It is ironic to hear local candidates assail national politicians for lack of accountability while they themselves have explaining to do. All but one incumbent councilman now running for Mayor foolishly voted down a proposal to allow the subsidy to vNet but require the company or its owner to return ALL the funds if they failed to meet their obligations under the agreement.
In retrospect, the vote was a foolish partisan move to not support Councilman Kent Solt and instead follow the flawed advice of Loveland City Manager Don Williams. Read the LovelandPolitics.com story. For the record, LovelandPolitics does not support corporate welfare especially when it goes to friends and contributors of members of the council. Being “pro-business” should mean removing government barriers to free enterprise and creating the best value for government services instead of choosing winners and losers by gifting tax dollars to private entities.
Like so many other issues that come before Loveland’s City Council, the $900,000 subsidy approved for vNet was a done deal and the public meeting a charade. The seven McWhinneycrats on Loveland’s council did in early March of 2008 what they have become accustomed to doing so often on other issues – not fully read their packet of information before the meeting but instead follow the city manager’s advice.
Unprepared for a debate on the merits of a proposal they appeared not to fully understand the council made a terrible error. The seven McWhinneycrats (Pielin, Klassen, Johnson, Skowron, Rousey, Heckle and Clark) voted for who they knew instead of WHAT they knew.
Despite warnings by Councilman Kent Solt that vNet CEO and majority owner, William Beierwaltes, failed previously and didn’t have the history of unprecedented success being represented to council – they voted down Solt’s amendment to make Beierwaltes and his company accountable to the full amount of the subsidy instead of just part of it. Solt’s independent research was ignored in favor of city staff advice.
This time their inability to understand what they were voting against and act in the city’s best interest may cost taxpayers $500,000. At a time when employees are being let go, parks closed early and routine maintenance to city facilities deferred for lack of funds this ineptitude is unpardonable.
Caution must be taken when candidates like Bob Snyder, now looking to fill a seat on the council, represent themselves as “pro-business” yet appear to understand little or nothing about the actual incentives the city has handed out. What Loveland needs are people willing to be good custodians of taxpayer dollars that show an interest in the details of what they vote on instead of blindly following Don Williams.
The difference we see in the 7-2 vote on this matter was not one of philosophy but instead sophistication. Walt Skowron, often a detractor himself from the majority, made it clear he was voting to give the city subsidy to a friend which should have been a red flag. The only other possible explanation for the others not making vNet fully accountable is they met in advance with Beierwaltes and had already agreed to vote for the subsidy as proposed by staff.
Loveland’s City Council wants to act like venture capitalists with other people’s money but are unwilling to perform the necessary due diligence before investing. City Manager Don Williams lacks even the minimum educational qualifications to be a city manager in any other city in Colorado let alone be an investment adviser. We know this website has been attacked for being too rough on locally elected officials. Sometimes it appears we were not rough enough in describing their absolute negligence that has lead to this debacle and potential loss of half a million dollars of Loveland taxpayer’s money to a failed business venture.
Can anyone explain what their possible defense might be for such a costly blunder as the campaign goes on?
Well, now you’ve gone and done it again. After I’d thought I’d seen or heard too much to even raise an eyebrow again, you’ve written about another stunning example of good-ole-boy (and girl) stupidity and deceit. I admit, I’d somewhat forgotten about the VNet subsidy, but I do recall being bothered that the City gave away so much public money to a private company. And with so much risk.
And I don’t blame Vnet or its owner, really. They’re just taking advantage of poor City policy. I mean, if you knew all you had to do was ask the city manager and your Council cronies to get a restriction-free half-million bucks or more, why not do it?
He’s only obliged to pay back a smaller portion of the $900k, and he may have until 2012 to do that, so I certainly don’t expect him to repay any more or sooner than he is legally required to. Smart business man, dumb council and staff!
OK even an old sea dog like me didn’t see this comin. I support (or should I say supported) Walt cause I thought he was the only guy with common sense in this race.
Now that I am lookin at the facts he sure got his tail in a crack.
I tried to call him but haven’t gotten through yet. Last we talked I thought he was the guy fighten this crap on council.
I have no use for the Clark feller who seems like a clappin seal for Don Williams and i don’t too much about the rest.
Any good reason they can offer for doin such a foolish thing? You otta give them a chance to explain themselves cause this seems too stupid for most people to do in public office unless there is some payoff at the end.
Maybe that is what you need to be investigating!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. Both Walt Skowron and Bill Beierwaltes were in property development schemes together in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s.
It appears Walt Skowron may have violated Loveland’s conflict of interest provision in the city charter if they still jointly own developments together.
It is amazing the Reporter-Herald doesn’t have the resources or staff to even report the basics of this evolving city scandal.
JJ
I am relatively new to visiting LP, so correct me if I am wrong. The way I see it, this site is extremely biased and does nothing to report fairly on anything in Loveland. It seems as if every article on this site is anti-Rousey/Clark/Skowron. I guess I need to stop visiting the site as my blood pressure skyrockets every time I read one of these garbage articles dogging on everyone but Mr. Gutierrez. As I said, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see the other candidates writing garbage about Mr. Gutierrez. That should do a lot to show the personality of his supporters, and possibly Mr. Gutierrez as well. Does Mr. Gutierrez condone this type of libel? Is his camp running LP.com? It’s like I am visiting the “moveon.org Loveland Branch.”
How about this LP: If you are trying to promote Mr. Gutierrez, why don’t you spend your time doing that rather than TRYING to destroy the credibility of the others.
John,
You have cast false aspersions on Mr. Gutierrez while accusing this website of libel and “dogging” members of city council.
This website has been publishing articles on Loveland politics since 2004 and Mr. Gutierrez was elected to city council only 2 years ago. Making the accusation that it was created by his campaign or for his campaign is rather silly. To answer your suggestive questions, no. He is not involved in LovelandPolitics nor is anyone here involved in his campaign.
Apology accepted.
Over 172 other websites (mostly news or political) link to LovelandPolitics for news about Loveland’s politics. Hundreds of people now look into the site everyday to get a scoop on what’s going on in city hall.
You stated, “It seems as if every article on this site is anti-Rousey/Clark/Skowron”
In fact, Skowron and Rousey have enjoyed positive publicity in the past through stories regarding their actions on city council. We can’t control how they vote so if “bias” means you are unhappy about us reporting their recent actions we can’t help you.
We find it revealing that you so angrily denounce this website for being inaccurate but fail to offer even one example of anything reported here to be in error. Insults are always easier to offer than reason.
Back on topic -
It appears vNet may keep their doors open temporarily to avoid returning any “incentive” money to Loveland in the short-term.
Mr. Beierwaltes is unwilling to share publicly what number of people are working at vNet. In private we are told he claimed it was 56 but it appears to have been between 15-20 by the time they closed their doors.
Loveland’s City Council should get the facts and act accordingly to protect the public’s interest in the taxpayer funds he received only 18 months ago.
Any former employee of vNet who wants to share their firsthand knowledge of the facts should feel welcome to post here or email us at Guchwale@aol.com. We will keep your identity confidential.
Thanks
Do contributions from the administrator to a candidate count as being involved in a campaign?
It seems to count if the contribution came from McWhinneys.
Mr. Rousey brings up a good point, and since LovelandPolitics is “Fact Based,” I would like to know something:
Has ANY creator, founder, and/or administrator of LovelandPolitics.com given (or plan to give) any contributions to Mr. Gutierrez’ campaign?
Why does LP tear into certain subsides and not all of them? It appears that LP only investigates subsides that discredit certain political candidates and certain Love land corporations.
I am sure there have been many more subsides that LP has chosen not to report on. What is the criteria?
Does LP ever tear into Loveland government operations such as golf courses? Huge subsidy to golf players.
Ho many 30 year old fire/chiefs does Loveland have that are making,gasp, 80K per year?
At-least Mcwhinney contributes to the tax base, albeit long term.
Me thinky LP is as partisan as they come and not to mention zero growthers.
It’s worth repeating that this site is possibly the only public news medium that reports on local politics in any depth. Surely and justifiably that includes holding Council members and appointed officials accountable for their actions.
Of course those who’re responsible for converting our taxes into a feeding trough for cronies, or who are apologists for and backers of them, will squirm and lash out for such reporting. Then again, they’ve benefitted from the kind patronage and editorializing that is found in both the news articles and editorials printed by the “news” daily.
When Gutierrez was attacked in an R-H editorial for withholding support for the VNet subsidy, unless it protected us taxpayers in case Vnet folded, where were John and Ouch’s indignation then?
On Rousey’s and John’s suggested disclosure of contributions:
Sounds like they are trying to suggest that since you report on City Hall, you have to withhold support for any candidate. Perhaps they would even extend that to denying you the right to vote if you express your opinions here?
However, they bring up an interesting idea, Administrator. Maybe you SHOULD report on who’s financing who… and especially who did in the past (before the $100 limit), for which public records will exist. I imagine it would show that McWhinney, Beierwaltes and other beneficiaries of the good ol’ boy Council have been major players!
Finally, as to the frequent criticism implied in the articles here. Wouldn’t it be nice if all there was to publish was “good news”? But I don’t find much to celebrate in a City Hall that continues to do reverse-RobinHoodism, stealing from the taxpayers and giving to select wealthy cronies and financial supporters. That doesn’t seem like either democratic OR representative government to me!
Harry: My comments had nothing to do with withholding support for a candidate. I find no problem with the administrator supporting whomever he wishes.
It was based on his statement “…nor is anyone here involved in his campaign”
Simple question…does making a contribution count as being involved in someone’s campaign?
Patrick and John have some good comments here. I have commented on these forums before how biased LP is towards candidates except for Gutierrez. The article and posts by readers like JJ are clearly part of a smear campaign. I have known Skowron for years and he was not involved with some crazy development scheme with Beierwaltes as was suggested by JJ. Walt was employed at HP during that time like many others like Beierwaltes (although he may have left by then to start Colorado Memory/Time Systems). Did he have an unsuccessful business before? probably. But remember that Colorado Time/Systems was a very successful Loveland company (until sold to Agilent) and employed many people in the community. The Colorado Vnet story is unfortunate but not over yet; we need to see how it plays out. Would Solt’s proposed motion on council have provided more checks to protect the POTENTIAL loss of taxpayer dollars? Perhaps. Hindsight is 20/20 and I honestly believe that Council thought that Beierwaltes has a good reputation for creating professional career-oriented jobs (not retail) in Loveland before and thought he could do it again. Remember everyone, 2008-2009 hasn’t been a good time for any business even remotely linked to the uncertain real estate market. This is a convenient story for LP to use to attack Skowron and praise Gutierrez. Too convenient and certainly not even close to being indicative of Skowron’s performance in the tax payer’s interest on council.
LP has an axe to grind and there is nothing I can say that will change that but I firmly believe that in the past 8 years Skowron has done more to improve Loveland’s financial situation than any other councilor. Lets not forget the work he has done with the Financial Committee and the push he spearheaded to get a better rate of return on Loveland’s cash reserves. This effort alone results in more benefit to the tax payer than any potential loss from the Vnet matter.
Unfortunately, the objective and educated voter will have to dig deeper than this site or even the Reporter Herald for credible information regarding the candidates.
Harry, Harry, Harry.
I LITERALLY laughed out loud when you suggested this:
“Perhaps they would even extend that to denying you the right to vote if you express your opinions here?”
That statement may be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard! You’re kidding, right?
As for my earlier point, apparently I did not make myself very clear. The point I was making was this: for a website that claims to be non partisan, this site sure seems to spend a lot of time putting Gutierrez up on the proverbial pedestal while breaking the other candidates down.
I would also like to see an answer to Mr. Rousey’s question above.
Now I’m done.
Harry, Harry, Harry.
I LITERALLY laughed out loud when you suggested this:
“Perhaps they would even extend that to denying you the right to vote if you express your opinions here?”
That statement may be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard! You’re kidding, right?
As for my earlier point, apparently I did not make myself very clear. The point I was making was this: for a website that claims to be non partisan, this site sure seems to spend a lot of time putting Gutierrez up on the proverbial pedestal while breaking the other candidates down.
I would also like to see an answer to Mr. Rousey’s question above.
Now I’m done.
Councilman Rousey asks above-
“Do contributions from the administrator to a candidate count as being involved in a campaign? It seems to count if the contribution came from McWhinneys.”
Yes. Of course contributions are indicative of support by an individual for a particular candidate. And no, the Administrator has not contributed money to Gutierrez either now or in the past. So you have posted false information in a desperate attempt to discredit LovelandPolitics.com.
McWhinney is heavily taxpayer funded and has given lots of money to the very politicians responsible for overseeing their subsidies and obligations to the city. Most Loveland citizens are smart enough to understand that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Michael, you need to look at the story again and amend your comments unless your only intention is to simply mislead people. Both Councilmen Gutierrez and Solt voted FOR the vNet subsidy but with the condition Beierwaltes be accountable for the full $900,000 taxpayer money he received. They were against the lack of accountability not the subsidy. We have said no subsidy was appropriate so certainly are not fellow travelers with either councilman.
However, the vote demonstrated just how guided some on council are to blindly follow the city manager no matter how irresponsible his recommendations. It has nothing to do with political philosophy only competence.
How you can defend Skowron voting against the accountability amendment for his friend and neighbor whose property is plastered with signs that say ‘protecting public funds’? It is an irony most people were interested to know and happy we reported it. Unlike many of the accusations posted above, our story was factual and not baseless speculation meant to simply discredit anyone.
If Gutierrez has done something similar, please let us know and we will happily shine the spotlight on him. What we can’t do is fabricate bad behavior stories about one candidate just so you feel there is parity with the coverage of your candidate’s poor decisions.
We applaud anyone on the city council who prepares for the meetings and addresses the issues being discussed. Skowron has received that praise many times in the past on this website so your arguments are simply wrong. Just search his name on the homepage search button.
The information is all there for you to read.
Oh and yes Michael, LovelandPolitics does have an axe to grind!
We want an open and honest local government that abides by the law. Backroom deals and special treatment of friends with city money is not acceptable to us.
Open, fair and honest debate is better. Representatives who are looking out for the residents of Loveland instead of special interests and their campaign contributors don’t fear the information this website provides the public.
So let that be a warning. The axe is sharp and we never fear using it regardless of the so many threats of litigation, intimidation and bullying by those who have grown accustomed to abusing the public’s trust in private.
OK so now their train of conspiracy was debunked I wonder if Michael or the others are man enough to apologize to the Administrator guy or gal? Wow, even I started to wonder if Administrator wasn’t bank rolling Gutierrez’s campaign.
I hope Mr. Rousey feels as ridiculous as he looks. You did something stupid and now want to pass blame by attacking the messenger while never explaining to me or the other taxpayers why vNet gets to keep $500,000 of our money after ignoring an agreement with the city.
Walt Skowron is the least effective of the bunch because nobody listens to him anyway. I saw him talk the other night and thought he was running for president after he spoke about the federal budget deficit.
What about Loveland? I am voting for Gutierrez for Mayor because he seems to know something about what he is doing. I am also supporting Bob Snyder who lives in my neighborhood because he told me some things about the gal running against him I don’t want to repeat here.
They are my choices in this race.
Good luck guys on you little smear campaign.
I am a bit confused by LP’s reply that I need to amend my previous post; I did not suggest that Gutierrez didn’t support Solt’s motion and I don’t find anything misleading in that post. I think we all agree that the checks and balances proposed by Solt and voted for by Gutierrez and Solt would have provided more security to the tax payer dollar. I give them both credit for that.
The Colorado vNet story is a current development and with new outside investor interest, it may not be just a chapter in the history books. Kudos to Guiterrez and Solt for voting for a provision that would have required full repayment. But don’t close the book before it is finished as the story isn’t over yet. It is clear to me that this story is not objective; it is inteneded to smear one candidate over another.
I don’t deny that you have printed objective stories about Skowron. This one just doesn’t happen to be one of those.
If your sharp axe is there to present objective and factual information about council and local matters I am all for it.
Thanks LovelandPolitics!! This site is the only medium that consistently defends the taxpayers of the city. I don’t recall this site ever condoning subsidies, regardless of who the recipient was. It’s just that the city seems to send the biggest subsidies go to a short list, so the same names come up repeatedly.
Here’s a question: Suppose you paid a handsome sum for a company to build an addition to your home, and instead of adding to it, the company utterly destroyed the home. Would you at least demand repayment for the amount spent, since you gained virtually nothing and in addition lost the original structure? If you’d expect to be repayed, should it be any different when spending someone else’s money?
Here’s another question: If you hired representatives and they acted on your behalf in the above situation, would you hire them again for a bigger job?
I agree Mr. Galt!
Another point the people here should know is the company behind vnet in the same building has been asking for office space. I know because I was there early this year and toured the near empty vnet and only saw maybe 15 lower-level employees working from cubicles.
I was wondering. Do people making $65,000 and above (as vnet told council their employees make) really all work from cubicles these days?
Anyway the other company has offices in a trailer behind the same building because Mr. Beierwaltes was unwilling to give-up any of his space. It probably depends now but if he makes room for that other company they will be moving more people here to work in Loveland from the east coast but at no cost to the taxpayers.
Maybe vnet will crack one door open long enough to avoid paying the city any money until 2012. I hope them well but never really thought very much of their business idea.
No, I did not post false information…I asked a question. However, I was sure that Liam made a donation during the 2007 campaign as entered on the campaign finanace report. But now I am being told by the adminstrator that there were never any contribution made.
I will check with the city clerk and If I was mistaken I will be more than happy to apologize. If I was correct then Walter needs to ask someone else to apologize. Fair enough?
I watched the forum last night and thought Dave Clark and Bob Snyder were the two weakest candidates. Even worse than crazy Alexi.
Just like some of the people posting here they keep trying to invent a boogie man to run against. Whining “I am pro-business” is retarded if everyone on the ballot supports new business in town.
Why don’t the two losers say “I am pro-traffic control” or “I am for keeping down sewer odors.” Isn’t everyone? Did somebody say they aren’t for business growth in Loveland?
These mental midgets I guess want to avoid any specific questions like – oh you mean like giving your friends a million dollars cash to bring jobs?
Just like traffic control and sewer control it isn’t whether you are for it but how you plan to do it. The implementation is kind of important after the city just lost $1 million to one councilor’s best friend who actually fired a ton of people.
Here is a hint, lets not pay people city money who are driving jobs out of town.
I guess presenting a real strategy or plan might require Clark or Snyder to pick-up a book, economic report or even God forbid use that new “world wide web.”
They really need to look into the mirror and ask themselves, “If I am not qualified to work at a company offering primary jobs anywhere in the country why would Loveland trust me to know how to attract these employers to town?”
There is really nothing wrong with ma and pa contractors and insurance sales guys other than they don’t hire people for more than minimum wage. Sorry to be so harsh but these two hill billies were just embarrassing to watch. Does anyone think the next HP will even consider coming to town after meeting a hayseed like Dave Clark as our Mayor?
While I think that may be too harsh you do have some very good points.
I didn’t enjoy watching the League of Woman voters forum because it was too long between each candidate speaking.
I didn’t care much for this Hartwig guy either. I read somewhere that he is Walt Skowron’s neighbor as well so I am concerned he might also get $1 million for some crazy business scheme in the future. We really can’t afford this stuff anymore but i guess that means I am against business!
Randy is right. Regarding Dave Clark I always like the old Mark Twain quote that goes something like this
“Everyone should speak at least one language well. Preferably his own.”
OuchRousey – Fair enough.
I only met him a couple times when he was running so the conspiracy theories being promulgated here provide my family some amusement. In full disclosure former councilman Ron Weaks was our neighbor and we did support him when he ran.
We never gave money to Cecil so if that is what he reported than it would certainly be in error. Just for the record, none of the current candidates have received any money from me.
Maybe I should contribute something to a few candidates I don’t like just so some people on this blog will automatically vote against them. Since I am out of town on business all this week I haven’t had time to follow-up on these accusations in a timely manner.
Randy and Carol, we are happy you are posting your reactions to the debate here (a little off-topic) but can you tone it down a little and try not to be so personal? We want this to be about the issues.
I do stand corrected. I remember looking at past campaign finance reports and seeing that you had made a contribution…but only to Ron….sorry for the misleading remarks.
If you really consider my original question a conspiracy theory then please recall your comments about taking a cruise on McWhinney’s boat to Mexico..if you think my comments caused you amusement you can imagine how much amusement my family received.
anywhy…enjoy your time out of town.
Elected or not I enoy the dialog and will continue submitting comments…however poorly received.
A sharp axe is great bit I think you have a bias as to what you chop up with it.
Not one story on here highlights the tremendous amount of tax money wasted on “normal” government operations.
Not one story.
In regards to McWhinney? How much sales tax and other fees are generated from McWhinney ventures? How many jobs? How many places to live? Quality of life? How does this revenue compare to the 113M in bonds? Actually it is only 80M because Loveland government apparently lost the other 33M.
There has to be a break even point somewhere down the road, no?
I know many people who will never ever play golf or visit a park yet they love to shop at Best Buy. Who is LP to decide how taxpayer money should be spent? Are elected officials not granted their power by vote? Did the bond issue not go to the people per Tabor?
What about all city ventures that directly compete with private sector? Why is the city involved if the private sector is already proving the same service? Golf for example.
If you are going to be a taxpayer watchdog you had better start watching it all! Me thinky you have an agenda and it has nothing to do with being a guardian of taxpayer funds.
Why not support the Statewide tax cuts?
Lets be true fiscal conservatives rather than the selective fiscal conservatives that LP appears to be?
BTW John Galt, The Fountain Head is one of my favorite books! Much better than Atlas Shrugged.
John, John, John.
I was not kidding; rather taking your point to its logical conclusion. i.e. that the publisher of this site should be discredited if (s)he supports (via vote or a dollar contribution) a particular candidate. It appears that you would either have the publisher silenced OR forego their right to support the candidate of their choice.
Regardless, the publisher clarified that in fact no such contribution was made; so it is moot.
Several charges are made of the LP site or its author being “partisan” and/or “having an axe to grind”, etc. The way I see it, LP is reporting little-known but important facts about local government and local politics; and if in so doing the author conveys dismay, outrage or disapproval, it is certainly understandable (and in my view, mostly justified).
The worst they could be accused of is mixing their reporting with editorializing. Of course, when the local daily does that routinely, in biased headlines, selective reporting, etc., that’s ok, right?
Patrick…
I’m not sure exactly what your point is, (or points ) but you seem to be saying that:
a) All government is a subsidy;
b) there is a lot of waste;
c) the subsidies to McWhinney are good/useful.
Perhaps I’m misreading, or perhaps there are other points I’ve missed. But in response:
A. Government as subsidy.
Societies that arise beyond anarchy and “jungle law” establish systems of law and governance. Government not only provides a systematic way to create, maintain and enforce those laws, but also to provide for common needs for which there is no other effective provision. i.e. such things as common defence, protection of the commons (air, water, wildlife, etc.), public safety (fire dep’t and police) and public health, public infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), schools, parks, etc.
Such things require public funding; i.e. taxes or fees. Ok … I’ve stated the obvious.
I suppose someone can be found to challenge any or all of those, but most people would agree so far.
Beyond the “necessitities” for life, there are the “amenities”. And that’s where the controversy lies for some. You and I might question the necessity of a golf course; another might question the need for a library; someone might reasonably question a museum, a Recreation Center, and so forth.
One might support all or most of the above, but still be willing to acknowledge that it’s fair to question the value or importance of each, and whether the private marketplace does or can adequately fill the need.
In any case, I suppose you could say that government (the taxpayers) subsidize (up to 100%) all such government services, but it’s not helpful to use that word if we agree that some services can only or best be provided by government.
B. Waste in Government.
Agreed… there is plenty. But the City is not alone. Any institution, private or public, is capable of wasting resources, and the bigger they get the more potential for waste simply by the fact that there are more individuals involved; more interactions and transactions; more complexity; and more difficulty of providing a waste-free management of all those.
A culture of corruption; i.e. wherein private interests are allowed to subvert public resources, tends to enhance waste of those resources.
C. You ask a lot of rhetorical questions about McWhinney and imply thereby that any subsidy is worth it. That makes me think that either: 1) you know very little about the case; or else 2) you do know and are part of the benefitting company.
The fact is that with the blessing of City Council and Staff, McWhinney was allowed to take, for primarily their private profits, an estimated $691 million (as reported by Reporter-Herald) of public taxes. That’s right, over a half-BILLION dollars of local (and ultimately state) tax dollars…as a subsidy. In return, they were to spend a small part of that take on a list of “public improvements”, most of which were needed by their development. Yet, several times now, they have attempted to wiggle out of even those obligations, and have sought (and in some cases gotten) still OTHER tax dollars to reduce their obligations.
So don’t talk about taxes they generate. Taxes pay for services. They are NOT paying the taxes they normally would, as they keep for private uses most of the property taxes, and almost half of the sales taxes… which would normally cover services provided by local governments. As a result, you, I, and everyone else has to cover those services ourselves…since they’re not being paid for.
As for jobs. Sure there are lots of minimum- or low-wage retail jobs; there are temporary construction jobs for the migratory crews who move into boom areas and then leave when the construction dries up. And a few others. Would those jobs only have come if McWhinney was subsidized?
I think not. Some of them have merely displaced jobs elsewhere, for example, Metrolux, the auto dealers, and others.
And in any case, you seem to lean libertarian. Why then would you support government handover of taxes to ONE orivate entity, which may give them an advantage and thus disadvantage competitors? Are you saying that jobs only happen if select businesses are subsidized with our taxes? Are you making the case that government knows better than the marketplace what businesses should succeed?
Please clarify this all for me.
Patrick – All have personal biases. The question is whether each biased speaker has compelling logic for their position. The logic you attack is still there. 1. Yes, normal gov’t ops waste money, but that is not a valid defense of abnormal gov’t expenditures. 2. Large revenues are in fact collected for McWhinney ventures, but thru the TIP & PIF are disproportionately funneled into McWHinney Enterprises, rather than going to the general fund for city operations. In other words, they are much more likely to power Chad’s yacht-lifestyle, as opposed to building roads in Loveland. Worse yet, absent the PIF & TIF, revenues to the city will likely never come close to paying back the initial subsidies granted to the McWhinneys. 3. I’m no more in favor of subsidizing a job than I am subsidizing the uber-wealthy. Either one takes money from my pocket for inadequate benefit in return. And in answer to your question about a break even point — No, there is not one for taxpayers, not ever. It’s just money spent for someone else’s benefit. 4. “Who is LP to decide how taxpayer money is to be spent?” Clearly, you need to reread Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. You’ve forgotten the moral of both stories, assuming you got it in the first place. Neither one would have EVER given you the idea that one should decide how to spent another person’s money.
I don’t know if lovelandpolitics is on the take but the facts are the RH newspaper continuously gets the facts wrong and underreports on the vNet matter. They don’t challenge Bill and his supporters in the council for anything he says. When the initial round of layoffs were announced last November the RH took Bill for his word that less than 25% were laid off yet if you look at the comments from people who used to work there the real percentage was definitely way above 25%. Bill still won’t answer simple questions like how many were laid off, how many are still working full time, and how many are actually working in Loveland. Is this guy really such a saint that we don’t question him on how he is defining all these numbers. I would not be too surprised if his employed numbers include contractors and very part time sales people located outside of Colorado yet his laid off numbers just included the full time people. Now the RH is doing a huge disservice by not pinning down Bill on exactly what he means by making the city whole again. The RH has frequently misquoted the deal as implying that Bill is legally obliged to repay Loveland the whole subsidy when in reality he is only on the hook for about half of it. The RH also seems to omit Bill’s “if possible” attachment to his statement about making the city whole again.
Patrick -
You speak before reading. If you looked a little harder you would have found a number of stories regarding general city budget issues covered by this site and wasteful spending (unrelated to McWhinney) being criticized.
1. We have run a story on the budget for all of the last 5 years pointing to areas of wastful spending
2. This blog recently suggested the city raise money by selling the boulders sitting on the golf course (brought to the golf course but unused) sitting in an unsightly pile next to 29th St. (Rousey responded to that comment that the enterprise fund money is separate so it wouldn’t help the general fund). He is correct but it goes to your point of why wasteful spending by the Enterprise Fund is not being paid attention to – it was.
3. One story covered the City Council listing pay raises for themselves during an annual offsite as unnecessary.
4. We covered the Use Tax overpayment audit issue in great detail and the fact Don Williams asked council to settle in private with the people who failed to pay the tax as required (nothing to do with McWhinney) by mostly small contractors.
5. Click on the finance tab on the homepage to find an older story regarding the city not properly reporting liabilities as the result of a reimbursement program they were running that hadn’t been funded.
You apparently fail to understand that McWhinney’s Centerra IS A PUBLIC venture at least when it comes to the cost of the project and the Metro District (a local government with taxing authority). It is private when it comes to collecting rent and selling the higher valued properties after tax dollars improved them.
It is not what you called “privatization” but instead “socializing” losses while privatizing profits.
HEY!!! Stop responding to Patrick. He is clearly attempting to just change the conversation into a trial over the website and Administrator.
Patrick doesn’t seem to have any real information but instead goes on a tirade about all the other wasteful spending LP doesn’t report on.
Get the hint people……..he is trying to distract the conversation not add anything of any value. If he was sincerely upset about the golf course or other spending he had plenty of space to put out the facts here.
The fact he has nothing to say shows he creating a distraction and not really a concerned citizen.
Hello everyone,
A few points back to the original blog story. A few things:
After some research I have discovered that the LP story insinuating special interest between Skowron and Beierwalres has some inaccurate and misleading information:
1. The caption on your homepage photo “Skowron for mayor
signs on Beierwaltes’ property” is not truthful. The signs pictured are NOT on Beierwaltes’ property. Check the larimer county property assessor’s website and you will see that these signs are on property NOT owned by Mr. Beierwaltes. Myth busted.
2. The second major point LP has brought up in their homepage story: LP has criticized the mayoral candidates who voted no to Solt’s motion to require Beierwaltes to repay 100% in full if he was not able to create the jobs specified in the agreement with the city. After further research, I have discovered that Beierwaltes has a legal agreement with the city to pay back the whole amount in the event that the jobs to be created under the agreement did not eventuate. This means that Solt’s motion was redundant and that a security measure protecting Loveland’s tax payers for the whole subsidy is in place. I will verify with the city attorney. Myth busted (awaiting confirmation).
Therefore the ‘myths’ presented in this article have been ‘busted’ and appear to be nothing more than a continuation of the smear campaign by LP against all mayoral candidates but Gutierrez.
1. The picture of Skowron’s signs are on the commercial lot at 1705 S Taft Ave (south of 402 right before the residential area). Below is the Larimer County Property records for that lot -
Owner Name & Address
BEIERWALTES, WILLIAM T
LYNDA L
1907 GAIL CT
LOVELAND, CO 80537
Property Address
1705 S TAFT AVE
LOVELAND 80537-0000
Subdivision #: 9127881 – JOHNSON MLD #98-EX1278 AMD
2. Your second point is equally without merit.
The “clawback” provision in the agreement has a “maximum liability” which is about 1/2 million less than what they received. You can also refer to the original story from 2008 (http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/vnet2.html) for a breakdown of all the numbers.
LovelandPolitics, the Reporter-Herald and Loveland Connection all reported nearly the same story on the payback so there isn’t some nefarious attempt to deceive people the facts are well known.
You need to read EVERY provision in the agreement instead of trying to make calculations from part of the agreement. Solt’s amendment was PRIOR to a final agreement thus the attorney would have drawn-up the specific legal language to reflect council’s intent.
None of the other councilors raised any legal technicality to oppose the amendment because the amendment predates the final agreement language.
We suggest you go to the public library and pull the council tape for the February 2008 council meeting when it was voted on. The Mayor and others were very clear they didn’t want “100%” liability” for vNet in case of failure.
Good try but everything reported here is thoroughly researched and fully documented before it is published.
Stop trying so hard to attack the messenger and start trying to understand the message and you might find the truth.
Thoroughly researched? Hmmm.
When everything written by LP is non-biased and factual then trust me, there will be no ‘attacks’ to the messenger.
If you did thoroughly research my first argument, you would find that those signs are on the lot neighboring Beierwaltes’ lot.
Another good example of creative writing intended to mislead readers.
This is why I need to do the research on item 2 at the library (good suggestion) and at the city. I am not sure that I trust this site enough to simply rely on the LP 2008 article you refer to.
Michael, we have posted an enlargement of our picture of Skowron’s signs, the Larimer County land survey (tax parcels) with the lot identified and the list of properties Beierwaltes owns as recorded at Larimer County.
You can access all this information at: LovelandPolitics.com/vnetMichaelspage.html
What more will you need? The property to the East of Beierwaltes’ property is the Taft right of way.
On your last point, we guided you to the article because we normally have the dates of the meetings, links to city documents and other information that should save you time in your research.
Lastly, try and offer some fact or source of information to prove your assertions. We want everything on this site to be accurate and like anyone have found and corrected errors in the past. In this case, you appear to be angrily repeating false denials without offering any information.
It sounds like you don’t have any first hand information so it would be interesting for us to know who is telling you these things.
Just remember that anger and insults are the last refuge for a person who has no sound arguments to make.
LP,
Thanks for giving me my own page on your site! Unfortunately, I was unable to access it; I think it is an invalid link.
I am not angry; am not giving insults and am simply questioning information presented on this site. You can claim I have no sound arguments but I think the fact that you are getting so defensive speaks for itself.
The property containing Walt’s signs is North of Beierwaltes’ property, owned by mR. Johnson.
This is starting to get tiresome. Thank you for the opportunity to post my thoughts.
Sorry – my error. Here is the proper address:
http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/vnet5Michaelspage.html
Hey guys anyone catch this in the Loveland Distorter-Herald today?
“Russound, a home audio company, and vNet have signed a definitive letter of intent under which Russound would acquire vNet’s assets.”
The obligation to payback the city is a liability not an asset. So obviously a possible new owner (a letter of intent means nothing) will probably not be responsible to payback Loveland anything.
Another cute part of the story is Beierwaltes said he will hire back half of his employees. Ha! pretty clever since he refuses to say how many employees he had when they closed! Maybe he had 5 so now they will hire back two full time and one part time.
Anyway you look at it Beierwaltes only owes the city a maximum liability of $340,000 according to his personal guarantee. That leave not $500,000 you guys reported but really more like $550,000.
Nice deal. Has anyone ever won more cash in the lottery who lives in Loveland?
Carol did you hear David Clark at the League of Women Voters forum? He got angry and denied what you just said. That guy must still think Beierwaltes is liable for the whole amount because he told the paper and said at the forum in the agreement would have to pay back the full amount.
It is really disappointing to see a candidate completely misrepresent something and not hear a peep out of “hometown” newspaper.
Walter,
Maybe Councilman Clark isn’t misrepresenting. Maybe he’s just that ignorant. Did you think of that?
Well no but you may be right. He depends heavily on Don Williams and Gene to tell him what is going on.
So you are proposing he really believes what he said because he never read the agreement?
Maybe. Probably better to be ignorant than dishonest. But back to my original question – where is our local media in reporting the facts? Even the RH printed a quote from Williams saying Beierwaltes already agreed to pay all the money back.
No follow-up?
Clearly the story isn’t finished. We can speculate but won’t know for some time to come, whether the City’s interest will be “made whole”. From my own experiences, I wouldn’t bet on it.
In any case, the main point is that no matter the final outcome, those boobs who voted the giveaway couldn’t look past their croneyism long enough to protect the City’s interest against such risks as were clear even before Vnet closed its doors.
We all might argue from different points on the validity of ANY subsidy at all, but I think most would agree that if the City Manager, Attorney, and Council majority were saying that their agreement would get the money back if the jobs didn’t materialize, each was both dishonest and each failed in their basic responsibilities. In my former business, that kind of failure was enough to get you shown the door.
After reading all these posts, a few points come to mind. I hope they aren’t too off the topic (which would be difficult, since the topic covers a lot of territory, and was stretched as the conversation unfolded).
First is this: There is no such thing as truly objective journalism. Never has been, and never will be. When a reporter begins cranking out a story, the choices begin. What is important, how to paraphrase, the use of direct quotes. There is often institutional pressure on how a story is crafted. To think that editorial position doesn’t bleed into coverage is naive. It can be subtle or blatant. But it’s there.
Secondly: Traditional newspapers today more than ever are under pressure to not rock the boat, with some noteworthy exceptions. The idea of an overwhelming liberal media is a myth. Publishers and owners, to a fault, are conservative business people. Again, with some exceptions.
Thirdly: With so much information (wrong and right) now available from so many sources, media literacy should be taught as part of every school curriculum. Separating the wheat from the chaff isn’t getting any easier.
Finally: Loveland is lucky to have a site like this. It allows for a robust debate, and provides information and a digging edge not found in the city’s daily newspaper. There was a time, and not so long ago, when a city of Loveland’s size had competing publications. I contend that arrangement better served the body politic and public discourse overall.
Monopolies get lazy. Without integrity at the top, newspapers with that luxury do the same. It makes them timid, to boot. At least concerned citizens have this site — which could never be accused of timidity; the greatest journalism sin of all.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland
The myth is The Reporter-Herald is a conservative newspaper.
Well Jim, Loveland’s only newspaper certainly isn’t liberal in its editorial positions.
At least in my opinon — which you apparently don’t share.
Perhaps we can agree to put the labels aside.
And discuss whether the newspaper is fulfilling its obligations as a source of reliable information, is doing real investigative journalism, is fair to all points of view and (most importantly) carries out its mission with integrity.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
I agree that labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” or even “moderate” are not helpful when applied to a newspaper such as “ours”. They are neither, as they do not support any principles attributed to either.
They may traditionally heavily support Republicans, but this does not make them truly conservative, any more than a G.O.P. registration does.
They do not operate by any principles that are related to such philosophies. Rather, they act in concert only with preserving the status quo and supporting the powerful, in furtherance of their prime motivation: to gain advertizers.
Unfortunately, there are too few instances in the print media where the publishers follow this oft-cited declaration by an old newspaperman in the days when papers practiced real journalism:
“The business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” . It The R-H practices almost the reverse.