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?
Excuse me but you may wish to check the recent votes that were cast for the CEF’s on muti-family housing. My vote was “no” to bringing it back to council. It was then brought back with some time frame changes while I was out of state.
Sorry, I should have asked this question in the previous post. You write that he (Cecil) doesn’t appear to be ‘beholden’ to any particular special interest the way the three McWhinneycrats are…
Would you please explain to myself and the readers of this blog how I am ‘beholden’ to any special interest?
Yes, you are correct that you were absent at the meeting when the CEF “tax holiday” for McWhinney was passed. We have corrected the blog to reflect that change and noted your absence during that one vote.
Your recent independence from McWhinney and sudden concern for Capital Expansion Funds (CEF’s) for emergency services, however, may be too little too late.
Your most egregious vote was likely on July 2, 2008 when you VOTED with the McWhinneycrat majority on council in abdicating your elected authority to McWhinney in determining what parcels could be included in the Metro Districts for future tax rebates. See the story at http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/flexmeeting4.html
Anti-competitive behavior
Another egregious action on behalf of McWhinney was your vote blocking a competitive builder from buying and developing land along the I-25 and 402. The 97 acres purchased by council for some $6 million using, in part, Fire CEF’s (needed to bring fire services closer to new residents) was unpardonable.
Whether you understood it was government intervention to protect the McWhinney’s monopoly on that stretch of the I-25 or not is now academic. McWhinney competitors were stopped in their tracks and Loveland taxpayers now own vacant land where construction, development and jobs could have been created over the past three years.
If you want to demonstrate an independence from McWhinney, support selling the vacant 97 acres and returning those funds to the Fire CEF’s where they belong. Also, take a stand to stop the city from laying-off police and fire personnel right at a time when McWhinney is again being allowed to avoid the very fees that support expanding emergency services for our growing population.
In March of 2004 you seconded a motion by Don Marostica to change the city’s street naming conventions just for McWhinney in Centerra – this is just one of dozens of votes to create different rules just for McWhinney than the rest of Loveland.
Now, whether you have taken rides on their mega yacht in Mexico, ate wonderful meals at their invitation or received any other kind of gift or other type of gratuity for yourself or a family member is impossible for us to verify either way.
This is because YOU voted to cleverly exempt yourself and other Loveland politicians from the popular passed Amendment 41 that required you to refuse such gifts. In case anyone wants the details. http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/amend41final.html
Whether by negligence or nefarious intent, your actions to subsidize and assist McWhinney to the detriment of their competitors, your constituents and even abdicate your elected authority to McWhinney are clear and on the record. You have an eight year record that cannot be scrubbed away by missing just one vote.
The land purchase was made to ensure the property was annexed into Loveland. This the is first I’ve heard that the purchase was made to stop some builder from buying the land. Perhaps you would care to mention who that may be? I, and I believe the entire council, would be happy to be contacted by ANY builder or developer who might be interested in the property.
Amendment 41 had some problems with the language contained within—I and many at the state level had problems with this bill. Some were of the opinion that it would even eliminate one’s child from accepting a college scholarship.
The city’s own code dealing with gifts prohibits any gift that may be considered to cause influence—-I’m sure you are aware of this code but if not, please read city code section 2.73.030
As to your statement that you are unable to verify that
I took a ride on McWhinneys mega yacht is even below your standards. That would be the same as me saying that I can’t verify that your donation to Larry Pressler was for political gain or that your connection with the CFA and the Nicaraguan resistance and Angolan UNITA rebels was somehow for personal gain.
I truly believe that your work on “The Pork Book” dealing with government fraud and waste has jaded your opinion of local politics.
Anyone who serves on the Loveland City Council and votes different than you would, is branded as someone who is voting to receive some personal benefit. You can’t really believe that all the readers of this blog are taken in by the garbage you print.
Admin,
My only complaint is that you use the term “McWhinneycrats” implying the Council members supporting McWhinney are Democratics. Reality would have you using the term McWhinneycans since the council members supporting the McWhinney giveaways have been Republicans…
I 2nd Eric’s criticism/suggestion.
Give credit where it’s due: at least that one occasion, Mr. Rousey did not actively support a McWhinney request. For whatever reason he did that or was absent from the last vote, I appreciate it. Just wish there were more instances.
Responding to Mr. Rousey’s complaint about being lumped into a special interest camp. I do thnk there are certain special interests who usually get what they want from this COuncil, and they can rely on 7 votes. While the problem goes deeper, McWhinney is the biggest of those.
As I’ve watched so many Council meetings I’ve note too few instances when any of the 3, Clark, Skowren or Rousey have NOT just immediately granted without question whatever McWhinney requested. Each of them (and Klassen, Pielin, Johnson and Heckle) have gushed on as if reciting a mantra about how “McWhinney always does what he says he’ll do”… even as they’re voting to allow further CHANGES to the very agreements stipulating what “McWhinney will do”.
I’ve never understood this or their apparent lack of irony about their completely wrong praise.
Mr. Guiterrez seems to be the only one of the mayoral candidates currently on Council who are NOT on the McWhinney tax-giveaway bandwagon.
I am not sure what Mr. Ouch is talking about. Anyway it never made sense to me before that after years of neglect of south Lincoln (which looks like a trash heap) our council needed to put 6 million dollars into the farmland along the I25 near Johnson’s corner to control the “entrance to the city.” Until they annexed all that it wasn’t in the city.
If you didn’t know why you were voting to buy that land and the reason offered was illogical why did you vote for it anyway?
Wow polotics as usual. Thats why I will be voting for Alexi Grewal he is fit, sound minded and un-insulting. I have read about all the candidates and Alexi seems to be the only one whom has no special interests and is Geniune in his concerns for the City. I want some changes. I want someone who likes competition and thrives in it, not a Bully incumbant who Fizzles out like a Sparkler in a Bonnfire. no need to bring up others discretions, Just bring to ‘me’, the Voter what ‘You’ have to offer.
I am Also dissapointed that as a Resident and Citizen I didnt get a Mail in ballot or information regarding it in the mail. It feels like a secret election and it shouldnt be. We should all be informed of it, or our democracy will fail. I found out today Nov 1st that tomorrow is the election day only from my own inquiries on the city website.
It just makes me wonder how many other potential voters are oblivious to the fact that election day is tomorrow! Shame on you City counsil for not mailing residents info on elections.