Longmont Mayor Election analysis

The 2009 Longmont Election had four council seats up for grabs, including the office of Mayor.  Running for re-election was long time councilmember and one term mayor, Roger Lange.  There was some chatter that he couldn’t run for mayor due to term limits, but it didn’t get much traction, I never gave it much credit, and it became a moot point as it turns out.  Initially, Dan Benavidez announced he was running, but dropped out before collecting petitions.  Jeff Thompson did collect enough signatures, ran for a short while, but then also dropped out of the race.  Eventually, the race boiled down to two candidates, Roger Lange and late into the race was political newcomer Bryan Baum. Continue reading…

GUEST EDITORIAL: Rich Yale on Transition Towns

The Longmont City Council over the past two years has been following an accelerating attempt to transform Representative Government from representing the People of Longmont into representing Big Government instead.  At every step of the decline of protecting the People’s Liberty, the Progressives on Council have not only resisted but initiated legal force to block citizens from protection of  the U.S. Constitution.  As a result of not having consent to be the People’s Masters’, Secular Progressive Public Policies were rejected by the People of Longmont by landslides. Continue reading…

Progressively regressive for Longmont and America

It is important for common-sense citizens to realize that in opposing the Bloc of Four in Longmont we are fighting the greater agenda of the Progressive Movement, the Modern Liberal, the Boulder Mentality–whatever you want to call it.

It seems that every issue with these leftists comes down to extreme environmentalism, fiscal irresponsibility with taxpayer monies, and basic government control of our lives and free markets. They are driven by some utopian vision; we are driven by what is right and responsible and what works. Continue reading…

Appointing pawns and puppets

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that the liberal Bloc of Four on Longmont City Council has made a number of pure agenda-driven city board appointments since last December, all by four yea votes from the Bloc contrasted to three dissenting votes from the other council members. One of these appointees was a pesty animal rights activist known as Prairie Dog Woman. Apparently these partisan shenanigans from progressive-controlled city councils are nothing new to Boulder County, as described in the commentary below by former Boulder mayor Bob Greenlee.
————————————————————–
From the Boulder Daily Camera:

Greenlee: Their way or the highway
Sunday, April 5, 2009

Boulder’s City Council is consumed with an overwhelming desire to exercise ultimate control over nearly everything. When it comes to selecting citizens to serve on its many boards and commissions there’s apparently little room for dissent. Council recently rejected all six candidates for an open seat on the city’s Board of Zoning Adjustment with councilmember Macon Cowles suggesting that all the applicants had direct ties to the development community and might “unbalance” the board. Such unbalanced hyperbole came despite the fact that the city’s own Web site says applicants “must be qualified by experience and training to act upon matters relating to building constructions.”

The only plausible explanation for rejecting all six of the entirely qualified applicants was a fear that at least one vote might be different from council’s preferred outcomes. It’s hard to maintain balance if just one person might disagree with the council’s will. Such obvious bias shows how deeply flawed the whole advisory board scheme has become. Instead of representing a variety of citizen input on matters of public policy the current council only seems interested in appointing pawns and puppets.

The six rejected applicants are appropriately upset over having been given the heave-ho. Any one of them would have provided a welcomed balance to the zoning board and private property owners. Each of the candidates had some modest background or technical expertise in dealing with Boulder’s perverse, fickle, and ever-changing zoning regulations. The rejected candidates were probably the most qualified group of citizens to apply for a spot on the board in recent years. Obviously the council wasn’t looking for people who might have provided some guidance in interpreting or fine-tuning the complexities of regulations and real world situations. Members of council who rejected the applicants believed that at least some or all them had hidden agendas and might actually challenge council’s preferred outcomes. The real agenda was council’s desire not to be challenged.

Your current City Council continuously engages in an endless display of posturing. This coming Tuesday, it will likely increasing the tax money it will appropriate in order to fund its Climate Action Plan. It will pretend to hear from the public who may or may not welcome a tax increase and then it will vote to approve the hike it has already concluded is absolutely necessary in order to achieve an elusive Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas objective that Boulder voters approved two years ago. All this despite the fact that the effort is largely symbolic if not entirely unnecessary given that whatever happens in Boulder will have no meaningful impact in reversing our planet’s ever-changing climate. It will, however, make a number of citizens feel good and there’s nothing more important than that.

It’s interesting to note that there are at least a few Boulder citizens were willing to challenge the wisdom of spending even more money on the CAP. One citizen who supports a tax hike did wonder about the viability of the program questioning whether the funds collected so far have done any good. Remarkably a spokesperson for PLAN-Boulder County asked whether or not there was any direct relationship between simply spending more money rather than demonstrating any actual results. Progressives love to equate spending someone else’s money for things they covet without being too concerned over whether or not anything of actual value is achieved.

The current worldwide recession has done more to curtail any excess carbon concerns than anything Boulder could conceive of. Thousands of China’s polluting factories have been shuttered and most of India’s steel mills have closed. But having more carbon action money means being able to exercise greater control. Now that’s something City Council apparently can’t live without.

Bob Greenlee was a member of Boulder’s City Council for 16 years and served his last 2 years as mayor. Write him at: robertdgreenlee@aol.com

We are on the road to socialism, are you ready?

Abraham Lincoln, where are you? A government of the people, by the people, and for special interest groups is now what we have in Washington D.C., as over 100 of America’s most powerful and influential leftist-liberal organizations have formed a new coalition called Rebuild and Renew to boost President Barack Obama’s socialistic program to redistribute the nation’s wealth, starting with his current $3.6 trillion budget. Most of the members of this group are already supping at the public trough, while others either intend to, or will act as cheerleaders or even strong-arm enforcers. Government largesse manufactures votes, they know it, and that’s what this game is about. Continue reading…

So now the LifeBridge boogeyman is a drainage culvert?

Of all the disingenuous arguments we’ve heard against the Union project from the anti-LifeBridge hatemonger crowd, the latest ruckus over the Spring Gulch #2 drainage improvements truly takes the cake.

Despite character assassinations and charges of corruption from the likes of Jeff Thompson, Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow made the project justification perfectly clear a month ago at city council chambers, as seen in this YouTube video…

Pedrow underscored the facts that 1) the Spring Gulch drainage project conveys water from the northeast portion of the city of Longmont; 2) it protects Hwy 119 from potential 50-100yr flood damage; 3) it serves Longmont’s Sandstone Ranch and the St. Vrain Greenway extension, including the Hwy 119 box culvert to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists; and 4) it was approved by voters in 2007 with bonds already sold.

Anti-Union activists bring up the wayward strawman that the Spring Gulch #2 bonds when fully retired will cost every Longmont resident about $115 in taxpayer dollars, all to benefit LifeBridge and Firestone. If they want to play that game, how about the bloated $66.6 million that Boulder County will be spending on frivolous open space in 2009? That equates to over $225 for every one of Boulder County’s 294,000 residents, just for one year.

An unknown Times-Call online commenter put it succinctly last year when addressing the anti-LifeBridge faction in Longmont: “You just don’t want the Church or it’s message to grow. I have heard you all speak. I have heard those words before. The scary part is what I see in your eyes. You and your friends remind me of the hatred I saw 40 years ago. Give it a rest, the folks at LBCC are good people.”

A FasTracks supporter no more

How I regret voting FOR FasTracks in 2004–I even helped circulate petitions to get the issue on the ballot. Silly me, being a longtime sales tax watchdog. Did I really want to pay a full 1.0% sales tax for getting RTD table scraps on the northern fringe of the district? And now they’re going to ask for another 0.4%? Heaven sakes, before we know it, our total sales tax will be 10% just like liberal infested Chicago!

In Longmont we’ve always been destined for a lousy deal with the FasTracks plan, yet we pay the same hefty RTD sales tax as someone living in central Denver who has been enjoying the use of light rail for nearly 10 years.

Like many voters, I fell for the propaganda and “cute little trains” that I had sampled at the beginnings of light rail in the Denver Platte Valley. Having many family members who live in the south Denver metro area, I eagerly accompanied them on light rail several times to downtown sports events in the early 2000s. Pretty cool ride, I thought at the time.

Of course, the proposed Northwest Corridor with its heavy rail on restricted BNSF tracks is a far cry from what’s been done in Denver–especially the Longmont spur. What northern Colorado commuter is going to want to come into Longmont and park (with fee), take a train to the Boulder transit village, then get on another train back to Denver? I figure the whole convoluted process could take up to two hours with all the stops and exchanges. I’d hate to guess what the parking and fares would total, just for one way.

I’m not a commuter, but when I have to go to downtown Denver I’d much rather hop in my car and drive down there in 50 minutes or so, depending on traffic. I-25 driving is not as bad as FasTracks advocates claim, and the highway will soon be three-lane from Longmont southward (eventually from Ft. Collins) with a new interchange at Hwy 66. We’ve already got the new interchange at Hwy 119, completed several years ago.

Former Colorado Governor Bill Owens points out that a full build of the FasTracks plan will only reduce metro vehicle-miles traveled by less than 1.0%. Owens favors a T-Rex type model to meet the metro area transit needs. It would translate to roughly half of transportation tax monies going toward highway improvements and dedicated bus lanes, and the other half for key light rail corridors. It’s an efficient and much less costly strategy indeed.

Another thing that’s troubling with the FasTracks push is its growing connotation with the progressive far left in Colorado. You know these folks (like the Bloc of 4 on Longmont Council) by their over-the-top environmentalism, big spending, taxes, and debt; and basic desire of government control of our lives. Buzzwords like “smart growth” and “new urbanism” are often heard with FasTracks advocacy. It’s the mantra that cars are bad, suburbs and development are very bad, and people are to be crammed into high-density cities so they can walk and bike and use mass transit.

Count me as a Longmonter and American who does not want to be told how to live, what light bulbs to use, how big my house size is, or how my personal property is used. I certainly do not want to be forced to pay for a transportation method that doesn’t make practical sense for my community.

LA020: Police split on unionization, despicable behavior from the Left, and City Council Watch

LA-w-ChrisSeptember 8, 2008 Show

Fuzz by Lords of Fuzz

Police Split On Union

Predictable, Typical, Despicable” behavior by the left Continue reading…

LA017: BoCo Fair Parade, bronx cheers for progressive council members, Benker tantrums, and “fringe” festival

LA-w-ChrisAugust 17, 2008 Show

Even by Wiser Time
Vote! Longmont at the Boulder Co Fair Parade
I Love A Parade

Hallelujah by 38 Acres
Union Annexation heads to Firestone Ballot
City Attorney Clay Douglas “retires” Continue reading…