LovelandPolitics.com Blog

Loveland voters have spoken. The old ways of politics in Loveland are gone – maybe for good. McWhinney cronyism is no longer the dominant force on city council.

Councilman Cecil Gutierrez, best described as a local reform candidate, was swept into the Mayor’s seat Tuesday night on November 3, while candidates Joan Shaffer, Cathleen McEwen and Hugh McKean were all elected as new members of Loveland’s City Council.

The only incumbent in the race, Daryl Klassen, did win re-election but against an unemployed 23 year-old machinist and Jan Brown who was booted from her previous position by a popular vote already. Klassen may not yet be celebrating as the “old guard” with whom he has found comfort are no longer a majority on the city council.

The most curious event of the evening was when Janet Bailey (who withdrew earlier from the race for city council) was reported to have a higher number of votes in the first count for Ward 3 than either of her opponents who stayed in the race. The County Clerk later removed her name from the vote results allowing Hugh McKean to prevail.

A special run-off election is now being planned for Loveland’s Ward 1 to fill the Council seat being left vacant by Mayor Elect Cecil Gutierrez. LovelandPolitics will closely monitor the special election and provide information regarding the candidates as we receive it.

Any impressions of the outcome?

In a matter of hours Loveland we will know the results of the 2009 local election.

Last minute ballots can still be dropped-off at the Larimer County offices on 6th Street in downtown.

Please read our latest summary of all the candidates and races in Loveland along with some predictions. What do you predict will be the outcome of this election?

Mayor, Wards 1-4 and the Lodging Tax.

Monday morning the five candidates for Loveland’s mayor answered questions in front of the Larimer County Republican Breakfast Club.

LovelandPolitics recorded the event (see story to access the audio).

A number of the candidates sought support from the audience by making it clear they are registered Republicans. Dave Clark used the term “fellow Republicans” while Grenn Rousey shared a story about what he called the best bumper sticker he had seen in his life that said, “How is that hope and change working for you?”

However, when State House Rep. BJ Nikkels asked about their support of the lodging tax, RTA (a proposed regional 1% sales tax) and purchasing property along I-25 with city funds the mood became more serious. On local issues the candidates split another way with only Cecil Gutierrez clearly not supporting the lodging tax or the RTA tax.

On the purchasing of 97 acres with tax dollars, Gutierrez, who was not on the council in November of 2007, said he didn’t agree with the decision. Walt Skowron, who was on the council at the time, voted against the purchase and spoke eloquently about his reasons for opposing the acquisition of land that is now vacant and for sale. Both Rousey and Clark defended their votes to acquire the property with city funds.

Alexi Grewal responded to the first question by predicting eminent doom for the Untied States and told his fellow canddiates we are not in a recession (as some had said) but instead a depression.

In summary, it appears to us that this race for Mayor of Loveland is really between Walt Skowron and Cecil Gutierrez. Dave Clark appeared unable to really engage the audience while Rousey was folksy in style but not very deep in content.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Loveland Association co-sponsored a candidate forum Wednesday night in council chambers. The forum featured the usual stock of questions designed to elicit stock answers and the candidates did not disappoint. There were, however, two items to note. The first is that Ward 1 candidate Darryl Klassen admitted to making a mistake when he voted, in 1997, to authorize the city’s purchase of a 97 acre parcel of land at Colorado 402 and I-25. That property, for which the city paid more than six million dollars, is now for sale for what one of the candidates described as “the best offer anyone is willing to make.” Jan brown, at least, stood by her decision. All of the other candidates attacked the deal with Joan Shaffer, Ward 2 candidate, characterizing the deal as “a classic example of buying high and selling low” and a good example of why government should stay out of the land speculation business. Ward 4 candidate, Cathleen McEwen, described the deal as “a debacle, plain and simple.”

The second item of interest was the empty seat that was reserved for Ward 4 candidate Teri Volk. Ms. Volk not only failed to show, she apparently also failed to notify her handlers. Mayoral Candidate, Dave Clark, who reportedly recruited Volk to run for the seat Clark is vacating, was visibly upset when he arrived late only to find Ms. Volk’s chair empty. His ire was not reduced when he was told by sitting Ward 2 Councilor Carol Johnson, a Clark ally, that the missing candidate had spoken with Johnson earlier in the day and had assured Johnson that she would attend. Rumors immediately began to fly that Ms. Volk, who purportedly was hesitant to enter the race in the first place and only did so to please Clark, may have dropped out of the race. At press time, nothing is known concerning Ms. Volk’s whereabouts and we sincerely hope that nothing untoward has befallen her.

