We received a number of email complaints at LovelandPolitics about your editorial yesterday entitled “Partisanship has no place in our local government.” I must confess, however, that I agreed with most of what you wrote. I also prefer the days when Loveland candidates ran on only Loveland issues and would applaud any effort to return to pools, parks and potholes as the issues being discussed.
The irony is the candidate you endorsed, Donna Rice, is the one who introduced partisan politics into the Ward 1 city council race and is accusing her opponent, John Case, of being some sort of Manchurian candidate supported by mysterious outside interests.
Rice is running a campaign using partisan associations to catapult herself into local office through irresponsible fear mongering about an outsider “green conspiracy” taking over Loveland.
As a lifelong Republican, I know from many friends who were contacted early by Rice that she introduced herself as THE Republican Party candidate for Ward 1. That being said, I am also aware of some local Democrats supporting John Case but unlike Rice he truly is a local guy who I have only heard talk about local issues. What I know is the Rice supporters favored a 1% regional sales tax (RTA), lodging tax and now want an internet sales tax for Loveland. They are not your father’s fiscal conservatives nor is Rice who defends the $113 million of public debt created, in-part, for McWhinney’s now foreclosed shopping center.
Of the two candidates, a majority of Rice’s campaign funds come from sources outside Loveland while Case has only 12.5% of contributions from outside the community. Rice has maintained a residence in Wyoming and walks too close to the ethics line (when implying her work experience is in Colorado when it was not.)
Rice is certainly throwing stones from a glass house as Case raised his family in Loveland where he has resided continuously for the past 18 years. Case’s only political activity I am aware of was in local races while Rice has a long history of activism in statewide political party organizations. Rice, a longtime proponent of gay marriage and abortion within the Republican Party, has been fighting against anyone dubbed a “conservative” from holding a leadership position. I don’t know what abortion or gay marriage has to do with pools, parks or potholes but you appear to find her credentials as a squishy Republican important to serving on city council.
Now Rice wants us terrible and “wacky” conservatives to vote for her simply because she is a Republican. She doesn’t favor issues important to Ward 1 voters like Mahaffey Park which she said should be postponed indefinitely. So the partisan appeal by a divisive partisan Republican insider seems to be the antithesis of what you said you want for Loveland politics in yesterday’s editorial.
Rice’s apparently false accusations about Case having ties to a particular environmental group go unaddressed by your paper which I find troubling. This leaves Loveland voters without the benefit of the unofficial fourth branch of government (an independent press) willing to objectively investigate and report facts regarding outrageous claims made by candidates during political campaigns.
The hypocrisy I find intolerable is when influential people in town who support Rice pretend to want a diverse field of qualified candidates. Then they go privately about the dirty business of intimidating, coercing and discrediting those same candidates in hopes that they will drop-out of the race. Where is your reporting on those despicable activities on behalf of Donna Rice?
I believe Loveland has three better choices for council in Ward 1 than in previous elections despite Rice’s introduction of partisan rancor.
The tireless efforts of some groups in town you favor to manipulate the voters’ choices were successful in the past thus leaving many seats uncontested by design. Council elections are nonpartisan and should be open to any qualified citizen who wants to test their views on local issues through the public process.
Unfortunately, your coverage appears to many as limited by the “who” you know approach thus denying fair coverage for people like Rob Molloy who has unparalleled qualifications to serve on city council given his impressive history as a planning commissioner and zoning board adjuster. Adam Koniecki, who has made an admirable effort at being elected in the last race, addressed more local issue in the last candidate forum than did Rice.
I just wish you would use your position as the Editor of Loveland’s daily newspaper to encourage the end you say you want most in your editorial.
If you really want vigorous debate on local issues and less partisanship in local raises than you have to show the courage of an independent local press. Report the backroom deals the Loveland Chamber of Commerce and McWhinney try to create to limit our choices in qualified candidates for city council. Don’t be afraid to endorse candidates from either party based on their stand on local issues they will be able to affect in office; pools, parks and potholes.
Sincerely
L. Weston
Wow, well put. Powerful stuff. Unlike what many have said about you, you do have a name and a backbone.
Ok, enough lovey-dovey stuff, one question: What is the reporting requirements for how Rice pays her campaign loan back? She reportedly gave her campaign a $2000+ loan and I’m wondering what checks are in place to make sure this isn’t a ‘loophole’ and someone else can ‘pay her’ to compensate for the loan.
WOW, Congratulations for calling it like it is. Now will our local paper stand up and take on the responsibility of being the fourth estate that is so crucial for our form of government, or will it be silent.
A strong independent paper would admit the candidate it endorsed has not lived up to its high standard and report on the facts of the race.
I truly hope it does but would not bet the ranch. Heck, I doubt I would bet a cup of coffee.
My guess: probably stay silent. One huge problem newspapers face is that they have mostly abdicated responsibility to provide public service. Not all newspapers, and not all print journalists. But way too many. It’s a problem because newspapers are becoming increasingly non-players in public debate — a place they once ruled. That the RH is (sort of) locally owned is a plus. That it kow-tows to the so-called and usually self-proclaimed movers and shakers is no surprise. Big growth, more subscribers. Until the new folks catch on, that this is a rinky-dink newspaper with rinky-dinks at the helm. I do have to ask about the newspaper’s “high standard.” Remember the mayoral endorsement. Not so lofty.
Tony Benjamin
supporting John Case in Ward 1
Tony, why John Case? I’m pulling for Rob Molloy. Rob has worked hard on PC and has NO AGENDA or anybody in the hip pocket. I respect your insight and opinions.
TK
Well Troy, I certainly was in your corner when you took a stab at elected office. Which means I respect your opinions and insight, too. And also respect your working with Rob on the Planning Commission. (which i still watch faithfully on those long monday nights). It’s not that I’m against Rob, at all. He seems like a fine fellow. I have been impressed by his level-headed, fair approach as a planning commissioner. After a couple of long conversations with John, I simply think he has the temperament and wisdom to represent Ward 1 better. As you know, I’ve been disappointed with our past and present representation on the council. Cecil understood and understands that, and earned my support. So, too, has John Case. Here’s hoping you’ll run again. You have given a lot to Loveland; your heart and head are in the right place. Hey, the governor’s job is open. Best, Tony Benjamin
Expecting the editor of The Reporter-Herald to publically respond here is an unrealistic expectation. Mr. Amundson thinks himself too good to a) read this blog and b) respond to any charges that dare challenge his importance and perfection. Ken Amundson is better than you. Always has been, always will be because he is a journalist, a member of the news media, lapdog to a family of lawyers who think themselves better than everyone else. He doesn’t make mistakes. He is never wrong.
Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
Kudos for a well-reasoned editorial and rebuttal. Unfortunately, I think Randy is probably right… the R-H GM (and editorial board) probably wouldn’t want to respond to your powerful indictment.
As the only “print” daily in town, they still think they are too high and mighty to bother with (horrors!) internet journalists, even though this site offers many times the journalistic ethos of the newspaper.
I recently was reminded of their editorial dishonesty when reading their editorial against the citizens’ initiative limiting campaign contributions to $100.
In that one, they opined that “…developers were dragged into city politics against their will in 2000…”. In so writing, they dishonestly ignored the fact that developers had been recruiting and funding their own friends for City Council, for untold years prior. Of course the R-H would prevaricate about this, because the paper was in fact part of the local cabal of self-anointed elite who’ve run Loveland as a fiefdom for as long as anyone could remember.
And Tony, it’s not really about growth in subscribers, per se. It’s about growth in ad revenues… for that’s where they make the money…each new big-box representing that much more ad space.
That’s why they haven’t, for a very long time at least, represented anything like the 4th Estate or anything close. The Lehmans and their hack managers always have, and always will put the coincident interests of the “right class” (more land development) first and will always subvert the broader public’s interests in doing so. Ken Amundsen is merely an unprincipled lackey willingly selling his body and soul for short term profits and job security. In the Old Testament days, when punishments were admittedly harsh, they used to stone women who did that.
By the way, another bit of hypocrisy. While I agree with them on principle (that the Council races should be nonpartisan), The Reporter-Herald is as partisan as they come. They will always automatically endorse the Republican in every partisan race, though I always have fun predicting which token “D” will get their nod (so they can continue pretense of being non-partisan). But the R-H’s owners and manager ARE highly partisan. Which is why they endorsed Rice, of course. As the real-estate backed Republican, it was clear that she would be endorsed also by that paper. Can’t have any more Democrats, Independents or “uppity” Republican conservatives interfering with the “bidness” or giveaways to McWHinney and other “pals”, now, can we?
Appreciate these posts. And the original “open letter” that prompted them. A bit of history. Partisan newspapers in America are nothing new. Matter of fact — going back to Colonial times and certainly after — newspapers sprang up in communities to espouse one political point of view or the other. A big difference was that there was almost always more than one choice. Even small places had several competing newspapers. Larger cities had even more. Often, Republican or Democrat was flown in their flag; their name. What has evolved are newspaper monopolies. Only a few larger cities now have competing daily newspapers. Can’t think of a small market where that’s the case. The result, as I see it, is that a burden of integrity has been placed on newspapers that wasn’t always there. The good ones have responded. Or have at least tried. Economics also come into play. Newspapers, traditionally and in their hey-day, made huge profit margins. Enough to make bankers blush. While most still make money, that profit margin has shrunk considerably. Big cuts have come in editorial investment. And frankly, has produced wimpy journalism. Readers understand that, and have abandoned newspapers in droves. Which brings me, Harry, to circulation. That’s what drives ad rates. Big box stores, especially in small markets, don’t invest in ROP (in the paper) advertising. They buy into the pre-print fliers, which mostly get tossed into the recycling bin without being looked at. I ramble. Bottom line: Loveland could have (should have) and deserves a reliable, solid, courageous newspaper. Every community does. Those running the RH ignore that at their peril. When your butt gets consistently kicked on news and opinion by a guy with a blog site — well, hats off to the guy with the site … and the RH crew might consider another occupation. Like running the Chamber of Commerce.
CORRECTION:
Apparently it is candidate Rob Molloy who has lived in Loveland 18 years and raised his family here. The “Open Letter” above is in error as it says candidate John Case lived in Loveland 18 years while he has really lived in Loveland 12 years.
How Long Has Donna McRea-Rice lived in Loveland?
Candidate Donna Rice has now provided 5 completely different answers to the question “how long she lived in Loveland?” If you believe 9 years, than she was Wyoming Citizen of the Year while living in Loveland!
She did acknowledge during an interview with LovelandPolitics that her residence in Cheyenne was just in case of “bad weather” but apparently told a number of people she returned to Loveland only 1 year ago.
Contrary to assertions by the Loveland Reporter-Herald Editor that offers to other candidates to quit were never connected to Donna, all he needed to do was ask.
Rice approached Molloy early-on and provided the same offer that she will not run for a second-term and endorse him if he dropped his candidacy and endorsed her.
It is ironic that Mr. Chilson who authored the Loveland Manifesto of old guys drinking coffee at the Heartland Cafe reported on in the Loveland Reporter-Herald started their silly maifesto by saying, “That you have not lived in Loveland long enough…” The next day a letter by Chislon endorsing Donna Rice was printed in the same paper without any reference to her barely 1-year residency in Loveland.
Administrator,
thanks for the clarifications. You are being excedingly kind in noting “the irony” of various statements . Some would call Chilson’s and the R-H’s statements outright hypocrisy, lies, or worse.
Rice’s carpet-bagger status apparently can be excused/overlooked; since she carries their water.
Has Adam indicated if the email sent to him by the city employee was sent with a city email account? If so, let’s file a FOI request and forward the response to the attorney general.
No, it was sent on Sunday from his personal email account.
I will not be voting for John Case because he looks like Mr. Beane to me. Funny guy but not what I want counsel to look like.
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.
Concerned voter, you select people on how they look? Wow, I prefer voting for people based on the person’s qualifications and beliefs. I have done some research on each of the candidates. Donna is a mystery she tries to appear as a long time resident of Loveland.
Take a look at the Wyoming Real Estate Review and you get a different picture. From that publication she appears to be a ‘long time resident of Wyoming.’
The Wyoming Real Estate Review dated Fall 2003
‘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.
All of you that believe that Donna Rice has not been a longtime resident of Loveland need to get a clue!!! She has lived here in Loveland for a very longtime and commuted on occasion between Wyoming and Loveland due to a job commitment. Please completely check all of you facts before you post things!! Just becasue she may have occasionally stayed in Wyoming has no bearing on her ability and qualifications to job for which she was ELECTED. Thanks
Liam: I have come to the sad conclusion that you are a Progressive in philosophy. You have been very good at disguising yourself, but the complaint about the medians tipped me off as to your true intentions. Show me that I am wrong….. Greg
Thanks for the comment Greg but quite the contrary. I appreciate you asking because it is a myth a few moderates in the county party have tried to propagate in the past.
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.
Excellent, thought-provoking post. You’ve provided a lot to chew over.
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
I would think you would know that I am probably to the right of you on the limited government issue and you still didn’t address your hissy fit over the concrete medians going in on Wilson. Building water storage for the future is a better use of tax revenue than trees in the median which will never survive without continued expenditures of tax revenue. The water you are using now was collected due to the foresight of those who lived here 80 years ago, I guess you would have been against that too? Kicking up a straw man does not help your position as you should know I am not in favor of granting most favored status to the McWhinney’s either. Maybe we can have a good discussion at the County Assembly. I don’t think anyone has ever before implied that I was a “moderate”. I know a lot of folks in Ft Collins would have a stroke at that label!!!
Greg, they spent money to remove the trees on Wilson and over $1 million to install ugly narrow concrete medians with red cement and little plastic poles all the way to Eisenhower thus preventing people leaving Safeway from turning left onto Wilson and those leaving K-Mart from departing left onto to Wilson.
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.
This is the best explanation and defense I’ve read of why development/growth should pay for itself. Well done. The economic downturn has a silver lining — it has given Loveland a chance to tackle this issue (again) without the pressure the huge building boom of a few years ago that seemed to back everyone into their ideological corners.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland
I liked reading your blog ~ thanks for posting such good material.