LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for October 13, 2007
photo
The City of Loveland is planning to purchase 97 acres along I-25 and 402 to be re-sold to certain developers of retail and new homes.



The current candidates (mostly Gene Pielin) worried that the diversion of money away from downtown towards another sprawl subsidy along I-25 would upset potential voters.  He asked Don Williams to pull the documents from the agenda until after the election and is now pretending he doesn't know the details.  He told the Reporter-Herald there isn't enough information but also asked the council not discuss the matter in public.



Go to LovelandPolitics to see the full story and documents.

2007-10-14 01:56:21 GMT
Comments (16 total)
Author:Anonymous
I read the story today in the paper. You guys are incredible - the City Council's agenda cannot be seen on the City Website but its on yours!

How could Brown, Dozier, Heckel and Pielin sit there Thursday night keeping this a secret. Outrageous behavior like this makes me want to recall the rest of them!

Don Williams wants to play monopoly with our tax dollars. The City of Loveland has no business buying property to give developers for more development along I-25. Is that Williams guy completely insane? If the property owners want to incorporate into our city, fine, but buying the land to make it happen is going way too far.
--Don
2007-10-14 02:02:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Being new to town, I had to be told about this site. I'm shocked and saddened, but what you people uncover rings true to me. I can't help being sickened, feeling like this is a "company town", only there's not one company, there's one industry- real estate development. It smells like a sewer around here, and people in charge seem to be getting paid to make sprawl happen - regardless of long term impacts on the community. What a shame. This town had such great beginnings, such great potential.
--Eric
2007-10-14 03:27:17 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Eric, please support Ken Morey for Mayor and Gutierrez, Solt or Archuleta for Council if you live in one of those districts. Also, please vote for Measure 2C to help stop corporations from buying Council.

It really is a matter of very innocent folks being overwhelmed by Southern California developers who are looking for a quick profit.

We need to stop the city from spending tax dollars on more sprawl.

Thanks
--Gerry Adams
2007-10-14 03:34:27 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Are you nuts or just tring to make believe that it doesn't exist?

Once again...go the the city of Loveland's home page. Either with a search or go to:

http://www.ci.loveland.co.us/

Once there, find "public meetings" and open.

You will be at page with listings of dates of various meetings.

Go down to October 16, 2007. Under the date you will find "agenda". Open "agenda"

Then go down to item #12 and open. You will see the heading "Supplementary budget and appropriation no. 14 property at 1452 south county road 7"

You can then open the cover letter or ordinance.

Just checked and it's still there.

I have no idea what your checking but under the agenda for Tuesday, October 16. 2007, you will find Cultural services as item #2, finance for item #3, storm drainage standars for #4.....not what you are showing.

You show an item #13, which shows supplementary Budget and Appropriation 14....did you open this up?

The information that I am finding under the city of Loveland's home page is where the agendas are always found.

It's not hidden and it's no secret.

As to your second point, I don't like assumptinos but when the council went into executive session some time ago, they said it was for land acquisition. They have announced this several times and it is common knowledge that any negotiations, especially for a land purchase, is conducted at executive sessions.






--ouch
2007-10-14 22:32:51 GMT
Author:Anonymous
What just happened? There were 9 or 10 posts on this thread. My last post was in answer to Don and Walt saying that the land purchase was not posted under the city's web site. Don, Walt and my earlier post are now gone??
--ouch
2007-10-14 22:40:48 GMT
Author:Anonymous
It appears as though the server was rebooted today and lost a number of posts on each blog posted around noon today and later.

