Information is a powerful thing. We want to thank all of you who assisted Loveland Politics in informing the residents of Loveland and the local media about exactly what McWhinney proposed in amending again the MFA (Master Financing Agreement).
Each amendment is more preposterous than the last and it is difficult to believe any custodian of the public’s trust (Loveland Council) would be willing to even consider McWhinney’s proposals. This time, McWhinney wanted to abandon their near-term obligation to use tax dollars their Metro District collected to make safety improvements to the I-25 and U.S. 34 interchange. This time, they took their influence over our Loveland City Council just too far.
It seemed like only 6 Loveland residents blindly supported McWhinney’s outrageous proposal but those 6 are members of Loveland’s City Council and their opinions matter. Greeley, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), the rest of the development community and all of you finally persuaded them to become better stewards of the public’s trust.
While much of the local media is reporting again the McWhinney spin about not wanting to divide the region – we report the facts. They were counting heads and realized they were likely not going to win. Inside last minute proposals by their supporters on council to make the delay only two years etc.. failed because their real intent was to largely abandon their obligation hoping others would pay.
Instead of fighting over the chicken feed ($12 million) we need to begin asking what happened to the $100,000,000 they raised through public debt over the past four years and spent. The debt interest obligation is now North of $5 million every year for the next 20 years not including principal. Where did they spend all that money and who is checking their accounting?
Checkout our recent story regarding Chad McWhinneys luxury yacht in Mexico and million dollar house he just purchased in Loveland. His friends and fellow developers came forward with this information because even they figured this time he had just gone too far.
Well done, Loveland Politics! You’ve done the journalism that the established local media neglected to do. Thank you!
You people are incredible. What is wrong with being rich and successful?
I thought we wanted successful and wealthy people locating in Loveland so their spending boosts our economy. I don’t know about you but in Nebraska’s little towns I never met a guy like McWhinney. I know he boght the other house on the lake not for an ex-wife or anythiing but to live in it himself.
All the people who will get to be able and lay tile, flooring and do the other improvements to that property he is paying for brings dozens of jobs to Lovelanders who may have otherwise be unemployed and on welfare.
Centerra is a huge threat to Broomfield’s Flat Irons Crossing Mall, Littleton’s Outlet Malls and other high-end shopping districts across Colorado. Everyone I have met when I leave Loveland knows about Centerra but not the older and uglier side of Loveland.
Do you really think a store the likes of Macy’s would have ever located in Loveland had it not been for Chad’s commitment to bring-up the culture and standard of living of folks in Loveland. He has given Loveland over 7,000 new jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenue so the police can now have new uniforms, we have annual fireworks shows and even African art the likes of which Peter would probably have never seen in his natural life.
The McWhinney’s are the best thing that ever happened to this little town!!!
Once again this blog chooses only to put a negative slant on any activity that the McWhinneys undertake. Is there a personal agenda that the blog owner has against the McWhinneys? If you really believe that the I-25 and 34 interchange should not be delayed then where’s the “thanks” for the developer pulling their request to move the funding?
Are the readers aware that there has never been any positive reporting by this blog on any project that the McWhinnineys have undertaken? How many of you have shopped at Target, Best Buy, Macys, Pets Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond or any of the other buisnesses that Loveland now has? How many have eaten at one or more of the many eateries that we now have?
Do you drive to Fort Collins or Greeley to shop because you just hate to shop at a McWhinneys development? Or do you do some of your shopping in East Loveland and just won’t admit it? Would you really rather not have any of the stores or revenues that is now part of Centerra?
I received numerous emails and calls urging me not to support moving the funding away from I-25/34 interchange…some were well worded and made sense…while too many were just because of who the developer was. Do some of you really believe that I would make a decision based on if you like or dislike someone? Snap your fingers and have Centerra disappear….Would Loveland then be better off?
If the blog owner has enough honor to name the 6 council members who were supposed to have been in favor of the 5th amendment I would really like to read it here…Then I can tell you how wrong you were.
Councilman Rousey I can see why you say “ouch”. Guilty conscience? You clearly miss the point.
What I and I think others object to is the use of OUR tax dollars to subsidize a developer. PERIOD. And that particular developer’s subsidy is what, nearly $600 million of public taxes (after the $100 million in so-called “regional improvements” that you’ve already helped them get out of.) For instance, 1 of the previous 4 amendments you supported was a change that let them substitute still OTHER public taxes for their obligations. Another lets ‘em pick and choose what lands are “blighted” enough to get developed under the subsidy.
I’m not the blog owner, but I can say that it was clear at the April 7 meeting that almost all of the Council members (except 2 – Solt and Gutierrez ) indicated likely support of the request, based on comments at the time and votes on amendments. And the changes you guys voted on at the time were window dressing… didn’t change the substance of McWhinneys request; still let him defund the US34 interchange. Deny it if you want, why else do you think Mayor Pielin said he thought he had the votes to pass it last night?
And why do you think anyone should THANK McWhinney for withdrawing his unprincipled attempt to get out of his obligation? Are you serious? It’s a #$% contract! And you, who are supposed to represent the taxpayer (the most important party) in this contract, have continually failed in your responsibility to us. Either you’re truly an ignorant person, or you’re quite dishonest with us and yourself. It’s beyond me to guess which.
Gavin seems taken with the rich and famous. Good for him. Hey, I don’t care about how rich someone is…but I get mighty mad if they steal from the pubic to get rich. (btw, the Reporter herald estimated they’d take $691 Million from the URA).
He writes of millions in new revenues. What about the cost side of the equation? New uniforms my arse. The PD is woefully understaffed. And why did a former Fire Chief suddenly resign … not long after he was forced to ask City Council to lower fire response standards because “development at the interstate made it impossible to meet the standards” ? Why are my water bills and sewer bills going up each year? Why did the City impose a new “transportation fee” a while ago? And so on.
“Best thing that happened to this town”? Maybe in your eyes. Not so much in mine. I guess it depends on what you value. If you care mostly about getting in your car and shopping, well, diffrent strokes for different folks.
I think the newspaper should do a story on the person who owns this blog and where all his money came from.
How can the most powerful person in Loveland be a secret and we don’t even get to know about his finances? Does he own a boat in Mexico? A house on Lake Loveland? Any messy divorce they might want to publish the details about for everyone to read? What are his girlfriends names?
I really don’t know but there are some very interesting rumors about someone I think is associated with this website that everyone is afraid to report in the newspapers. Why is he secret?
In this one item the newspaper has fallen down and failed to let everyone know who is controlling the news in Loveland.
Gavin: I am fully aware of who the blog owner is…seems like a nice person up close and personal but when I started to make hints as to who the individual is, I was told that I could lose my right to submit comments on the blog. At least the Reporter-Herald prints the names of those doing the reporting…..I guess it’s safer this way.
Shelby, I assume you are speaking if the “Flex Ura” and yes I voted for it. It simply allows the developer to trade one parcel for another so as allow a prospective business to select which parcel is best for their needs. It did not create additional size of the URA. The size is the same today as before.
As to the April 7th meeting, yes I indicated that it was ok to bring back. It in no way should be considered as a vote of approval or denial. The main reason for my April 7th ok to bring it back was to get in on the regular agenda so it could be voted on….one way or another. Sometimes council can talk a subject to death without actually getting it resolved. The only way to get it resolved is at a regular meeting. I have seen several times when council has approved an item to be placed on the regular agenda and then voted no. Please do not assume that just because a proposed ordinance is moved to a regular meeting by concent of council it means that council is in favor of adopting the ordinance.
Wotta riot! hey “blog owner”… I betcha you didn’t know you were “the most powerful person in Loveland”. And can I have a ride on yer yacht? And hey… could ya tell us how you manage to “control the news in Loveland”?
Seriously: if the local dailies even bothered to do even a little investigative (and honest! ) journalism, your website wouldn’t even be necessary, would it? Hey Gavin, thanks for the chuckle.
Where to begin…
Gavin: “…all the people who get to lay tile for McWhinney otherwise would be unemployed and on welfare?” Is that a serious argument for subsidy, or a dismissive attitude? “7000 jobs”??? What’s your source? Are you on any prescription medication? “…Chad’s commitment to bring up the culture”??? I get the sense that you’re looking down your nose at the rest of us.
Your commentary is riddled with specious facts and a haughty attitude, but you never really address the issues in the article.
Ouch Rousey: There is a place called reality, where past actions can’t be wished away by what you’d like to believe about yourself today. The Loveland City Council has a well documented record of voting for current subsidies for Centerra based on future promises by its developer. Later, the developer comes back to Council to make changes to their previous agreement, eliminating or pushing out payment for prior promises.
