LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for July 30, 2007
photo
Chad McWhinney compared Grand Station to the Barnum & Bailey Circus "expereince" when describing to the Loveland City Council (July 17) a book he read about the need to create an experience for shoppers to improve retail traffic.  The City Council blinked and said no to using tax dollars to fund the trolley and other "expereince" props he wants to include in "Grand Station." At least for now.



Ft. Collins and Greeley have pulled out of the regional transportation plan (RTA) because of the perception that Loveland's City Council is including traffic improvements before promised by McWhinney in the previous version of the MFA (Master Financing Agreement). Officials in both cities are concerned the Council has put McWhinney needs above public needs.



Loveland residents are still waiting for the Highway 34/I-25 improvements and not ready to support a "theme" ride in Centerra with tax dollars because McWhinney thinks he found another tax to fund their obligations. According to a survey by the Loveland Reporter Herald, a majority of Loveland residents want to buy a trolley for McWhinney with city sales tax dollars - do you believe this and do you agree?

2007-07-30 07:18:02 GMT
Comments (44 total)
Author:Anonymous
The Reporter-Herald is known for making up comments for the RH Line, so it follows their polls and surveys are just as fraudulent. No. I do not agree that the McWhinneys should get more tax dollars for their foolishness.
--Fred
2007-07-30 17:41:22 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I haven't met anyone who thinks this is a good idea. The Mayor and City Council will likely cave on this in private so don't expect too much of a discussion Aug. 7 when they decide.
--Carol
2007-07-30 21:29:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Is that rabbit part of McWhinneys' plan? It looks scary to me like something from a Steven King story. No, scary kind or silly, the McWhinneys' shouldn't be allowed to divert any tax dollars to items that are clearly not public use but for proivate gain (whether they work or not).
--Cary
2007-07-31 01:56:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I think Mr. McWhinney should ride his trolley all the way back to California. Maybe they appreciate tax subsidies for a theme park experience where he comes from, but around here taxes are supposed to be used for real transportation improvements.
--Fleeced
2007-07-31 03:41:51 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I would like to add the bunch of cowards on the city council onto that trolley going back to california. What part of NO can't they pronounce? First they double a grant request and than have to think about funding a theme ride with tax dollars. Wow are we all in trouble.
--Frank
2007-07-31 03:51:40 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Am I the only one who saw the Council get direction from their largest campaign contributor (Chad McWhinney) not to announce to the press their answer is no but instead say it is just a delayed decision for more information? He said they had certain "deal" where the Trolley was promised and he didn't want anyone backing out. Get a grip everyone - Council is not in charge.
--Tadpole Tilly
2007-07-31 03:55:14 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The Reporter-Herald survey was likely "bombed" with many votes from McWhinney staff or partisans. Why else would that survey receive double the number of responses than all the others. The normal number of people responded (more than 90% likely no) and later McWhinney partisans repeated their votes many times. That explains the awkward jump in the survey numbers.
--Hillery
2007-07-31 17:36:14 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How do you know? Listen, you don't like the fact the McWhinney trolley system for Centerra enjoys strong and wide support in all areas of Loveland's community. It really is that simple.
--xx
2007-08-01 06:27:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who said "there is a sucker born every minute?" Maybe that was the part of the book that came to mind for Chad McWhinney while looking at our city council during his presentation.

Ft. Collins already has a restored trolley that operates on Mountain Blvd. Great people, nice ride and excellent restoration but no one is driving 50 miles to see it let alone 100 miles as McWhinney expects with his trolley
--Greg
2007-08-01 06:33:35 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I will support using public monies to fund the trolley at Grand Station if it goes between downtown Loveland and Centerra. Otherwise, the answer should be no.
--Jay
2007-08-01 17:27:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Good idea Jay but it would take a lot of work. Anyway to get the downtown businesses behind this idea? I would love to see the Council say yes to McWhinney on the trolley so long as it connects to downtown for their benefit as well!!!!
--Bree
2007-08-01 21:39:47 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I also agree and posted some comments on the blog before this one -
--Carol
2007-08-01 21:40:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
You can only tell a lie so many times. Chad McWhinney promised a Flatirons Crossing type mall across the I-25 (I have the newspaper clippings).