We received several emails asking if we noticed that Glenn Rousey is reading Walt Skowron’s notes while Skowron is speaking in the debate picture on our homepage. No, nobody here noticed it before your emails but now that you mention it that does appear to be what he is doing.

The candidates forum failed to ask any specific questions about the current employee lay-offs, city budget cuts or solicit differences from the candidates on how they would handle specific problems in city hall. Instead the general questions about regionalism, growth and others solicited general answers which made the forum a yawner for the first half. Once the candidates were allowed to ask each other questions the audience attention and interest clearly peaked.

All the candidates did fairly well but Dave Clark hit the biggest faux pas of the evening when explaining his vote for Don William’s golden nest egg (see story on LovelandPolitics regarding the issue). Clark first said he voted NO because…..only to be corrected by his colleagues that he voted for it. He acknowledged voting for it when corrected than explained why it wasn’t a good idea. According to Walt Skowron who voted against it, Clark once admitted his own company would never provide an employee full-time medical benefits until retirement if they decided to quit their job early. Thus Skowron asked the question of why people spend money on the council they never would if it were their own dollars.

The forum appeared well organized and the candidates seemed congenial to one another. Alexi Grewal offered to bring a Lance Armstong event to Loveland if elected while Glenn Rousey listed his membership in MENSA as a qualification to be elected mayor. Walt Skowron focused heavily on national issues that the Mayor of Loveland will not likely be expected to solve while Cecil Gutierrez talked about the need for greater transparency and more opportunities for public comment.

Most of the forum was captured by audio that can be accessed from our home page. What are your comments on the evening if you attended? Picking a winner of the debate is difficult so we would appreciate your vote on who you believe won.

Thanks

Following a terrible bout with the flu and another recent personal problem, candidate Carl Fritz officially backed out of his race for a seat on Loveland’s City Council representing the city’s Ward 4.

Fritz told LovelandPolitics, “It is a lousy job for only $600 per month” in connection to his complaints of being deluged with inquiries from various interest groups after declaring his candidacy. He said the Loveland-Berthoud Board of Realtors approached him hours after he filed his candidacy. Fritz also said the woman who contacted him promised her board has “funds to support candidates” who they find agreeable.

Other News -

Councilwoman Carol Johnson is working behind the scenes to support David Clark’s run for Mayor but may very quickly become a liability instead of an asset. After lashing out against city volunteers working on Loveland’s Historic Preservation Commission see story she is now trying to appeal to age discrimination to boost her choice of David Clark for the Mayor’s race according to two sources. She has complained about the age of the other candidates and how she has tired of “being around really old men” on city council.

David Clark “begs” Skowron to Quit Run For Mayor

A week ago last Sunday, Loveland Mayor Pro Tem David Clark appeared at Councilman Skowron’s doorstep to discuss the race for Mayor of Loveland. Both men are members of Loveland’s City Council and both are running for Mayor. For his part, Skowron has told supporters he stood his ground and refused to drop out of the race no matter how much Clark begged him to get out of the race.

An interesting split in the “Old Guard” cabal has been the fact three councilors (Skowron, Clark and Rousey) are all running against one another for Mayor. Clark has long demonstrated a certain lack of respect for Skowron at council meetings and would often tangle with him even on issues where they agreed as Clark thought Skowron asked many inane questions.

Loveland voters are being asked now for a third time whether a “lodging tax” should be imposed on anyone staying in temporary housing in Loveland. Loveland’s City Council narrowly passed a measure in late August to place the proposed tax on Loveland’s November 3, 2009 municipal ballot. The election will be conducted by mail.

Read the LovelandPolitics.com story from when it was approved by council.

The lodging tax imposes a 3% tax on the cost of any accommodations within Loveland city limits for people renting housing for any period less than 30 days.

The ballot language claims the tax will raise $400,000 annually that will be used by Loveland “FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING FUNDS TO PROMOTE TOURISM, CONVENTIONS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY BY MARKETING THE CITY.”

We oppose the ballot measure because it is built upon a false premise perpetuated regularly by this city council majority.

The false premise is that every new revenue source is simply “profit” for the city. As proposed, the lodging tax can be used only to promote Loveland through public relations campaigns while the critical government services don’t have enough funds today to expand commensurate with our city’s growing population.

Mayor Gene Pielin said he wants to see a fancy advertising campaign in his favorite travel magazine for Loveland while other advocates on council plan to steer the money into Loveland’s Chamber of Commerce visitor’s center.

Local governments derive their taxing authority from the state’s “police powers” and are required by law to use the power to collect and spend taxes only for the purpose of promoting the health, welfare and safety of the community. The proposed lodging tax doesn’t meet this test and instead uses the city’s taxing authority simply to raise dollars for promoting certain businesses while ignoring the impact on critical city services.

Hotel guests do occasionally require local government services.

La Quinta Inn in Loveland, for example, has taxed the city’s already stressed police response time this summer by generating dozens of weekend emergency calls from nearby residents over late night band music for out-of-town wedding parties. Last weekend, the Embassy Suites Hotel hosted a gun show where Loveland Police were on-duty throughout the show and responded to an accidental gunfire incident which generated charges for reckless endangerment.

As conventions and promotions attrack increasing numbers of visitors to Loveland, our City Council has no plan to recapture or even understand how much money is spent to support the increased number of visitors in town.

As Loveland’s number of temporary residents rises so does the cost of providing all types of government services for them during their stay. Some have health emergencies while visiting Loveland while others can get into auto accidents or accidentally damage utilities while navigating local streets and increasing traffic on local streets.

Hotel guests who shop at Centerra in east Loveland will minimize the more general financial benefit of their stay to the city as much of the sales tax they pay in Centerra goes to McWhinney instead of the City of Loveland. Hotel owners who want better advertising can raise their own rates and use the money accordingly but it is not the proper role of local government to tax hotel guests for that purpose.

We do not oppose the concept of a lodging tax but do oppose one that can’t be used to support the general city services hotel guests are using. The same city council that recently approved of a budget to lay-off police officers and fire fighters now wants to further stress those services by increasing the number of transient people staying in town for business or pleasure.

Increasing the work load of Loveland’s emergency services while at the same time decreasing their funding diminishes the quality of life for everyone in Loveland and demonstrates poor long-term planning.

To propose a new tax that will not save even one police officer’s job or rehire a single firefighter is a smack in the face to the residents of Loveland not to mention first responders. Monies available for the General Fund need to be spent on improving and expanding those services most critical to Loveland residents’ health, welfare and safety.

Loveland residents should vote no for a third time against a lodging tax that at best can only be used to boost the advertising sales of a national magazine, subsidize advertising for the local hospitality industry or create a slush fund to support friends of city council members in Loveland’s Chamber of Commerce.

Loveland City Manager Don Williams has done the unthinkable for most senior public servants – he has jumped feet first into the 2009 Loveland election contest and is trying to influence the outcome.

According to several sources, Williams has approached at least one person on the Larimer County Republican Executive Committee to disparage this website and certain candidates seeking elected office in Loveland. Williams has been reported to be cautioning that the “conservative” voting block on Loveland’s council is at risk in this election and that the proprietor of this website is “running” certain candidates for city council.

While the challengers in the upcoming election are a mixed bag between Democrats and Republicans, it is a non-partisan race and should remain such according to Colorado’s constitution. In addition, Williams is playing a dangerous game by trying to manipulate the outcome of a city election through false rumors intended to invite inappropriate if not illegal partisan interference.

The “conservative voting block” Williams is trying to protect would never be recognized as conservatives by a jury of their peers. Support for government subsidized housing, increased sales taxes not to mention a lodging tax along with support for eminent domain for private purposes by some puts them at odds with the very values they claim to hold dear of limited government and taxes.

Cronyism is not a conservative value but instead a default position by politicians who lack either the courage or sophistication to properly direct a city manager who shows contempt for the democratic process by trying to make important decisions behind closed doors.

LovelandPolitics has provided a risk analysis on all candidates relative to the probability they will be vulnerable to McWhinney cronyism once elected. We define a McWhinney Factotum as anyone who will put the interest of McWhinney above other developers, businesses and residents who are not as influential in local politics. We believe the 14th Amendment to the constitution provides “equal treatment” under the law for all citizens and that local officials are not immune from the U.S. constitution.

The McWhinney Scale is simply a projection of each candidate’s future actions based on three independent criteria -

3. Statements they have made to voters regarding their leanings and views of previous votes.

Every candidate in red is there because of at least one of the previous three criteria came to our attention. Some were interviewed by LovelandPolitics while others were not.

We are not making any value judgment regarding the candidates in green (independent) other than the fact they are not likely to be influenced in their decisions by McWhinney in secret meetings. Please take your responsibility to vote very seriously and call every candidate (phone numbers are provided by LovelandPolitics in a link to the story) to determine who will best represent your views in city hall and act in the interest of all of Loveland.

Any comments?