Gavin and Ouch Rousey: Gavin mentions “the older and uglier side of Loveland”, and there is a grain of truth there. Tax money has been lavished on Centerra for a decade now, to the detriment of downtown, west Eisenhower, and numerous other locations. Perhaps, instead of subsidy ad infinitum for Centerra, that money should now be spent to revitalize the rest of Loveland. Perhaps Centerra, ever the target of “new public investment”, should now be expected to stand on its own merits and finances. Perhaps it should finally be expected to (perish the thought!) contribute net revenues to the city.
@ Gavin and Rousey, I call shenanigans. How is Liam’s name any secret? I found the blog owner has responded to posts on this blog with their full name and it’s never been a mystery to me. How about you spend less efforts at personally attacking the blog proprietor and more time responding to points raised by their reporting? Like how do you council members feel about the McWhinneys claiming the Motorplex sign as part of fulfilling their commitment to the MFA requiring them to fund public improvements?
At least the Reporter-Herald prints the names of those doing the reporting.
Except in the case of “The RH Line”, where the editor of The Reporter-Herald can make up stuff. Daily. And when he’s not doing it the managing editor, who thinks she’s too good for Loveland, publishes crap and nonsense either made up or stolen from this blog, The Coloradoan web site, the rant section of Craig’s List, etc.
Such a lovely bunch y’all are. So simply lovely.
Councilman Glenn Rousey has posted the following in the above comments;
“Once again this blog chooses only to put a negative slant on any activity that the McWhinneys undertake.”
Chad McWhinney stood in front of his “friends” on Loveland’s City Council and told you he needed the $12 million (set aside for the I-25 and U.S. 34 interchange) because without it he couldn’t lure a fortune 500 company to Loveland to create primary jobs in the community. He said your choice was between transportation or jobs.
LovelandPolitics broke the story soon after that the company is not a Fortune 500, is already located in the area, and the location McWhinney wants public money to lure them away from as their only alternative site is less than 2 miles from Centerra.
And you are angry with us?
We don’t report a “negative slant” on “any” activity of McWhinney or its proprietors as you asserted. That is because we don’t report on everything they do. Instead, we focus on significant activities like misleading the city council to get $12 million. Local media well covers their gifts to charity and other positive contributions they have made to the community. Besides, they don’t send us those press releases.
However, you do understand Burney Madoff gave lots of money to charity as have famous Colombian drug traffickers like Carlos Escobar? I am not comparing Chad or Troy McWhinney to these people except to illustrate that gifts to important charities do not necessarily alone guarantee the donor is a good person nor does it prove their money was obtained under ideal circumstances.
Most people don’t realize that Loveland’s City Attorney, John Duval, likely saved the interchange improvement when he insisted the $12 million be put aside in an escrow account McWhinney couldn’t touch without a city signature. That appears to now be nearly all the money left from the $100,000,000 raised through public debt for Centerra.
I will soon post for your memory the April 7 council meeting video clips where you, Councilman Rousey, lead the pack of McWhinney supporters in arguing IN FAVOR of their proposed amendment to allow the money to be taken out of the escrow account. Sure, you proposed a little window dressing also but every independent press accounting of the meeting was the same – it would easily pass when brought back to council on April 21, 2009 as the majority of councilors supported the request.
Now, you may have changed your mind between the meetings when we exposed the mystery employer to not be what you were told. So perhaps instead of arguing that we need to thank McWhinney for pulling the item — you owe a thanks to LovelandPolitics.com!
Your welcome!
P.S. This website has never promoted a boycott against shopping in Centerra as you imply. I bought a car there last year and was assured the McWhinney tax (they call it the IMPROVEMENT district tax) was to improve the I-25 and U.S. 34 interchange.
Greeley’s City Council hit the nail on the head in their letter to you – don’t collect taxes for one purpose and than spend it on another. That is a classic bait and switch and considered unethical behavior by most people’s standards.
I don’t understand something. How come nobody can tell me why so much money was spent on McWhinney and not on other commercial real estate developers?
Anyone know? Am I missing something here everyone else already knows?
Your are correct when you say you don’t report on everything the McWhinneys do.. You just said it yourself “we focus on significant activities like misleading the city council to get $12 million”. Apparently your idea of signifiant issues are only those that are negative in nature. Why is that? You don’t need to answer…I believe I already know to answer…You could be in any state, city or town and your blog would be the same…negative reporting makes better reading…especially for the majority of those who read your blog
And yes, I did argue in favor of the 5th amendment at the study session and I was in favor of getting it placed on the regular agenda. But I sure would not bet on what my vote would have been if it had not been pulled. You may make your assumptions as long as you wish but they still remain assumptions. It is indeed sad that you make assumptions and yet some readers believe it to be true. By the way, you have yet to name the 6 counicl members who were in favor of the 5th amendment…did they all change their mind? Go ahead, make another assumption.
I will admit that I was not aware at the time of the study session that the company that may move to Loveland was currently in Greeley but I can assure you that council or at least myself was made aware of this fact from other sources than your blog…you give yourself too much credit.
As to all those who complain about the use of their tax dollars for Centerra…the tax dollars were not there until Centerra was constructed. You, including myself, never had those tax dollars to begin with nor did the city of Loveland. The tax dollars you speak of were generated by the development and were agreed to be shared by Loveland and the Mcwhinneys for infrastructure and improvements…no development-no new tax dollars. The URA monies were also generated by a increase in property values..no development-no increase in property values.
It’s tough to generate any sales tax and property tax increases without first having the development. Again, snap your fingers and have Centerra dissapear…you would not see any gain of monies in your pocket, you would not see any revenue gain by the city, you would only see vacant land without the stores. Better?
Just so everyone understands, the $12 million for I-25/34 is only a short term fix. CDOT’s estimate to make it like it should be is $200 million..money the state of Colorado does not have. If Johnstown’s development 25/34 picks back up and expands (as it will), if Greeley continues to grow west, where’s their contribution to fix the interchange that they also rely on? As the mayor pointed out, the new short term look will be a lot like 392 at Windsor. $12 million is a lot of money but be aware it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a new interchange.
Sorry for the length of my comments…maybe I should take another break from resonding…whatever I say seems to upset too many of you.
Karen,
The simplest explanation is that McWhinney worked the political system harder than others had, before or since. He contributed more to the Council campaigns, and he asked for far more in return. He cleverly hired a lot of persuasion – people with experience in “economic development”, government, lobbying, law, etc., to strengthen the reach and effectiveness of his persuasion. And with the Councils we’ve had… it was like ducks in a barrel.
And something else. Some Lovelanders have long had what we could call “dot envy”. They always resented the fact that, on the maps, Loveland had a smaller dot than Fort Collins. For these folk, bigger is ALWAYS better. BIG is the most important thing. And McWhinney was about nothing so much as “BIG”. So when they came forward with their big schemes, it was a match made in heaven… as if he were selling some kind of super-Viagra potion.
While I think I’d agree with one inference from your question, i.e. that there has been a very unfair, unlevel playing field when it comes to commercial real estate development, I personally don’t think government should be in the business of using my taxes to subsidize development at all. And if we were to look more closely, it has not been just commercial that has been subsidized.
I’ll add my thanks here to the blog administrator for this excellent public service.
More condescending and self-serving, but meaningless remarks from an unfit member of the Loveland City Council, who has nothing but contempt and disdain for the voters and taxpayers.
Perhaps you would like to talk down to me further like I’m a brain-damaged five-year-old, and tell me the standard politico pap: I don’t understand the issues. Only you, in your infinite wisdom and greatness, understand all, know all, and see all.
Actually, MR. Ouch Rousey, I do understand. I understand and know more than you will ever comprehend. Unlike you and the rest of the Loveland City Council I don’t believe anything the Loveland City Council says and The Reporter-Herald reports because I know Ken Amundson to be what he is: Your lap dog. A brown-noser of the highest order, whose lack of objectivity makes the word “sycophant” perverted and obscene.
I know him to be what he is. I know him as so many others know him: An immature and unprofessional jackanpe who is also a &$#%&# who thinks himself clever, when he is not.
Just like you, and the other members of the Loveland City Council. No wonder you get along so well.
In a nutshell, here’s what I know: Not one current member of the Loveland City Council is fit for public office or any other position with authority and influence. Your actions have made this explicitly clear. Your financial and fiscal mismanagement to date has proven this out as fact.
By the way: Whatever came of that $800,000.00 “mistake” the taxpayers get to pay for? Is that one of those “oversights” that will be swept under the carpet and not reported on in The Reporter-Herald because you don’t want to take responsibility for it, and you won’t be held accountable for it?
No one at The Reporter-Herald is held responsible or accountable for anything, so why should the Loveland City Council?
Come the next election cycle I, and many others, WILL bring change and remove you and your cronies from office. I WILL make this become fact and truth, and no amount of mud-slinging by your faithful lap dog will stop this change from taking place.
Your day is done. Your time is past.