According to Flat Irons
"Designed to reflect the active, outdoor lifestyle of Colorado, FlatIron Crossing features 1.5 million square feet of retail set in a two-level super-regional enclosed shopping mall and an adjoining 250,000 square-foot outdoor entertainment village. In addition to retail, the property houses 30 acres of parks landscaped with native plants, streams, waterfalls and trails to enhance the Colorado shopping experience."

No waterfall, parks, trails, ZIP (wheel train) or wonderful landscaping and upscale stores. No, Centerra is a gathering of discount looking large box retailers on flat land with xeroscape (zeroscape really) without even sprinklers installed. Sure its upscale for people who may live in Johnstown and Greeley. Lovelanders who worked for Kodak or HP are not impressed with this terrible addition to the city and have lived in many different urban areas. We know junk retail box stores and we know quality development. Chad should work on meeting past promises before making any new ones.

Lastly, his figure to the Council about 96% occupancy at the Outlet Mall isn't tru either. Just count the number of vacant stores and check that number against the total. They are running over 20% vacant and getting desperate. Apparently, the trolley isn't working there at all.

Chad should stop mistaking the hayseeds on our city council for what people in this commuity represent.


--James K.
2007-08-01 23:21:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
You guys are awsome!!!! That is the first non-publicity air-brushed photo I have ever seen of Chad McWhinney. Notice the Repeater-Herald again ran a publicity photo.

I didn't go but boy that guy looks nervous, sweaty and red eyed. From the questions it appears they are really out of touch with this community.
--DK
2007-08-02 17:01:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch has brought some important insights to this forum but there is one topic nobody here has yet considered regarding the trolley.

The synergy between the Council and McWhinneys is coming apart for very good reasons completely unrelated to this website and the fantastic editorial in the Reporter-Herald on the trolley.

The Council and Mayor want to be re-elected if they run, therefore they are going to be careful as the election nears about their support for Centerra since they know negatives are out there. Chad McWhinney, on the other hand, knows his friends and supporters on Council may be losing power this coming November and has ramped-up his demands on Council before they leave office-you might call it a last minute shopping spree before a long snow storm.

This is a natural parting of interests that will likely undue an alliance that seemed inseperable just a few months ago. The more aggresive McWhinney becomes about getting money for the trolley etc...the more the Council will back away in fear of creating an issue in the next election.

So, don't pat yourselves on the back yet. McWhinney has hired Alicia Beard, former Reporter-Herald reporter to head-up their new web presence to stamp out LovelandPolitics.com. Cara O'Brien, the new reporter, may be thinking about her next job as she covers the trolley story and not want to burn any bridges to better pay.

So, the Empire is still intact but the natural parting of interest may do them all in together and finally Downtown will get the attention it deserves from an independent Council again.
--Bart
2007-08-02 17:12:21 GMT
Author:Anonymous
By the way, I counted 44 people at the forum last night and the Reporter-Herald said there were 60 and LovelandPolitics.com said around 40.

This is a great way the calibrate the credibility of the reporters.
--Art
2007-08-02 17:14:48 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Bart: Thanks for the kind remarks. We need to remember that only 4 of the 8 council seats and the position of mayor are up for election this november.

If Mayor Walsh runs again he should get elected. If Steve Dozier runs, he too, should get elected. Jan Brown...maybe. Gene...maybe,

I really don't see any big changes in the council. Which I believe is a good thing.

The McWhinneys have said in public that they need to get approval with this council (on past issues) instead of waiting and taking the chance that a new council will have a different position on growth/incentives.

Any developer would feel the same way.

As a side note, I can't believe that some people in the audience asked questions about campaign contributions when the purpose of the public forum was about Grand Station. If they were at a coucil meeting, they would have been told to stick to the issue(s) being addressed.

--ouch
2007-08-02 22:27:54 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Of course, one planning commissioner intends to run for council, Kenneth L. Morey, and he should be able to defeat any incumbent on the ticket. He is a small developer who doesn't care for the McWhinneys. By the way, any idea who would ask a question like that during their talk the other night?

I don't know Tony Adams but would appreciate learning more if someone can fill me in.

I completely agree with your setiments Ouch that Pielin and Brown likely have the toughest time getting re-elected if they decide to run. The Mayor doesn't have the kinds of negatives in the community that they have.

Did I miss anyone? Who else will be running?
--Bart
2007-08-02 22:38:30 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The grapevine says that all may run again. (Pielin, Brown, Dozier, Heckel) Walsh is iffy for mayor.

If the mayor doesn't run again, I would look to Pielin or Dozier trying for that office.

If neither of them run, then maybe Rousey.

The council may just stay the same as today.

Who knows?? Petitions can be taken out sometime this month.
--ouch
2007-08-03 13:42:53 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Dozier has no resume and seems afraid to participate at Council meetings while Pielin will have trouble also. I understand from city employees he has talked about the end of the world coming soon and likes to digress into some non-conventional topics when given the chance.

Of the three, Rousey would seem like the most likely to succeed since he knows something about how a city works due to his experience as a firefighter. People on the westend perceive a city council not giving emergency responders the support they need.
--Bart
2007-08-03 21:53:14 GMT
Author:Anonymous
None of the above. If any member of this city council wasn't bought by McWhinney where were they? No one is showing courage to stand-up against the sellout of this city. If they vote Tuesday for the RTA and Trolley it means a mother buying diapers for her baby at Target will need to pay an additional 2% for the trolley and rta tax for improvements already promised.

A single Mom like me making $32,000 per year shouldn't be paying for McWhinney's tenant attraction gimmicks. He has millions of dollars so let him pay for the that blessed trolley.

I am going to watch those shameless clowns on Tuesday and God help the man who buys a trolley for McWhinney with my sales tax dollars!!! I will not forget in November.
--J.J.
2007-08-05 04:05:42 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Bart, you should know the group circulating the petitions has already uncovered many educated, qualified and honest people interested in running for city council.

We heard Councilman Larry Heckel said something like "that is a lot of crap" when asked about the campaign finance reform by a constituent. If an election wasn't so close a recall would be in order.

I understand an attorney and several other very qualified people are willing to take this community back for the residents instead of sitting at home and watching the McWhinneys run this town.

Now all you people need to do is get involved and help remove the four Ouch mentioned along with the Mayor. If Sleepy Gene or Dopey Dozier think they could ever be Mayor of this town they are smoking something. People are angry and tired of the lies.

Please don't forget to sign the petition and run yourself for council - anyone not in the McWhinneys pocket could easily win given the mood in this town over their trolley fiasco.
--Withheld
2007-08-05 04:12:54 GMT
Author:Anonymous
J.J. Let's get it right. What 2%?. The RTA, if approved by council, would first have to pass on a ballot issue by the citizens of Loveland. That's 1%. Target already has an increase. There would be no ADDITIONAL 2% tax increase.

Does anyone think that maybe council members vote for issues involving the McWhinneys because they believe it's in the best interest of Loveland and not because McWhinneys have them in their back pocket?!

You don't like the development or issue...so if council votes for it they are doing so only because they are being bought and paid for by the developer....get real

Look for the RTA to fail

Trolley passage is iffy
--ouch
2007-08-05 12:47:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch suggests that Council members agree to McWhinney requests because "it's in the best interest" of the City. So I ask, in WHOSE best interest? JUST HOW do they determine that and by what measures?
I don't think it's in the resident's best interest to declare productive farmland "blight" and then give away all Property Tax Increment for 25 years (about the average lifespan of a mall, these days). I don't think it in my best interest to give away more than 40% of the sales tax, either...because that tax is supposed to pay for services. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to lower standards such as for fire response. I know it's not in my best interest to ask for new taxes to bail out failing intersections, worsened by I-25 strip development. I doubt it's in our best interest to encourage the further draining away of investment from the established City to the I-25 corridor.
And tell me this: why if it's in our best interest, do I hear almost universal condemnation of this Council and their preferential "gimmes" to the McWhinneys...from virtually every one I know as well as strangers in shops, cafes, and elsewhere.
Personally, I think one would be delusional to think that more than one or two of the current Council (at best) would be reelected, if they had even modest competition. That's at least one view from the street.
--Digger
2007-08-05 22:13:23 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How does anyone determine what's in the best interest for anyone else?

You raise your children in a way that you believe is in their best interest. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't.

You plan your work and lifestyle based on what you believe is in your family's best interest. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

You make investments and purchase a home in hopes that it serves your family well. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

It's as simple as this...you try and sometimes your right and sometimes your wrong. Happens to all of us.

My point is that the decisions that council make are thought to be the right decisions based on what the council believes to be in the best interest of the city and its citizens. Not because they wish to please any particular developer.

You believe the decisions have been wrong..I believe the decisions have been right. At least we live in a country where we can differ on what we belive.

Only time will prove one of us correct. We both should keep our fingers crossed that the current decisions made by council are correct.
--ouch
2007-08-06 12:29:59 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, did you read the paper this morning? I think the headline says Council to take negotiations with McWhinney underground or private or something like that on the Trolley.

This appears to be a violation of the open meeintgs law. How can the City Manager make this announcement when the Council failed to approve McWhinney's request and tabled it until their next meeting. No other direction was provided to the City Manager at that open meeting yet he is now embarking on a new course either without direction from Council or with direction he has taken illegally in private.

According to the McWhinnys, this will avoid putting the Council on the spot and allow them to contiune selling the trolley without any NO votes ont the record.

If Rust Contruction or anyone else in town had an unpopular proposal before Council the vote would simply be no. In this case, nobody on Council has voted against it or for it and now the city manager will try and craft another proposal in private that he believes (or already knows)the council will approve.

How can you defend this as honest and open government? The public isn't stupid, the council looks like a bunch of dancing poodles ready to perform another trick for the McWhinneys. Their poor reputation was well earned through secret deliberations and back-room deals.


--Withheld
2007-08-06 17:22:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The Loveland City Council is not a bunch of dancing poodles. The Loveland City Council is a bunch of self-serving scam artists. It would be interesting to know just how many members of the Loveland City Council profit from the McWhinneys. Gene Pielin, for example, is the general sales manager of Gulley's Greenhouse, which makes a lot of money from landscaping projects like those the McWhinneys build.
--Zack
2007-08-06 18:59:42 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Wow - that is harsh. Does Gulley's do business with McWhinney? If so, isn't that a conflict of interest for Pielin-shouldn't he abstain?
--Jimbo
2007-08-06 19:37:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, I have never known a politician who didn't rationalize his wrong doing in some way.

Just because they have convinced themselves they are helping the community while helping themslves doesn't make their actions ethical.

Jack Abramahf thought he was helping the country while helping himself, Gordon Liddy, Randy Cunningham and many other people also thought the were helping the public while helping themselves.

Ted Stevens (the Alaskan Senator) probably felt the improvements to his house were a very small payback for all the time he has "given" in public service.

Just listen to their comments. They are so intellectually dishonest and trite it makes you want to throw-up. If I I hear one more person say they want to "give-back" to the community by being the Mayor or on City Council I will scream.

If a U.S. Senator like Allard or the President of HP said it OK, since they really have something to give.

But a failed downtown business owner, gardner who can't retire for lack of good retirement planning or savings, VP of a lousy road construction company that screwed-up the Berthoud bypass or developers who inherited their compnay from the previous generations - give me a break. You can't say you are "giving" back when your council position elevates your social status and gives you authority no one in the private sector would dare let you have.

The Chamber of Commerce colluded with Rocky Scott of McWhinney to run some folks for Council. I often hear them called the folloling;

Mayor Lost Larry Walsh, Mayor Pro Tem Sleepy Gene, Queen of Mean Brown, Dopey Dozier, Dumb David Clark and so on..........everyone on City staff have heard or used these terms to describe our very sad City Council.

Don Williams may not be up for election but this next election will determine whether or not he stays. He runs the council contrary to state law and cares little for this town. He will be the first problem the new city council will solve.
--HonestCityEmployee
2007-08-06 19:53:00 GMT
Author:Anonymous
My, my, my..arn't we the angry buch.

Negotiations are usually done behind closed doors. If you had watched previous meetings you would have seen the council go into executive session for various land purchases which could not be discussed in an open forum. The city wants some property, the price goes up....from your dollars.

Gully's does not do landscaping for the McWhinneys. They ran their own company for years for the landscaping done at centerra and the shops. I believe they sold the company and that new company now does the landscaping.

Scam artists?? You won't believe me but no council member has made anything from the McWhinneys..nor would they. It must be tough to go through life thinking the world is full of crooked people....how very, very sad.

Back to what I've said before; if the council votes the way you think they should, then they are correct and honest. If they vote different that the way you believe, then they must be dishonest.

After you get some 'no' votes on the trolley, then what? Some of the corrupt elected officals decided to become honest?

And again, it's not new money. It's money already in or forcast to be in the pool of money they will obtain during the next 25 years (now 21 or 22 years). They still have to make the previous agreed to road improvements.

It's like you give your kid an allowance to spend on a new bike and your kid asks if he can also buy a game system with the same money you give him. You're not giving him any more, you just allowed something else to be purchased in addition to the bike.

Failed downtown business owner...Jan Brown? She sold the buisness. Garder who can't retire...Gene Pielin? I think he used to own the buisness and could retire anytime. VP of a road construction...who? Walsh? He's not the VP and I don't think the company he works for did the Berthoud bypass. Developers who inherited their company...not Heckel...who? And who did Rock Scott run for council? All the present council members were already in office when the McWhinneys hired Rock Scott.

Please do some research and get some facts before you make comments...there are some people who read this blog that would believe anyting!!



--ouch
2007-08-06 22:50:37 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, be careful. You need to do the research, everything I read on this blog (with the exception of your contributions) is correct.

You stated above, "Walsh? He's not the VP and I don't think the company he works for did the Berthoud bypass. Developers who inherited their company...not Heckel...who?"

Read Mayor Walsh's own biography on the City of Loveland website. It says,

"He currently is the Vice President/General Manager at SEMA Construction, Inc. specializing in the development and construction of major transportation and public infrastructure projects"

Read the Rocky Mountain News report on how SEMA screwed-up the Berthoud bypass and even Loveland provided money. His resume also brags that he convinced Council to set-aside 10% in all sales tax for road improvements - and that isn't self serving for a VP of SEMA?

Walsh's resume also takes credit for the McWhinney tax deal claiming the $590 million will improve the 34/I-25 interchange. Now, you are right, the Mayor may vote against the diversion of money from the road construction to a trolley but maybe because his company constructs new interchanges and doesn't build trollies!

Council member Clark's biography curiously fails to mention even a high school education but does say: "Dave Clark has lived in Loveland for over 40 years and has worked in the family commercial construction business since 1970." Does this answer your question of who? Most people in Loveland don't have wealthy families with construction businesses but go to work everyday instead.

I don't need to defend my comments about Brown or the others, they speak for themselves and I don't have enough time tonight to fully educate you about how employees of the city really feel about this council of clowns.

Lastly, please report any secret meetings by the city council to the District Attorney immediately if they involve the request to use tax dollars to buy a trolley. Political controversy does not meet the test of what constitutes a land purchase negotiation or personnel matter in order to meet in secret. If the city council meets in private on Tuesday regarding the trolley (it isn't on their closed agenda notice) they are likely breaking the law. It was clearly on the open agenda with Don Williams thought it could pass Council so trying to keep the discussion private is a clear violation of the open meetings law.

Have a good evening and please spend some time researching your opinions before posting falsehoods you will regret later.

As someone who knows what goes on in city hall (that means I couldn't possibly be on council) we think Don Williams is the Pide Piper leading the rats to the water - only he is going to retire when all the council falls in. By the way, his biography only mentions his current position. That is because he ran the motor pool before running the city.


--HonestCityEmployee
2007-08-07 05:14:37 GMT
Author:Anonymous
You may be correct..not sure. Walsh now works for a different company than before. Not sure if SEMA was the old company or the current one. Are we sure that he worked for SEMA at the time the contract for the bypass was negotiated?

I never mentioned Clark..only Heckel. You make it sound as if Clark never did anything only sat back and inherited a company. And yet you quote him as saying he worked in the company since 1970....37 years. Why be upset about someone who worked in a family business for that long and then takes it over? How does that make him a bad council person? Or someone who didn't make sound investments or had a business that closed in the downtown area?

I would like to know your idea of a perfect council member. No family business, no background in landscaping, no construction or development experience, no downtown business owner, no ties to anything?
--ouch
2007-08-07 12:58:46 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Sorry, I can't help myself.

Just checked all the council bios on the city's home page.

Walsh: In business dealing with transportation and public infrastructure. The city of Loveland needs transportation and infrastructure, so that's bad that he's the mayor.

Peilin: Worked and is still working for a wholesale horticulturual company. The city does landscaping and requires that developments have landscaping in place. He may have a hidden agenda.

Brown: A past downtown business owner who in favor of more monies going to the downtown area. How about the rest of the city?

Klassen: Past county commissioner and radio broadcast owern. What if someday Loveland wants something from the county?

Rousey: Retired firefighter and works at Aims. Don't we have an Aims campus in Loveland? And I just know he wants more fire stations.

Dozier: Software engineer. I know the city uses computer software.

Skowron: Reitred from H.P. I believe we have H.P. in the city.

Clark: Commerical construction company. I'm sure we have some commerical construction going on in the city.

Keckel: Builder and developer. Any building or developememt happening in the city?

Oh my God! "HonestCityEmployee" must be right...we are all in big trouble.
--ouch
2007-08-07 13:53:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Sorry, I can't help myself.

Just checked all the council bios on the city's home page.

Walsh: In business dealing with transportation and public infrastructure. The city of Loveland needs transportation and infrastructure, so that's bad that he's the mayor.

Peilin: Worked and is still working for a wholesale horticulturual company. The city does landscaping and requires that developments have landscaping in place. He may have a hidden agenda.

Brown: A past downtown business owner who in favor of more monies going to the downtown area. How about the rest of the city?

Klassen: Past county commissioner and radio broadcast owern. What if someday Loveland wants something from the county?

Rousey: Retired firefighter and works at Aims. Don't we have an Aims campus in Loveland? And I just know he wants more fire stations.

Dozier: Software engineer. I know the city uses computer software.

Skowron: Reitred from H.P. I believe we have H.P. in the city.

Clark: Commerical construction company. I'm sure we have some commerical construction going on in the city.

Keckel: Builder and developer. Any building or developememt happening in the city?

Oh my God! "HonestCityEmployee" must be right...we are all in big trouble.
--ouch
2007-08-07 13:53:38 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch, your response to my last post suggests very paternalistic/patriarchal view of government. "We do what's best for our family". But I'm not part of your family. Neither are most of teh rest of the residents. And most of us (judging by routine comments I hear) do NOT like what the Council is doing "for" (actually, "to") us...they're screwing us. Taking our taxes and giving to millionaire developers...reverse Robin Hood.
--Digger
2007-08-07 16:23:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Digger: Sorry, but the analogy is still appropriate.

You may not agree but like it or not, you and I are part of the same family....Loveland, Colorado. You can disown the family but your still part of it.

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln: 'you can make some of the people happy all the time and you can make all of the people happy some of the time but you can't make all the people happy all the time.'

As I've said before...bare land with little or no taxes to the city or the developments out east and the city shares the sales tax with the developer. I don't look at it as the city taking your taxes but rather the city creating new taxes that they share in so the development could happen in the first place.

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong..you think so but I still believe that the decisions by the council were in the best interest of 'our family'.
--ouch
2007-08-07 20:10:06 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Well, ouch, what is your interest with McWhinney? Why not come clean. I assume that was also your letter to the editor today also. "Do your research." What business are you trying to sell to them? Trying to sell financial services maybe? The real issue is is "but for" the public's investement, would they have done Promenade or Grand Station anyway. What in your "research" has proven that point? The issue is not only whether these projects have brought public benefit but whether they warren public subsidy. That point has never been proven.
--No self interest in McWhinney
2007-08-07 21:12:02 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Actually, I believe I wrote a letter to the editor/Reporter-Herald several years ago..that was it. No connection or vested interest with the McWhinneys...None.

Would they (McWhinneys) have done the Promanade or Grand Station without the public's investment? Good question. Ask Windsor or Fort Collins who got new mall development first...Loveland did.

Why? Because the city's use of incentives in the form of URA monies and sharing of sales tax.

