWhinneys. It's the same 'no growth' mentality as others of your kind.

Here's an idea. Move to some town of a few hundread people where you can complain when they decide to get their first gocery store and they have to give a fee waiver or change some zoning.
--ouch
2007-10-14 21:57:30 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well, if you truely have no previliges why don't you come out and say who you are? Why not prove it? No one will ever believe you don't unless you declare who you are. Maybe folks would listen to you more if you just came clean, resolve that you have no interst in the status quo as you say.
2007-10-15 00:55:37 GMT
Author:Anonymous
He does have an interest in the status quo. Every member of the council does. That is why he won't say who he is. He must be one that is not currently running for office. Take a guess. He knows too much.
2007-10-15 02:39:27 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ask the blog owner to require that all posts must include full names and I will be more than happy to list my name.

How can I know know TOO MUCH? It's all public record and sometimes I even call council members or city staff if I'm not sure of something. Why don't you do the same thing instead of making assumptions? Afraid that you may be wrong?


--ouch
2007-10-15 13:13:21 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS