Traffic on Wilson is episodic and not constant. The solution determines people may never depart in the direction of their choice regardless of whether there is some traffic or no traffic at all like after 9:00 PM on a week night. You also can no longer travel between the two stores across Wilson even when there is no traffic and doing so is perfectly safe.

The trees were in the Wilson median for decades with little to no maintenance from the city. In case you didn’t know, trial attorneys sue cities when vehicles collide with vertical objects between two lanes of traffic regardless of the cause of the accident because it is presumed the tree is “contributing” in some minor way to the damage or injuries thus making the city in some way culpable. Simple trees without a buffer or other means to push the car back into its lane are no longer politically correct in this country.

Do you believe the stimulus money used to pay for the ugly red cement medians will mean the city is reducing its labor, staff and thus taxes? Of course not, the work load for the city is growing so they are simply shifting the service we pay with our taxes away from West Loveland to the East-side of town where taxes raised per vehicle trip is many times lower than West Loveland given the property tax rebates and sales tax subsidies all flowing to McWhinney instead of city services.

The development I live in was created by Bill Bray. He paid the water tap fees and full city development fees associated with the development cost that was passed along to the home buyers in the late 70’s. I bought the house more than 20 years later.

Why you believe being conservative means being against any public works that considers not only the practical but ascetic value is beyond me. Each city determines the level of service they will provide and tax accordingly. Developers know that it would be tough to sell new houses in Nunn, Colorado because there are next to no public services (not even paved streets or city sewers). I suspect you would not have moved to Loveland from Ft. Collins a few years ago had Loveland had the same public amenities and services as Nunn, Colorado.

Larry Heckel sold you a home in this community, in part, because you liked the community and what it offers. The problem is Heckel likely didn’t contribute much to a new park or landscaped medians or even another Benson Park or Lake Loveland type area. However, Heckel did get from you a much better price for the house he built in Loveland than he would have gotten if the exact same house was in Nunn.

Now the people who paid for those amenities are forced to share with you and all the residents who bought new homes those very same amenities. This means the general quality of life in the community has decreased as a result and Heckel profited from selling you access to those shared services and assets in the community.

Unless new development pays to maintain the same quality of life commensurate with the number of new homes that they are adding it really just becomes a transfer of wealth from the existing home owners to the developers. Our values go down with the quality of the city and the number of people forced to share the same limited public amenities.

Why make us pay to make Wilson ugly when the new traffic now generated on it has done enough to lower the property values of people living along or near Wilson?

As a landlord and and property owner in town I can tell you potential tenants and prospective home buyers do notice the general ascetic conditions of a city before deciding where they want to live.

That is why developers will often pay to install trees (if they can) in a median adjacent to their development (look at Blackbird Knolls and the median on 14) and likely in the entrances to the subdivision (Greenbriar). The work on Wilson has just damaged even further the property values of those who live nearby in the opposite way adding landscaping and trees adds value to nearby residences and the general community.

If I were to follow your philosophy than every conservative in Larimer County would be looking to buy houses in Nunn. Less city taxes and simply no infrastructure to be taxed to maintain it.

You may be over interpreting what people mean by a “limited” role for government. This doesn’t mean ANY role of government is bad and should be removed or eliminated. Maintaining public streets like providing for the collective defense of our nation are clearly appropriate roles for government.

I no more want my city streets medians to look like Tijuana, Mexico than I want our military to be equipped like the military of a banana republic.

You might think I am joking but the City of Loveland is now proposing using Mexican style intersections to mitigate their inability to plan for increased traffic as opposed to widening the streets like most communities in developed countries do - here is the link to the proposal.

The role of government in our republic is not a new issue — it goes back to the founding. It’s a conflict between republicanism (small r) idealism and the politics that quickly emerged.

Government can be the solution. One of the earliest examples is the Erie Canal. The transcontinental rail system is another, although big companies certainly benefited. And to think it was started in the midst of civil war makes it even more astounding.

The interstate highway system is another example of a government solution.

I’ll read the recommended book. Going into it, I do hold that capitalism has been an engine for success — often supported by wise, and yes progressive, government policy.

Too many businesses have learned to politicize the process to the detriment of all. Fixing that, I think, ought to be the aim.

Tony Benjamin,
Loveland

City government’s job is to build and maintain public spaces. Now speaking for myself and NOT LovelandPolitics (various people contribute so that is why Administrator is used because I am not the only one who administers or contributes to this site).

Speaking for just myself, I do not believe it is the job of local government to provide subsidized housing for young and healthy people, to attempt redistribution of wealth by progressive utility rates or any other social engineering. City streets and medians, however, are public spaces and should be properly built and maintained using our local tax dollars.

If I don’t want my utility rates to be used for redistribution of wealth I also don’t want them used to subsidize development. I am not against Ft. Collins or Loveland building capacity for future water storage. I am against Loveland charging me rates today higher than the cost of my water in order to subsidize somebody else’s business plan in the future. The future users of that water or the developer need to pay for the water they require.

Too many local Republicans don’t appreciate the difference between political entrepreneurs and capitalist entrepreneurs.

The McWhinneys are a great example of political and not capitalist entrepreneurs. They manipulate politics to avoid competing fairly in the free market place while getting unsophisticated local Republicans to defend them. In fact, they are the antithesis of what a free market economist (right-winger or Libertarian) would advocate. Everything the McWhinneys do is predicated on “partnerships” with government.

It hardly makes me liberal to say my local taxes should be used to provide high quality local services and little more. Getting better quality local services isn’t really a partisan position at all but I believe a value shared by many people in the community.

So I believe taxes shouldn’t be used to further anyone’s social agenda nor be used to subsidize anyone’s personal business venture either.

Unlike some local Republicans who promote and defend political entrepreneurs, I believe in the free market system. People who argue that unless local government is heavily involved in subsidizing McWhinney and other developers with “partnerships” — are the true “progressive” Republicans.

If giving McWhinney a pass on paying property taxes in Centerra stimulates their development — imagine what it could do for the whole county if we could govern more efficiently and lower everyone’s property taxes.

Pick-up a copy of the book “How Capitalism Saved America” if you want to read a better articulation of this idea than I can provide. Limited government that allows for competition in a free market economy created the great wealth of our nation. Not the practice of government picking who the winners and losers should be through “partnerships” with industry.

In the meantime, I will continue personally to defend Reagan’s philosophy that, “Government is not the solution — government is the problem.”

Locally elected conservatives who defend Urban Renewal Authorities on open farm land, more Metro Districts government and regional transportation taxes apparently believe, literally, that government is the solution. Each metro district is a NEW governemnt and taxing authority.

I am hardly “progressive” for advocating for a more limited size and scope of our local government.

‘Donna Rice, the new Director of the Wyoming Real Estate Commission is a native of Sheridan, Wyoming where her family operated a polled Hereford ranch for 60 years. She attended high school and college near Richmond, Virginia. She received the Bush Foundation Leadership Award for the Study of Law and graduated from law school in 1981…She was named Wyoming Citizen of the Year for her work with the elderly, the living will and home health care. She and her husband, Frank McCrea, are actively involved in property rights and water issues…”
So you tell me who is the real Donna Rice. The one the wants us to believe she is along term resident of Loveland or the Donna Rice the IS the native of Wyoming.
You can follow her career in Wyoming by researching her activities in Wyoming.
Now I have no problem with folk’s form Wyoming, what I have a problem with is people playing with the facts and not being honest the voters. She would never get my vote. The other three candidates have been honest with the voters and deserve our vote. So Loveland pick one of the candidates that have been honest with us and have done the work to earn our votes.

Donna is the only one running with the qualifications to be on counsel. Molloy can’t keep a job and that Tea Bagger kid looks nutty.

Loveland has only one choice who has been here for 50 years and actually finished college unlike the others. She ran the real estate commission and worked for both a Republican and democrat Attorney Generals.

This is an easy choice for me and should be for everyone else.