Comments on: Johnson’s Morning After Email – Klen vs. City of Loveland

By: guest

guest — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:50:05 +0000

When does the recall effort start for Ms. Johnson?

By: steve

steve — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:13:34 +0000

Ben, you said “just because you don’t know something doesn’t make it false information.” Its only false when the information you claim to know and repeat is incorrect and then its false.

You mention the buz around the contractor community, maybe if the contractors were busy working they wouldnt have time to sit around and make up rumors. There are no requirements that Aspen Knolls must begin or risk losing their permits.

I challenge you to do proper research before making flase statements. A quick call to the City of Loveland, planning or engineering staff should get you the proper info and if you dont think they would tell the truth, then you could request a copy any and all legal documents through the City attorney’s office.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:27:59 +0000

Steve, just because you don’t know something doesn’t make it false information.

The buz around the contractor community has been McWhinney’s claims they were unaware of the requirements when they bought the property to begin certain improvements or lose their permits.

The affordable housing fee discounts is another issue that was brought to council. I am taking about another issue being debated in city hall that I don’t think anyone on the council is aware of yet.

McWhinney is delaying all their requests from the city until after March 2. That is when they think Donna Rice McCrea will be elected and able to vote in their favor to break any tied votes.

Maybe the $300,000 for improvements for the I25/34 will come sooner but probably not a big deal.

Steve – do you work for McWhinney? Can you give me any better information? Are you denying the rumor is true?

By: Tony Benjamin

Tony Benjamin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:04:21 +0000

This case brings up a lot of issues.
I’ll address only one.
Whenever government gets tangled in a lawsuit there’s a third party always involved: the public. Yet our elected representatives can go into closed session to discuss the public’s jeopardy.
The argument is that to do so openly (and the basis for the exemption to the Open Meetings law) would disclose legal strategy. Which, of course, is eventually disclosed to the opposition anyway.
The public, I believe, needs protection from its own elected and appointed representatives — a way to better judge whether their decisions were right.
The state Legislature could provide remedy, but that’s a long shot. Another way, here in Loveland, is for the council itself to simply not go into executive session. It would take courage. But viewing it through the prism of this particular case, I can’t see how it could be any more damaging. Or messier.
Matter of fact, just the opposite might blossom.
Real open government.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland

By: steve

steve — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:16:22 +0000

Ben, you seem to act like you know a lot. Lets see what you really know. Can you tell us a little more about McWhinney’ request when you say….”Now that McWhinney owns the project they are asking the city to waive all the requirements and deadlines KB Homes was expected to complete.”

What request is McWhinney making other than asking for a 5 year extension to build affordable houring?

What requirements are they asking to be waived?

Steve

By: Candi

Candi — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:55:13 +0000

Did anyone else notice that second email in the story page? LP.com might have missed this deail but the original email was from a city staff member, Robin Ericson, to Councilwoman Johnson but on private email for both! Why is a city employee communicating with city council about city business on private emails?

If you guys followed the Longmont story you would know that using private emails for city business to avoid the public’s access to city coresspondence is a big No No.

Does the city have a policy on this and if not why? Where is all the transparency we were told about in the last election?

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:16:22 +0000

Loveland is not an open town for development and this is well understood in the industry. KB Homes sold their project Aspen Knolls off Taft Ave. to McWhinney because they were coming-up to deadlines to make certain road improvements or risk losing the building permit.

Now that McWhinney owns the project they are asking the city to waive all the requirements and deadlines KB Homes was expected to complete.

In any other city McWhinney as a new property owner would be expected to either meet the requirements of KB’s building permits or make a new application. In Loveland anyone backed-up against a deadline or unable to pay their taxes sells to McWhinney because the law doesn’t apply to them in Loveland the way it does for everyone else.

The only mistake the Klens made was not making McWhinney or Loveland Commercial partners. If they had just done this all their problems would have gone away for sure.

By: Withheld

Withheld — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:15:52 +0000

Thank you for pointing this out to those of us who are at the mercy of lesser news organs. I never heard of the case before LovelandPolitics. I went back and read your story from last year and am appalled by city staff.

If even half of the complaints in that lawsuit are true Don Williams shouldn’t be working anywhere in the city or for any government. Give me a break! Really the citizens should be taking care of this crap so developers on the outside of Don’s clique don’t need to go to court just to be treated like normal citizens.