This is true and certain. And what is true is for you is also true for The Reporter-Herald.
Feel free to share this truth and fact with your comrade, the editor of The Reporter-Herald.
Effective now I am calling The Loveland City Council out. I am also calling Ken Amundson out. Factually prove me wrong. All of you.
You won’t because you can’t.
Will someone… ANYONE… please step forward to run against these co-opted morons on city council? I don’t care what your politics are, as long as you’re not these people.
Come on Roger. Contributions from McWhinneys? Yes to some, however small. I’ve been elected twice and have yet to recieve any contributions from anyone but still people like to believe different…however wrong. I’m sure you have checked and have not found any contributions.
Jim: Believe it or not, I’m not sure I would even know Mr. Amundson if I met him on the street. I believe I saw him once at a police advisory meeting and maybe during one of the meetings while obtaining public input for the fairgrounds park…besides that, I’ve never had any conversation with him.
Same old stuff only worded differently. Every election year someone says out with the old and in with the new. The problem is that too many people sit back and complain but don’t have enough interest to run for public office. I invite you to run and if you’re in my ward…there will be a vacancy in November. I’ve run twice without any opposition. Carol Johnson ran without any opposition. Why? Again, it’s easier to sit back and complain istead of taking an active role.
As I have said before, all I am is some citizen of Loveland who decided to run for council and happened to get elected. It doesn’t make me always right, it doesn’t make me know all the answers, it doesn’t make me know everything..it only makes me someone who decided to take an active part in local government.
Go for it Jim…I’ll look forward to seeing your name on the ballot. Will it be there? It’s a better way to participate than using this blog.
I am already taking action Mr. Rousey, and one example of my successful efforts of the demise of The Rocky Mountain News.
Food for thought, Mr. Rousey. Food for thought.
Thanks for the pic.
Duh…If you read my post of 4-25-09, I said that I was in favor of the 5th amendment at the study session. You now say that I deny that I was in support of it? Try reading your own blog. What grips me most about your shabby reporting is that you assume what my and other votes would have been had the item not been pulled at the regular council session.
I guess the best you can do is writing for your own blog or doing a few columns for a California paper that went out of business.
Mr. Rousey, here is what you posted above:
“And yes, I did argue in favor of the 5th amendment at the study session and I was in favor of getting it placed on the regular agenda.”
You argued in favor of the 5th MFA amendment during a regular city council meeting (April 7) which was not a study session. The only reason it wasn’t voted on is because the city attorney asked for two more weeks to re-draft the language as amended.
You argued the U.S. constitution has 29 amendments and you also told the citizens against the 5th MFA amendment at the meeting to complain instead to their state and federal representatives for funding (this is on the video we produced). The video clearly demonstrates all your McWhinneycrat colleagues endorsed your comments before also stating why they were in support of the amendment.
To say you only argued to place it on the agenda is disingenuous. It was already on the April 7, regular city council agenda when you argued to pass it that very night.
Not until the Greeley City Council, Board of Larimer County Commissioners, CDOT and Loveland citizens all protest the proposed action did you abandon your support for McWhinney taking the money out of the I-25/US 34 improvements through the 5th MFA amendment. This occurred between the April 7 and April 21 council meetings. By the time it came back to you on April 21, McWhinney pulled the item for fear they didn’t have the votes any longer.
The point is you don’t manage a city and agreements worth millions of dollars only on “trust.” Had you insisted McWhinney present their first argument to you in public instead of private you could have benefited from the public dialogue and the information that would have surfaced.
In the future, ask them to present ideas to you first in public so you can benefit from the community’s input in your decision making. It is clearly to your benefit that all the facts come out early and not later
It is something called a representative democracy. Messy at times but in the end the best way for you to conduct the public’s business.
I watched the video and am confused by the slanted editing. The Mayor said he had a nail in his foot (like being crucified) while Councilor Gutierrez said the agreement with McWhinney was like deciding to nail your shoe to the floor. If the 5th amendment takes a nail out of the Mayor’s foot I am all for it!
Were these comments even from the same meeting? It doesn’t appear to be the same topic because the Mayor was said it was a good thing to get out of having your foot nailed to the cross while cecil was talking about a different thing.
I think bringing jobs here is more important than Johnstown and think the city (like any buisiness) needs to have secret meetings. Jan said it best when she said it is likel asking a company board of directors to report their actions in public documents. This isn’t a good thing for anyone and the city should be allowed to operate sometimes in secret.