Ask the other cities if they wish they had the Promanade Shops. Wanna bet what thier answer would be?
--ouch
2007-08-07 22:01:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How much you wanna bet they are getting and will get the same malls, increasing regional competition and driving down any short term benefit we have bled or will bleed from them. In the short term we reap and become reliant on that benefit only to have it taken back as soon as regional competition reacts to gain back any loss. Ft. Collins has new retail on Harmony in the ground, a mixed use center on Harmony on the way, a redeveloped URA incented mall and north College URAs ready to go. And, a more sustainable approach to development long term. In the end we have given very costly incentives (in the range of over 1/2 billion and growing) that have a very short life of benefit, with a down side of becoming reliant on an increase that is ephemeral. Not very smart development and not the answer. A choo choo train does not a sustainable community make. Primary jobs that will sustain a source of long term purchasing power is the only thing worthy of public incentives. Do your research. You are out of your league on this one and you have an interest in McWhinney but won't admit it. They are so desparate they have planted commentary on this blog, in the newspaper at their "community" meetings and elsewhere with their hack political consultants. What a blunder, everyone sees through it.
--Still no interest in McWhinney
2007-08-08 00:43:57 GMT
Author:Anonymous
How is Fort Collins going to obtain these developemnts? The same way that Loveland did..through incentives. Some of the same incentives that you oppose with the McWhinneys (URA's).

Apparently you think that large mall/developments just happen.

How does Loveland compete with the new stuff going in at Fort Collins? Stop the Grand Station and any other McWhinney developement?

You can't have it both ways...stop Loveland's incentives and still compete with others who are now giving incentives.

You said it yourself: "...we have bled or will bleed from them."

Using your thinking, we should have never allowed any incentives for McWhinney's developments and just continued driving to Fort Collins for our shopping.

It sounds as if your a resident of Fort Collins and are upset with losing revenue to Loveland. Go ahead and admit it, that you live in Fort Collins and hate to see your city lose and Loveland gain.


--ouch
2007-08-08 13:05:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
The Loveland City Council had nothing to do with Chad and Troy McWhinney's grandfather buying land many years ago next to I-25 and highway 34 than dying and leaving it along with money to two ambitious grandsons in Southern California.

Chad McWhinney told the Council that I-25 (Northern Colorado Main Street) expects over 65 major new commercial developments in the next few years. Ouch, you can't have it both ways - there are so few we need to compete to bring the development or too many so they need to stand out.

Read the letter to the editor in Wednesday's Reporter-Herald. Those are my setiments exactly.
--Art
2007-08-09 08:42:49 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Art: Well stated.

I think we agree (on some issues). If the area has too few commerical/mall developments then it's nice to have one in Loveland. If the area has too many, then Loveland needs to offer the incentives to have it/them in Loveland.

Either way, I knda like not driving to another city and paying their sales tax instead of our own.

--ouch
2007-08-09 13:47:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Isn't it funny that loveland residents like me that live off of 29th street have to travel all the way south to U.S. 34, make a difficult left turn and travel all the way out to I-25 to shop? For me and many others it is easier to jump on 287 or Taft or Wilson and get to Ft. Collins. Why is all of the City's new retail done so far away from where people live? Maybe that's why so much of the City's taxes still go up to Ft. Collins. Maybe we should focus on the older parts of town where people actually live and would prefer to shop, and not have to drive 10 mi to get out east of I-25 and spend money on gas. Also, that would beautify parts of the City that have been vacated and have been run down.
--No self interest in McWhinney
2007-08-10 16:41:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Ouch:

You say "apparently you think large mall developments just happen." Since when should the GOVERNMENT be involved in building malls? Shouldn't the market should create retail, with government facilitating only thru land use planning. We're paying for roads that need not existi if Centerra had been located in Loveland proper, not to mention parking lots for a private development, and now the TROLLEY???

Further, sales tax revenue is now growing faster in Fort Collins than Loveland according to recent figures. What will happen once H25 and a lifestyle center further south on I-25 are built? Perhaps we will regret no creating shopping opporunities convenient to Loveland where 60,000 people live.

I am not anti-growth, I think we should accomodate growth, but should the government be in the business of paying for private developments? Shouldn't government do the things its meant to do, in the way of public amenities?
--Anonymous
2007-08-21 06:19:52 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS