LovelandPolitics.com Blog

Thursday night in Loveland may have appeared quiet but behind closed doors perhaps the most competitive race for city council this season was taking shape.

Insurance salesman Bob Snyder was toasting former State House Rep. Don Marostica’s recent job with the Governor at CJ’s Patio Grill. Marostica, excited about getting a job with Colorado’s Governor, generously threw himself a party to honor who else – Don Marostica. Snyder, a former head of Loveland’s Chamber of Commerce, was looking for support and likely money from Marostica for his run for city council to keep business as usual.

Across town at her home in Ward 2, Joan Shaffer was making final preparations to announce her campaign to represent Loveland residents in Ward 2 on Loveland’s City Council. Shaffer, a principal in a Loveland public relations firm, stated in her announcement, ““Our community has a bright future, and deserves a fresh approach to making sure we get there.”

Articulate, professional and an aggressive campaigner who helped pass Measure 2C and place it into Loveland’s city charter, Shaffer is a formidable candidate. How the race shapes up from here will depend on each candidate. In a city where too many people were elected to council without even one opponent, the November 3, 2009 local elections will provide Ward 2 voters a clear choice between two very different candidates.

Loveland Councilman Cecil Gutierrez has joined an already crowded race for Mayor.

The three current council contenders for Mayor, David Clark, Glenn Rousey and Walt Skowron are the “old Guard” and have near perfect voting records in competing to support nearly every request the heavily subsidized McWhinney company has made to Loveland’s City Council. Their most recent vote was to give McWhinney a tax holiday to flood the local rental market with new apartments subsidized by Loveland and the federal government that will not contribute the necessary fees to offset the costs they place on the city’s emergency services like police and fire. (note added 11:55 PM – Councilman Rousey was absent during that vote).

In addition, the recent lodging tax vote showed Gutierrez to be a fiscal conservative while two of the three McWhinneycrats are lockstep in supporting any new tax scheme the city manager can dream-up.

It takes a certain chutzpa for the three old guard McWhinneycrats to be running for Mayor while Loveland residents are losing critical services in the police and fire departments due to declining revenue and increasing costs. The heavily subsidized Centerra sprawl has not resulted in the financial bliss they predicted but instead become a financial ball and chain on services at the very time when the city could really use businesses and residents whose taxes go to support city services instead of back to the developer.

Gutierrez was elected two years ago to council when he defeated former McWhinneycrat and now perpetual council candidate Jan Brown. If Gutierrez is elected Mayor, two years will be left on his four year council seat. This means a special election to fill the vacated council seat will be needed.

The differences between the three McWhinneycrats running for Mayor are few and relatively unimportant. None of the three has demonstrated an ability to lead but instead they normally follow the lead of the city manager who is supposed to work for council.

Gutierrez brings a fresh face of someone who has proven he will study the issues and make independent and judicious decisions. He doesn’t appear to be beholden to any particular special interest the way the three McWhinneycrats are and enjoys support from diverse constituent groups.

Any comments?

Loveland’s City Council narrowly passed a measure to place a new 3% Lodging Tax on the ballot. While LovelandPolitics has not taken a position on the issue see story, we are discouraged by the false rhetoric and lack of substantive community debate on the proposal.

Below are the 3 things you might consider:

1. Severe Language While the language isn’t unique to Loveland as most of what the city attorney provides is cut-and-paste, the ballot measure does include (curiously) police power to seize property and use police power; specifically “physical force” to enforce the new tax. Seems a little unnecessary doesn’t it when so many civil court remedies are available and enforceable by the city? What is worse is the lack of any due process. Giving power to the city manager to decide arbitrarily who pays fines and fees without any checks or balances to that power is unsettling. (remember this is the guy who claims farm fields can be legitimately called “urban blight” because it is council’s discretion)

2. Not just a hotel tax It is not a “hotel” tax, “Transient occupancy” tax or other form of tourist tax. It applies to ANY property owner (except churches and registered non-profits) that provides anyone including their family a place to stay. Anything you receive may be eligible for the tax depending on how much it is and when it was paid.

3. Flaky Council Comments and Actions Councilman Walt Skowron said in early August he would not support a 3% tax as it is too little revenue but did, Councilman Klassen stated he needed to see community support before voting for it again – and did anyway despite the lack of support. The Mayor first voted for the 5% tax proposal that failed to get approved but was quoted in the paper defending 3% over 5% as if he had supported it all along. Mayor Pro Tem Clark doesn’t want to support a tax while running for Mayor so he said he couldn’t support it as proposed but to satisfy his pro-tax chamber buddies defended the message and gave them encouraging words. Carol Johnson is one city councilor who is just giddy about getting any new tax on November’s ballot that funds chamber related activities. Maybe Johnson thinks the potential of extra revenue for the chamber can help her job prospects with them.

So what do you think?