Published in the Longmont Times-Call 12-26-08
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BEST WAY TO FUND MALL
Kudos to Councilwoman Sarah Levison for opposing the wasteful $3,000 update study designed to expand the “blighted area” for urban renewal quite beyond Twin Peaks Mall, but the council proceeded anyway. Where does it stop?
Rarely does a consulting study of this kind fail to find blight. If I owned property in the targeted area (between Hover/Sunset and Nelson/Ken Pratt Blvd.), I’d be nervous about having an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) with its eminent domain power and red tape taking over.
The city just funded a separate study regarding the mall’s redevelopment concepts (now they’re into housing?) so that “a partnership between the city and mall-owner could move forward.”
When did this private venture, unlike numerous other businesses around town, become a “partner” with Longmont taxpayers and what kind of financial kickbacks are involved?
Uh-oh, the unfair tax-increment financing scheme (TIF) is back on the table. Which means, as the mall prospers as anticipated, the mall-owner would get to keep the expected increase in city sales-tax revenues that the mall collects (which normally would flow into the city’s general fund to pay for things like police and fire protection) and apply that money to making payments on long-term bonds issued by the URA (no vote required) to fund his improvements. How nice.
In years ahead, the city’s general fund would still get some sales-tax revenue from the mall, but no more than a predetermined base amount, probably the same as this year.
And what if the mall still fails? Longmont taxpayers could be stuck with URA’s bonded indebtedness (viz. city of Englewood, CO.).
Alternative? The Metropolitan District concept is the best and fairest way to keep the financial burden of redeveloping Twin Peaks Mall where it belongs: on the back of the mall-owner and off the backs of Longmont taxpayers.
P.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
WHERE DOES ALL THE
HIGHWAY TAX MONEY GO?
Since Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor is a key member of Gov. Bill Ritter’s Blue Ribbon Transportation Panel which visited Longmont a while back, I’m wondering what sort of an ongoing program Boulder County has budgeted to closely monitor, maintain and replace, as appropriate, the county’s 643 miles of roadway and its 76 bridges of over 20 feet in length. Roadways and bridges just don’t fall apart overnight.
Construction costs have risen sharply, but so has the number of highway users who shell out tremendous amounts money to pay for vehicle fuel taxes, ownership taxes, licenses, fees and permits. Perhaps another dog-and-pony show should be organized by the governor and sent out to explain where all the money goes, in the foggy world of highway high-finance.
If our county commissioners are indeed unable to guarantee the public reasonably safe roads and bridges due to budget shortfall, I was about to recommend floating a bond issue for that purpose. After all, the majority of voters in Boulder County don’t seem to mind running up a huge debt on our children and grandchildren to buy land.
But on second thought, the 2007 financial report of Boulder County shows that its long-term debt already stands at around $198 million.
So maybe putting our descendants further in debt to fund our roads and bridges is not such a good idea. Oh well, why worry? Obama will take care of it.
P.
HIGHWAY TAX MONEY GO?
Since Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor is a key member of Gov. Bill Ritter’s Blue Ribbon Transportation Panel which visited Longmont a while back, I’m wondering what sort of an ongoing program Boulder County has budgeted to closely monitor, maintain and replace, as appropriate, the county’s 643 miles of roadway and its 76 bridges of over 20 feet in length. Roadways and bridges just don’t fall apart overnight.
Construction costs have risen sharply, but so has the number of highway users who shell out tremendous amounts money to pay for vehicle fuel taxes, ownership taxes, licenses, fees and permits. Perhaps another dog-and-pony show should be organized by the governor and sent out to explain where all the money goes, in the foggy world of highway high-finance.
If our county commissioners are indeed unable to guarantee the public reasonably safe roads and bridges due to budget shortfall, I was about to recommend floating a bond issue for that purpose. After all, the majority of voters in Boulder County don’t seem to mind running up a huge debt on our children and grandchildren to buy land.
But on second thought, the 2007 financial report of Boulder County shows that its long-term debt already stands at around $198 million.
So maybe putting our descendants further in debt to fund our roads and bridges is not such a good idea. Oh well, why worry? Obama will take care of it.
P.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Published 12-10-08 in
the Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER COUNTY OVERREACHES
IN OPPOSING CHURCH PLAN
Despite being found guilty by a federal jury of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Boulder County Commissioners persist in trying to keep Rocky Mountain Christian Church (disclosure: I’m not a member) from expanding to meet the needs of its congregation. There’s nothing extraordinary about the church’s plan to add space for worship, a gym for better health, and a school building to educate children. Also, the site seems quite adaptable and appropriate.
Essentially at the heart of this issue and at risk, as Richard Yale pointed out in his letter to the Times-Call (12-06-08) and I agree, is the First Amendment’s guarantee of “free exercise …of religion.”
As for RLUIPA, I don’t think AG Janet Reno would have let President Clinton sign it into law had she doubted its constitutionality. Yes, the Supremes might reject it, but I question the commissioners’ desire to spend big on legal fees to find out, especially when we’re in a recession and Boulder County is $193 million in debt (annual financial report for 2007).
Having resided in east Boulder County for 43 years, I’ve watched unincorporated Niwot, which the county governs hands-on, expand rather dramatically. Niwot showed a growth rate of 56% between 1990 and 2000, compared to Boulder’s 14%, Lyons’ 29%, Longmont’s 38%, Louisville’s 53% and Broomfield’s 55%. Only Lafayette, Erie and Superior outpaced Niwot.
The county would like to pretend that it has allowed little or no growth in this once-rural area, but the facts indicate otherwise.
First, it was IBM across Colo. Highway 119 that “ruined the landscape,” then it was nearby Gunbarrel that exploded and now it’s multi-million dollar mansions that encroach.
But I admit I’m not all that sensitive to all of that activity and, again, I fail to see the problem with the church expansion. Merry Christmas!
P.
the Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER COUNTY OVERREACHES
IN OPPOSING CHURCH PLAN
Despite being found guilty by a federal jury of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Boulder County Commissioners persist in trying to keep Rocky Mountain Christian Church (disclosure: I’m not a member) from expanding to meet the needs of its congregation. There’s nothing extraordinary about the church’s plan to add space for worship, a gym for better health, and a school building to educate children. Also, the site seems quite adaptable and appropriate.
Essentially at the heart of this issue and at risk, as Richard Yale pointed out in his letter to the Times-Call (12-06-08) and I agree, is the First Amendment’s guarantee of “free exercise …of religion.”
As for RLUIPA, I don’t think AG Janet Reno would have let President Clinton sign it into law had she doubted its constitutionality. Yes, the Supremes might reject it, but I question the commissioners’ desire to spend big on legal fees to find out, especially when we’re in a recession and Boulder County is $193 million in debt (annual financial report for 2007).
Having resided in east Boulder County for 43 years, I’ve watched unincorporated Niwot, which the county governs hands-on, expand rather dramatically. Niwot showed a growth rate of 56% between 1990 and 2000, compared to Boulder’s 14%, Lyons’ 29%, Longmont’s 38%, Louisville’s 53% and Broomfield’s 55%. Only Lafayette, Erie and Superior outpaced Niwot.
The county would like to pretend that it has allowed little or no growth in this once-rural area, but the facts indicate otherwise.
First, it was IBM across Colo. Highway 119 that “ruined the landscape,” then it was nearby Gunbarrel that exploded and now it’s multi-million dollar mansions that encroach.
But I admit I’m not all that sensitive to all of that activity and, again, I fail to see the problem with the church expansion. Merry Christmas!
P.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
A LONGTIME REPUBLICAN
AND PROUD OF IT
As a Colorado native who turned 21 in 1948 (the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971), I chose the GOP and have never regretted it. But right off the bat, and much to my disappointment, the American electorate turned away the "invincible" Tom Dewey-Earl Warren ticket. The Republican/Dewey combo had lost again in its second pursuit of the presidency, this time to the Harry Truman-Barkley ticket, despite the Chicago Daily Tribune’s assuring headline proclaiming “Dewey Defeats Truman.” Of course, it was only four years earlier that the GOP’s Dewey-John Bricker ticket had lost to the Franklin D. Roosevelt-Truman duo.
So, after seeing our ideal candidate humiliated twice, one might think that we Republicans should have folded our tent and gone home. But we stuck to our principles and in 1952 came trumpeting back with a Dwight Eisenhower-Richard Nixon ticket to “landslide” the highly touted Adlai E. Stevenson-John Sparkman ticket, and again in 1956 when the surely electable Stevenson was paired with Estes Kefauver, in sort of a joyful Dewey retribution.
I notice that the post-election advice to Republicans when they fail hasn’t changed much in 60 years. Critics are always quick to point to the Party’s right wing, but when Democrats lose, scarcely anyone ever blames their left wing, an uncompromising force to which president-elect Barack Obama is now so deeply indebted politically that their demands will be extremely difficult to appease. Only time will tell us when the serious infighting occurs, but it is bound to come when our new president discovers, as he inevitably will, that contrary to his campaign promises the government cannot be all things to all people.
Wasn’t it Lord Acton who said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the elements are now be in place in Washington, D.C. for the perfect storm. The GOP will be ready, willing and able to go in and pick up the pieces afterwards, as usual.
P.
AND PROUD OF IT
As a Colorado native who turned 21 in 1948 (the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971), I chose the GOP and have never regretted it. But right off the bat, and much to my disappointment, the American electorate turned away the "invincible" Tom Dewey-Earl Warren ticket. The Republican/Dewey combo had lost again in its second pursuit of the presidency, this time to the Harry Truman-Barkley ticket, despite the Chicago Daily Tribune’s assuring headline proclaiming “Dewey Defeats Truman.” Of course, it was only four years earlier that the GOP’s Dewey-John Bricker ticket had lost to the Franklin D. Roosevelt-Truman duo.
So, after seeing our ideal candidate humiliated twice, one might think that we Republicans should have folded our tent and gone home. But we stuck to our principles and in 1952 came trumpeting back with a Dwight Eisenhower-Richard Nixon ticket to “landslide” the highly touted Adlai E. Stevenson-John Sparkman ticket, and again in 1956 when the surely electable Stevenson was paired with Estes Kefauver, in sort of a joyful Dewey retribution.
I notice that the post-election advice to Republicans when they fail hasn’t changed much in 60 years. Critics are always quick to point to the Party’s right wing, but when Democrats lose, scarcely anyone ever blames their left wing, an uncompromising force to which president-elect Barack Obama is now so deeply indebted politically that their demands will be extremely difficult to appease. Only time will tell us when the serious infighting occurs, but it is bound to come when our new president discovers, as he inevitably will, that contrary to his campaign promises the government cannot be all things to all people.
Wasn’t it Lord Acton who said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the elements are now be in place in Washington, D.C. for the perfect storm. The GOP will be ready, willing and able to go in and pick up the pieces afterwards, as usual.
P.
Published 11-29-08
in The Denver Post
WHY SHOULD GOP BE THE
ONLY PARTY TO CHANGE?
Regarding pundit Fred Brown and the disgruntled Republicans he quotes in his column, “The GOP’s journey to the right,” (Perspective 11-23-08) why is it always the Republicans and not the Democrats who are expected to tweak party principles and shut out loyalists in order to reach the ethereal status of political centrism? The Republican Party is no more obligated to expel its right-wing religionists than the Democratic Party is to oust its radical leftist-secularists.
Both parties emphasize their “big tent diversity” and that’s the way American politics should be. The people rule, and those who become disenchanted in one party should strive to change it, find another or go independent.
Mastery of nationwide confidential Internet communications, massive infusions of cash from Soros nationally but Colorado had its own Big Four mother lode, plus the media’s “get Bush” mentality, flummoxed the GOP this time. Stubbornly adhering to his campaign finance philosophy, John McCain was hugely outspent, essentially hoist on his own petard.
Defector Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama, forgets that he was a member of one of the most diverse presidential Cabinets ever assembled, that of George W. Bush.
Republicans “anti-intellectual”? Rubbish.
P.
in The Denver Post
WHY SHOULD GOP BE THE
ONLY PARTY TO CHANGE?
Regarding pundit Fred Brown and the disgruntled Republicans he quotes in his column, “The GOP’s journey to the right,” (Perspective 11-23-08) why is it always the Republicans and not the Democrats who are expected to tweak party principles and shut out loyalists in order to reach the ethereal status of political centrism? The Republican Party is no more obligated to expel its right-wing religionists than the Democratic Party is to oust its radical leftist-secularists.
Both parties emphasize their “big tent diversity” and that’s the way American politics should be. The people rule, and those who become disenchanted in one party should strive to change it, find another or go independent.
Mastery of nationwide confidential Internet communications, massive infusions of cash from Soros nationally but Colorado had its own Big Four mother lode, plus the media’s “get Bush” mentality, flummoxed the GOP this time. Stubbornly adhering to his campaign finance philosophy, John McCain was hugely outspent, essentially hoist on his own petard.
Defector Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama, forgets that he was a member of one of the most diverse presidential Cabinets ever assembled, that of George W. Bush.
Republicans “anti-intellectual”? Rubbish.
P.
Published 10-14-08
in Longmont Times-Call
LACK OF CONFIDENCE
NOT A GOOD SIGN
It’s a sad reflection on Longmont when upwards of 100 local business and professional people, including one of the town’s leading entrepreneurial families, become so disenchanted with the direction the present city council is taking our city that they have found it necessary to form a group called LIFT to encourage and protect not only their own well-being, but that of future business and commercial investors as well. Regardless of what the “experts” say, whenever a business community loses confidence in its city government, nobody wins and the biggest losers will be homeowners whose property taxes and city user-fees for water/sewer/electricity/trash will rise dramatically as business-generated revenues fall. Is that what the people of Longmont want?
A sagging economy will make it tough for even the most business-friendly cities to attract attention. Once publicity gets out that a city council is not seen as a positive factor by numerous local businesses, as is the case now in Longmont, that perception quickly spreads to the outside world and it’s nearly irreversible.
Councilwoman Karen Benker’s promises of improving the business climate (T-C 10/4/08) ring hollow, especially after being a ringleader in chasing away the significant amount of permit fees and commercial/retail taxes tied to the LifeBridge Union project. She and her cohorts drove the Union project right into Firestone’s arms, where voters did not buy into the anti-church propaganda and approved the annexation 509 to 357.
Although I usually see eye-to-eye with Mayor Roger Lange, it is not in the best interests of this city to be running up horrendous lawyer fees in trying to kill Firestone’s Union annex. Longmont had its shot at this property; the council majority worked hard to keep it out, and won. Why should we taxpayers now be expected to pay dearly to keep it out of Firestone?
P.
in Longmont Times-Call
LACK OF CONFIDENCE
NOT A GOOD SIGN
It’s a sad reflection on Longmont when upwards of 100 local business and professional people, including one of the town’s leading entrepreneurial families, become so disenchanted with the direction the present city council is taking our city that they have found it necessary to form a group called LIFT to encourage and protect not only their own well-being, but that of future business and commercial investors as well. Regardless of what the “experts” say, whenever a business community loses confidence in its city government, nobody wins and the biggest losers will be homeowners whose property taxes and city user-fees for water/sewer/electricity/trash will rise dramatically as business-generated revenues fall. Is that what the people of Longmont want?
A sagging economy will make it tough for even the most business-friendly cities to attract attention. Once publicity gets out that a city council is not seen as a positive factor by numerous local businesses, as is the case now in Longmont, that perception quickly spreads to the outside world and it’s nearly irreversible.
Councilwoman Karen Benker’s promises of improving the business climate (T-C 10/4/08) ring hollow, especially after being a ringleader in chasing away the significant amount of permit fees and commercial/retail taxes tied to the LifeBridge Union project. She and her cohorts drove the Union project right into Firestone’s arms, where voters did not buy into the anti-church propaganda and approved the annexation 509 to 357.
Although I usually see eye-to-eye with Mayor Roger Lange, it is not in the best interests of this city to be running up horrendous lawyer fees in trying to kill Firestone’s Union annex. Longmont had its shot at this property; the council majority worked hard to keep it out, and won. Why should we taxpayers now be expected to pay dearly to keep it out of Firestone?
P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Percy Conarroe
- Retired in 1998 after a 50-year career of editing and publishing Colorado small-town weekly newspapers. He served as president of the Colorado Press Association in 1981 and was awarded an honorary lifetime membership.