It is ironic to hear local candidates assail national politicians for lack of accountability while they themselves have explaining to do. All but one incumbent councilman now running for Mayor foolishly voted down a proposal to allow the subsidy to vNet but require the company or its owner to return ALL the funds if they failed to meet their obligations under the agreement.
In retrospect, the vote was a foolish partisan move to not support Councilman Kent Solt and instead follow the flawed advice of Loveland City Manager Don Williams. Read the LovelandPolitics.com story. For the record, LovelandPolitics does not support corporate welfare especially when it goes to friends and contributors of members of the council. Being “pro-business” should mean removing government barriers to free enterprise and creating the best value for government services instead of choosing winners and losers by gifting tax dollars to private entities.
Like so many other issues that come before Loveland’s City Council, the $900,000 subsidy approved for vNet was a done deal and the public meeting a charade. The seven McWhinneycrats on Loveland’s council did in early March of 2008 what they have become accustomed to doing so often on other issues – not fully read their packet of information before the meeting but instead follow the city manager’s advice.
Unprepared for a debate on the merits of a proposal they appeared not to fully understand the council made a terrible error. The seven McWhinneycrats (Pielin, Klassen, Johnson, Skowron, Rousey, Heckle and Clark) voted for who they knew instead of WHAT they knew.
Despite warnings by Councilman Kent Solt that vNet CEO and majority owner, William Beierwaltes, failed previously and didn’t have the history of unprecedented success being represented to council – they voted down Solt’s amendment to make Beierwaltes and his company accountable to the full amount of the subsidy instead of just part of it. Solt’s independent research was ignored in favor of city staff advice.
This time their inability to understand what they were voting against and act in the city’s best interest may cost taxpayers $500,000. At a time when employees are being let go, parks closed early and routine maintenance to city facilities deferred for lack of funds this ineptitude is unpardonable.
Caution must be taken when candidates like Bob Snyder, now looking to fill a seat on the council, represent themselves as “pro-business” yet appear to understand little or nothing about the actual incentives the city has handed out. What Loveland needs are people willing to be good custodians of taxpayer dollars that show an interest in the details of what they vote on instead of blindly following Don Williams.
The difference we see in the 7-2 vote on this matter was not one of philosophy but instead sophistication. Walt Skowron, often a detractor himself from the majority, made it clear he was voting to give the city subsidy to a friend which should have been a red flag. The only other possible explanation for the others not making vNet fully accountable is they met in advance with Beierwaltes and had already agreed to vote for the subsidy as proposed by staff.
Loveland’s City Council wants to act like venture capitalists with other people’s money but are unwilling to perform the necessary due diligence before investing. City Manager Don Williams lacks even the minimum educational qualifications to be a city manager in any other city in Colorado let alone be an investment adviser. We know this website has been attacked for being too rough on locally elected officials. Sometimes it appears we were not rough enough in describing their absolute negligence that has lead to this debacle and potential loss of half a million dollars of Loveland taxpayer’s money to a failed business venture.
Can anyone explain what their possible defense might be for such a costly blunder as the campaign goes on?