Feel free to repost any comments that were lost.
--Guchwale
<mailto:Guchwale@aol.com>
2007-10-15 01:17:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I think if you dig deep enough under this most stinking pile of crap yet you will find Loveland Commercial or some other group of good old boys involved in the land deal and/or likely beneficiaries of the disposition. Yes, Eric, this town is run by real estate interests, if you are new to all this it is too much to believe and please vote for anyone but an incumbent. To put an item like that on an agenda and then pull it at the last minuet, regardless of whether its hidden or not, in obvious concern for the political appearance, is just another blunder in a comedy of errors. Since it is or was on an agenda that means they already have a contract and have already made the decision to obligate tax dollars for a land purchase with no conceivable public purpose. If they are all reelected they will not only buy this land they will fund the trolley, the parking structures and the high density residential rezoning applications of McWhinney that were also pulled when the public actually started understanding what was going on. The only way to change things is to clean house.
2007-10-15 03:55:38 GMT
Author:Anonymous
(Sorry if this sounds out of order but I just discovered my postings from yesterday are missing)

Ouch, you were right, the city clerk forgot to kill one link to the old agenda. She (or the IT folks) disabled the main City Council page meetings link for the agenda but forgot the "public meetings" link on the front of the city's main webpage. However, this is a result of incompetence not a desire to share the info. with the public. I suspect it will remain on this webpage long after it is taken down this morning off the city's webpage.

I agree with the previous posting, if re-elected, the current council will fund McWhinney's Trolley, a parking garage and other unpopular items the public has spoken against.

If Archuleta, Solt or Gutierrez are elected it will be difficult for the current Council to continue hiding behind closed doors to craft public deception policies when assisting McWhinney and Loveland Commercial. The fact someone will be sitting in the room who respects the sunshine laws is a huge threat to Don Williams and the City Council.

I believe this is why so much anger and mean comments are being thrown at these candidates - especially against Archuleta. A city councilmember who cannot be manipulated by the Chamber of Commerce or McWhinney scares the hell out of them.
--Walt
2007-10-15 15:10:41 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Thanks for finding the link to the land purchase. I always go to "public meetings". To be honest with you, I've never tried the other link.

In addition to the McWhinneys, now it's also Loveland Commerical and the Chamber of Commerce?

Is everything one big conspiracy?

If you really believe everything you say then you must also believe that the owner of this blog is corrupt. FYI He was a city council member in El Segundao, California in 1994.

From the 'Los Angeles Business Journal' dated 11/7/1994 there is a report that says to attract and retain business in El Segundo, the city council choose a program which included "incentives as rebates on city taxes and lower business licensing costs"

Was that also a city council conspiracy in El Segundo, California?
--ouch
2007-10-15 16:46:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I don't know the owner of this blog so I cannot comment - where the hell is El Segundao - I can't even find it on Google? I think it was Archuleta who pointed to the fact "incentives" for business is really profit as defined by the U.S. Chamber not subsidies.

In any event, your link that was working this weekend is no longer up. As I said, it was only still accessable on the internet due to a mistake not any policy by Council to inform the public. I read the documents and they look to be really finished. If the Council really didn't know about this and don't support it, all they needed to do was postpone the vote or vote no. They can leave it on the agenda to inform the public and themselves and table a desision for another meeting as is commonly the practice.

Pielin saying he needs more information so it should be removed from the agenda and not be briefed to Council or discussed is silly. It is like a man dying of thirst saying he doesn't want any water because he is thirsty. If Council needs more information than you don't remove it from the agenda unless you have another motive.

No, it isn't any conspiracy (your word). You like to try and discredit me with your own inventions but can't respond to what I told you. Loveland Commercial (Marostica) has been all over this blog since before McWhinney so there is nothing new there.

Pielin saying he doesn't want the item discussed because he needs more information is about as believable as Att. General Gonzalez saying he is leaving office, to spend more time with his family. We already know the real reason.

This council just likes to make-up things in an attempt to conceal he truth of the matter. I find it distasteful and prefer better representation. What is so wrong with that?

--Walt
2007-10-15 17:47:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The owner of this blog is from California?

I KNEW IT!
--Joey
2007-10-15 18:59:17 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Sorry, I added an 'a' makeing it 'El Segundao'. Two other places it was spelled El Segundo. But I sure you were already aware of the proper spelling.

Are we really back to you not be able to find the land purchase? I just checked and it's still there! Remember it's under "public meetings" Short term memory loss?

When you find and read the land purchase AGAIN, you will find that it's a ordinance and public meeting. When it comes back to council it will be at an open council meeting with public comments.

By pulling this item (which I do not agree with), it was effectively postponed. Which you say they should have done.

I'm not aware of Loveland Commercial posting on this blog but so what. You have all sorts posting here...no growth people, people in favor of McWhinneys and those opposed, people who distrust the council and those who don't.

That's was America is all about. Or would you rather have only those who belive like you allowed to post here?
--ouch
2007-10-15 19:26:53 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thank you for being civil. No, Spanish saint names are not my strong suit so I was copying your mispelling. After watching the two blog streams below this one it seems people are bcoming very ugly to one another.

You are right, the link is working again this morning (it wasn't earlier but as you know the internet is fluid). Now, who is correct? The City Clerk has it on the agenda for Oct. 16 but the Reporter-Herald and this website seem to know it was pulled. Who should I believe?

How does this work anyway, the Council never met so who is Williams taking direction from? The Mayor? The next Mayor or someone else? I didn't know agenda items could be decided, postponed or disposed of by a majority of the council before the meeting -- that would invalidate the need for a public notice of the "hearing." I am not sure it is legal if he is consulting more than 3 on this matter outside a public meeting.

I think what they meant by "secret" is that everything was already done and ready for the Council to pass on it. The agenda item certainly doesn't raise the policy question or new direction for public input on the direction but instead it was on the agenda to be passed as already negotiated and details finished.

As to Loveland Commercial, I don't know if they posted before (God knows I don't have the time to read everything here) but I do remember talk about them in the past. Together with McWhinney that is where the vast majority of funds for campaigns come from in Loveland for certain candidates. Despite your efforts to discredit me with labels -- one doesn't require a belief in conspiracies since their contributions are all recorded. McWhinney is just more slippery in trying to hide them so that is why it didn't come out before.


--Walt
2007-10-15 20:16:15 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Walt: Sorry if I was not being civil. Please accept my apology. Sometimes people using this blog tend to get a little carried away.

That being said, I read your last post as saying Loveland Commerical has used this blog often and it sounded as if you were upset with that...maybe not.

Yes, I agree the majority of campaign funds for some of the coucil members came from the McWhinneys and or Loveland Commerical. I just don't believe it makes any difference to any of the council with regards to how they vote.

As I've said before, those council members have the same beliefs and would have voted that way regardless of where donations came from....that's why they get the donations in the first place. If their votes were changed because of contributions, then yes, it would be very wrong. I just don't believe that is the case.

As to the land issue, the council needs 4 (5?) council members to request an item be discussed and I would think it's the same to have an item pulled. (don't accuse me of being a council member or city staff because I happen to know this).

I assume (bad word) that on tuesday night the council would have to vote to remove the land purchase item...maybe not.

In any event, when the item comes back it will be at a pulic meeting with public comment.
--ouch
2007-10-15 21:07:17 GMT
Author:Anonymous
In a well managed City you would be extremely careful with an item like that, it would be vetted and evaluated internally and you would be dead certain, not just politically, but technically, that the thing made sense and was fully supported and that all the potential questions were answered. That's a huge move to buy land like that with public money with huge risks, you would have to have everything covered. Don Williams probably figured, he had a deal and so he put it on after talking to Council. Then Council realized it was not technically sufficient, let alone politically, I mean, what is the purpose, what are the consequences, what is the process for disposition once the land is purchased, what are the public benefits, what is the downside. Engineering an annexation out there is going to be extremely difficult and very possibly technically challengable by Johnstown. Absolutely none of these issues were addressed in the staff analysis. Williams in his typical style just figured he had a land deal and he was goin to buy that land to keep it from Johnstown, by god no questions need be asked. This is how our City is managed. Disgraceful. Even a student in public administration would know better. I hope someone asks these important questions at Council and that the public votes this council out and gets rid of this administration.

--Not OUCH
2007-10-16 05:00:00 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thank you, Not Ouch.

A little balance, perspective and sanity is needed in Loveland. The Land Grab with city tax dollars is a little too much to take with no notice to the residents of any kind.
--Kay
2007-10-16 19:06:10 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS