Fissinger lied about Benker’s anti-LifeBridge involvement

No one likes a liar.  I know, we almost expect it from politicians, but still.
Back on June 25, 2009 in a Times-Call op-ed, City Council at-large candidate Kaye Fissinger said this: No council member organized, directed or actively participated in this effort.” The effort she speaks of is the petition drive in 2007 to overturn the annexation of the LifeBridge/Union property east of Longmont.  The same one we’re mired in an endless amount of losing litigation over.  One of Longmont Advocate’s contributors, Nicolle Pratt, wrote an excellent piece about this worth reading to refresh your memory.
A photograph of Ms. Benker in What’s In It For Longmont‘s HQ was part of Ms. Pratt’s story, but was forcefully yanked down after one of her supporters demanded it be removed.  Well, the following email is proof enough of Ms. Benker’s more than idle involvement in that sordid affair that almost tore this community in half.  I wonder if this email was sent to the city’s server as mandated by state Open Records law.
To: prospectcommunity@yahoogroups.com
From: lassiegirl@netscape.com
Subject: Fwd: [prospectcommunity] Sign petition?
(UPDATE) Date: Tue Sept 11 2007 3:33 pm  (How nice, let’s all spend 9/11 trying to kick a church out of town)
Hi all,
If anyone is interested in signing the citizen petition to put the Union annexation to a vote of Longmont residents, I will be on my porch this Saturday morning from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. with a petition.
Karen Benker
303/774-7745
————————–
(UPDATE) Date: Wed Sept 12, 2007 9:31 pm

I forgot to include my address when I sent out the first email. Sorry about that.
This Saturday morning from 9:00 am to 10:00 at 1919 Andrew Alden Street you can sign the annexation petition to put the issue to a vote.
I have two lions (that look like collies) on my front porch.
Karen
———————————————
So, here we have a sitting councilmember, Karen Benker, who lost this annexation vote 1-6, actively participating in this petition drive to undo the vote of a super-majority on council.  I’m not sure if there was any lawbreaking involved there, but it sure seems pretty unethical, and one heck of a conflict of interest.

And we also have a council candidate, Kaye Fissinger, who’s a regular agitator at the podium during council meetings, telling an outright lie in an op-ed in the Times-Call.  Ms. Fissinger was one of the main ringleaders of this anti-LifeBridge, anti-church, pro-hate operation and recent uncovered emails between these two people (along with that banned photograph) show they are partners in crime, so to speak.


It’s hysterical looking back at the comments by these two over the last couple of years about LIFT, and that people may be doing shady things behind the scenes to corrupt local politics and win elections.   

THEY SHOULD KNOW!

Lady’s and gentlemen – I bring you truly what is “Wrong with Longmont” (hence the site name).  They are the corruptocrats, they are the secret handshake committee out to get their political enemies, they skirt our laws and ethical standards.  They are everything they seek to rid the city of.  Come Election Day, get rid of them.

So now the LifeBridge boogeyman is a drainage culvert?

Of all the disingenuous arguments we’ve heard against the Union project from the anti-LifeBridge hatemonger crowd, the latest ruckus over the Spring Gulch #2 drainage improvements truly takes the cake.

Despite character assassinations and charges of corruption from the likes of Jeff Thompson, Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow made the project justification perfectly clear a month ago at city council chambers, as seen in this YouTube video…

Pedrow underscored the facts that 1) the Spring Gulch drainage project conveys water from the northeast portion of the city of Longmont; 2) it protects Hwy 119 from potential 50-100yr flood damage; 3) it serves Longmont’s Sandstone Ranch and the St. Vrain Greenway extension, including the Hwy 119 box culvert to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists; and 4) it was approved by voters in 2007 with bonds already sold.

Anti-Union activists bring up the wayward strawman that the Spring Gulch #2 bonds when fully retired will cost every Longmont resident about $115 in taxpayer dollars, all to benefit LifeBridge and Firestone. If they want to play that game, how about the bloated $66.6 million that Boulder County will be spending on frivolous open space in 2009? That equates to over $225 for every one of Boulder County’s 294,000 residents, just for one year.

An unknown Times-Call online commenter put it succinctly last year when addressing the anti-LifeBridge faction in Longmont: “You just don’t want the Church or it’s message to grow. I have heard you all speak. I have heard those words before. The scary part is what I see in your eyes. You and your friends remind me of the hatred I saw 40 years ago. Give it a rest, the folks at LBCC are good people.”

City Council Cheap Shots

At the May 27, 2008 Longmont City Council Meeting, Councilmember Sean McCoy took a couple of swipes at Lifebridge Christian Church (without saying their name). Here is the YouTube video, which can also be found at the Longmont Advocate YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffiExb7rzYk

He mentions a ” 40 year vesting“. The previous City Council approved 3/5/15 year vesting for residential, commercial, and civic/religious respectively. Or are new councilmembers not only throwing away past decisions, but ignorant of them as well?

He mentioned ” height restrictions” requests from a different church requesting to be annexed into Longmont. Lifebridge didn’t ask for height restrictions, but height exemptions, slight difference. And guess what they just got from Firestone? An exemption higher than what Longmont had approved during those negotiations. This is but the first example of what many of us were warning would happen if Longmont didn’t move forward with the annexation – looser standards, and of course less permit fee’s, and property and sales taxes.

The issue of height restrictions was something the anti-annexers were saying, but Mr. McCoy reminded us this current council had nothing to do with Lifebridge pulling out, yet he’s echoing these people, and of course his pre-election unfavorable comments about this annexation.

He mentioned ” low income housing exemptions” and ” million dollar homes“. The master plan calls for three housing districts; one primarily for seniors consisting of detached and attached homes, plus duplexes and triplexes; another area of general single-family residential homes, and a third district (on the north side of site) of custom homes. It is conceivable some of the custom homes could cost $1 million or more, but this is a very small percentage of available housing planned for Union. By contrast, Lifebridge will fully comply with the city standard of 10% low income affordable housing with no special exemption. So his “million dollar homes” is an obvious intentional exaggeration to anyone who looks at the actual plan.

He mentioned ” huge retail complex“,another gross exaggeration. He makes it sound as if it’ll be Harvest Junction East when there’s clearly no room for such an endeavor. Of course there will be some shops, but not this big-box haven he makes it out to be.

He wanted to make sure ” we were all onboard“, well, yeah, some people are, on a ship of fools.

Inappropriate Conduct

At the May 13, 2008 Longmont City Council Meeting, there was a snafu during the Public Invited To Be Heard portion. For some reason, one of the speakers who signed up to speak, Richard Yale, was not called up at the appropriate time. To his credit, Mayor Lange, once made aware of this mistake, stopped the council meeting and re-opened Public Invited to correct this, and Mr. Yale had his turn to speak.

During Public Invited, people can speak to just about anything they wish, including green cheese on the moon if they like. Recent council meetings have been long, and often entire agenda items are postponed. While it is best to speak to a public hearing item during that hearing, given the recent nature of meetings, and the possibility people have lives and can’t stick around all night, there is nothing stopping someone from speaking on an upcoming public hearing item during Public Invited.

In this situation though, one mistake was already made in regards to Mr. Yale’s ability to address City Council. But when he did speak he clearly stated he was in favor of the public hearing items they were to discuss later, and wanted to address a different issue. The parcel of land he spoke to was not the same as the land that was part of the public hearing to be held later. He made it fairly clear he was talking about the land near Weld County Roads 5 and 26, which he read into the record the Weld County Commissioners letter talking specifically about this land and this annexation. There is a point to this, read on.

How often after Public Invited do you hear a councilmember reference the speaker? Not very often. It’s rarer still to hear City Attorney Clay Douglas do it. But immediately after Mr. Yale spoke, Mr. Douglas laughed a little and said: ” Your rules and procedures say that you talk at public invited to be heard on any item that’s not scheduled for a public hearing. And the last speaker basically just talked about something scheduled for a public hearing. A better time to do that would be when the public hearing begins.” Mayor Lange responded with “you’re right” or “you’re correct”. Well, no, he isn’t.

If Mr. Douglas can’t tell the difference between the land that was part of the public hearing (that’s south of Hwy 119), and the land Mr. Yale spoke of and the Weld County Commissioners wrote the city about (that’s north of Hwy 119), well, that would explain the needless stalemate the city is in with Firestone, Lifebridge, and Weld County. And like I said, Mr. Yale made the effort to say he was in support of the vote they were about to take, and took. I didn’t hear Mr. Douglas complain about 5 speeches in one night about prairie dogs (by the same person), why would this be any different? Well, there is a reason.

Mr. Yale was one of the ones who pointed out Mr. Douglas’s inappropriate behavior with the anti-Lifebridge annexation folks at a recent Firestone Board of Trustee‘s meeting, and I’m pretty sure Mr. Douglas is aware of this. But he picked the wrong time and the wrong issue to get some payback. How often do you see someone from City Council or Staff publicly try to humiliate a citizen during a televised council meeting? Don’t just take my word for it, it’s on their website if you want to witness it for yourself at http://209.128.123.166/PPPortal/agenda/webcast.aspx .

I wrote the City Clerk about this and asked that it be forwarded on to Mr. Douglas for a public apology to Mr. Yale. I wasn’t asked to do this; it’s just the right thing to do. And it’s a subtle reminder of who he works for, which isn’t some fringe activist group (who don’t all live in Longmont). He serves at the pleasure of the City Council that Longmont citizens like Mr. Yale elect in or out of office.

Longmont: Take The Deal

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR LANGE AND LONGMONT CITY COUNCIL

For the record, I have no stake whatsoever in the following. I am not a landowner near this property, I am not a member of Lifebridge, nor do I speak for them or have ever been asked to. The proposal by Firestone’s Mayor Chad Auer in reference to Lifebridge Christian Church’s properties should be seriously considered and accepted without delay.

We’ve all been entertained by the antics for the last few months by some of your ” surrogate agitators and aggressors“, but the time for stalling and playing games is over. You have a decision to make and you can’t procrastinate any longer. This is what you were elected to do; take input and make policy. This deal is probably the absolute best you’re going to get; to pass on it would be foolish.

Six of the current seven councilmembers were involved in the recent elections of November and January. When you consider what “majority” you think you’re representing, keep in mind only three of you actually won with a majority ( Lange, McCoy, and Santos), one of you lost by a majority ( Benker in the mayors race) and the other two got in with less than a majority ( Hansen and Levison). Your decision, one way or the other, will bring out some citizens with pitchforks, figuratively, and you need to figure out which ones you’re willing to anger. Whatever political future you think you might have hangs in the balance, because this decision will affect Longmont for decades.

Personally, I think the landowners are giving away too much in this deal. They’ve been the target of slanderous and libelous attacks by some mouthpieces of certain councilmembers. These councilmembers and their attack dogs should be nervous about the recent Open Records request. There are limits to freedom of speech, and I’m willing to bet there are some shady backroom conversations certain people and councilmembers would rather keep out of the public eye. It’s probably too late for that, and I believe that if Longmont doesn’t take this deal, this so-called ” massive” open records request will be followed by a ” massive” lawsuit that Longmont can not afford, and will ultimately lose. In that scenario, all of us taxpayers are the losers.

The anti-annexation crowd didn’t want Lifebridge annexed into Longmont, this offer addresses that, and this group gets their wish. Longmont officials wanted a buffer; this offer addresses that as well. The only hitch is that Longmont has to come up with the money to buy this land as open space. None of you thought this would come for free, did you? This is prime real estate on Hwy 119, another reason I believe the landowners are giving away too much in this deal.

Longmont isn’t and hasn’t been dealing from a position of strength. It really doesn’t hold any cards and stand to lose much. The cute game of de-annexing and re-annexing, including certain roads with the goal of cutting off access to the landowners’ property, was a dirty trick and will cost the city at the county, state, and court levels if you allow this charade to continue. As strategies go, that was a bad move, and now it’s just about checkmate.

We all know some of you ran on, and had the backing of the anti-annexation movement. It’s become clearly evident that they were never just “anti-annexation” or looking out for what was “in it” for Longmont. They’ve followed and harassed the landowners from one city to another, then on to the county level, and have included in their attacks members of a church that has been part of this community for a century. This group has made it clear this church is no longer welcomed here, and the silence by some on council on this attack is tantamount to approval of this despicable behavior. Behavior, that by and large is by only a handful of people, and a small minority who signed the petition (which less than half voted for the anti-annexation candidate in January), yet council gives them the illusion that they are an actual majority of Longmont citizens, which they don’t come close to actually being.

My guess is that your attorneys and staff will suggest you accept this offer, regardless if you can afford the land in question or not. The impending lawsuit could be much more expensive in the long run, with no open space to show for it in the end, unlike with this offer. Some of you need to publicly divorce and disassociate yourselves with the vocal minority who has brought Longmont to this sad and unfortunate position. And do it quickly, you’ve stalled enough.

Cordially,
Chris Rodriguez

More Half Truths and Untruths

I guess the anti-Lifebridge annexation crowd is of the belief if you lie enough, often enough, that the spun twisted perception will become everyone else’s reality.

The latest example is a letter that ran in the Times-Call. In it the writer made it sound as if because of the former Firestone officials move to annex Lifebridge and Fairview land they were “voted out of office.” Ever heard of term limits? They couldn’t have lost because they couldn’t have run for re-election. And the other board member retired and moved out of state. This is surely to be twisted into that she was shamed out of office and had to run for the hills.

This letter brought up the robo-calls made to some Longmont residents, but failed to mention the mass mailer done with the name of the main anti-Lifebridge group on it that was much more negative and the mass email that went out from more or less the same people. All those people who spoke at City Council who were “incited” seemed to all come from the anti-Lifebridge side. So who incited anger?

The editorial from Weld County officials was also mentioned in this letter, saying they ” pointedly urged Longmont to reconsider” the Union annexation. Let me quote the FIRST sentence of that editorial: ” It matters to Weld County not one nickel whether the Lifebridge Christian Church’s future campus on Colo. Highway 119 is sited in unincorporated Weld County or within Longmont‘s city limits.” And just to further drive the point home, the LAST sentence was: ” Again, it matters not a nickel to Weld County but appears to be a lost opportunity for Longmont.” Yes, I could see how those two quotes could be misconstrued as them urging Longmont to annex, if I were a heavy drinker or drug user.

The last great and continuing lie is the financial aspect they keep regurgitating, this unsubstantiated claim that 80-90% of the land to be annexed would be tax exempt. This one has been repeated so often I’m fairly confident they are starting to truly believe it. Problem is, by their own admission and chagrin, they were unhappy that Lifebridge wasn’t more forthcoming in these actual numbers. So what to do? Make some up! There’s no proof of this inflated tax-exempt claim of theirs.

This all leads to the obvious question: How many of these half truths or outright lies were told to get their petition signed by about 6,000 people? I heard that one of their lines was ” We just want people to have the chance to be able to vote whether or not to annex this land, we aren’t against the church“. If that was so, which of course it’s not, why are they going to great pains, including this mass-mailer to Firestone residents, to continue to block not only the Lifebridge annexation into another city, but also 4C’s other property at Fairview?

I’ve stopped counting how many stories I’ve heard first and second hand about people feeling deceived into signing that petition. To that all I can say is pay a little more attention next time and do your homework. Yeah, I know, you’d rather just be able to trust people that appear to be concerned citizens without an agenda. I know some of you, and more every day, are realizing that just wasn’t the case here.

Which “Agitators and Aggressors”?

At the 3/25/08 Longmont City Council meeting, Sean McCoy, in his recurring role as appointed insulter, took aim this time at a website. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNslIi6DAM4


He called them ” surrogate agitators and aggressors“, and thanked the Longmont Police for showing up to the meeting, apparently for ” his and his family’s protection.” Would this be the same Longmont Police that Mr. McCoy accepted a $1,000 donation and Times-Call advertisement from, and are now pushing to make it so they can never donate to a campaign in Longmont again? Might they have been there because of reports of a regular attendee carrying a good size knife on him at council meetings? Did this genius know that? I’m betting not.

But since Mr. McCoy is accusing people exercising their Freedom Of Speech, which include phone or “robo-calls”, with terms like this, and feels the need for police protection for these robo-calls, I’d like to ask him for some consistency.

There were emails sent out that said a similar thing as these robo-calls, ” you need to come to tonight’s meeting“. These were sent by members of Progress Now Action, and while it clearly has an anti-Lifebridge tone, here’s the most hilarious part: Some were sent to current Lifebridge members! In some cases multiple emails sent to separate accounts of the same member! Talk about utter stupidity.

And here it is…
—————————————————————————————————-
Subject: FW: Your support is needed at a critical time for Longmont
Date: 3/25/2008 1:29:55 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time
From: info@progressnowaction.org
Reply To: jen@progressnowaction.org

XXXX,
Kaye Fissinger, a ProgressNow member in Longmont, asked me to forward you an urgent update on the LifeBridge/4C Development. I’ve forwarded her email below.

To: Jen Caltrider
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
From: Kaye Fissinger
Subject: URGENT – We need Longmont residents to attend the City Council meeting TONIGHT

Fellow Longmont Residents,

Earlier this year Longmont residents banded together to prevent a proposed annexation by the LifeBridge/4C Development Corporation. The proposed annexation would have cost Longmont residents thousands in taxpayer dollars every year.

Now, LifeBridge is at it again. This time they’re trying to get the land for their development annexed through the City of Firestone.

The Longmont City Council is poised to vote for annexation of three pieces of open space on our Weld County border for use as open space. If Longmont annexes this open space land, we will effectively prevent Firestone from annexing the LifeBridge development and protect wildlife habitat.

I want to invite other Longmont residents to join me at the LongmontCity Council meeting tonight to make sure the City Council knows that Longmont residents want this open space annexed.

The City Council meeting starts at 7:00 pm at City Hall, 350 Kimbark Street in Longmont.

Last night, Longmont residents were subjected to robo calls designed to further LifeBridge’s cause. The message urged residents to keep the City Council from annexing the property in question. So, we expect LifeBridge supporters to turn out in force and we need to make sure that Longmont City Council hears our voices as well.

Thanks again. I look forward to seeing everyone tonight at the City Council meeting.
Kaye Fissinger
Longmont Resident
————————————————————————————————–
Well, now, as the SNL Church Lady would say, isn’t that special? Of all the people who got up and spoke at this meeting, I don’t remember seeing a single Lifebridge supporter. It was a cacophony of the usual anti-Lifebridge crowd. Using Mr. McCoy’s logic and his worrying that the robo-calls would bring out people that meant him harm, in reality, it was the above email that appeared to have more impact based on who showed up and who spoke. ” Lifebridge is at it again“? “…w e will prevent Firestone from annexing the Lifebridge development“? “…make sure the City Council knows…” ? That sounds pretty accusatory, negative, aggressive, and agitating, possibly more so than the robo-calls.

Why do I get the feeling Mr. McCoy won’t chastise them in the same manner?

Mr. McCoy, who were you meaning when you said ” and others” during your accusations? Did you mean Progress Now Action? If you meant them or someone else you should say it. I’m sure you don’t want to appear to be inconsistent or partisan. Cherry picking can be a dangerous and embarrassing thing if you, a) either don’t have all the facts, or b) don’t know what you’re talking about.

Longmont/Firestone Dustup Pt.3

VIEWER WARNING: This piece is bound to really irritate some people. I’m well aware of the anger this will illicit, and your expected complaints have been considered. I try to be constructive when I criticize, but sometimes it’s nearly impossible. This is such a case. In the interest of completeness, and sharing this continuing story, I submit the following:

So far, I’ve reported on Firestone’s Trustee Board meeting, now it’s Longmont‘s turn. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a whole lot said about Firestone’s comments, but I suspect there will be as Firestone just approved the Firelight Park annexation.

But there was this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZnG9kXAsnk

In it, Longmont City Councilmember Sean McCoy rips into Firestone’s Mayor Mike Simone over his comment ” LifeBridge was forced to “walk away” by the election of an anti-religious faction to the LongmontCity Council“. He also took offense to the ” immoral” description of Longmont made by Trustee Steve Curtis. He said he found it ” very unethical on this individuals part“, meaning Mayor Simone. He basically threatened a lawsuit for slander.

Where to begin.

I’ve been to ONE Firestone board meeting, and I’m not an elected official or anything, but even I know that they are a Board of Trustee’s, NOT a City Council. Members are called Trustee’s, NOT Councilmembers. I’m starting to agree with several people who have mentioned to me this constant habit of getting peoples names wrong (and I guess titles now) and how it shows a total lack of respect. In this case, it’s Firestone’s leaders. In other cases, well, you listen for it yourself.

Next, Mr. McCoy’s complaining of ” inflammatory” comments. Some of us about fell out of our chairs on this one. This is the same guy who called people he disagreed with (we’re talking citizens here, not elected officials) ” the lunatic fringe“. He also said in the same breath how Longmont shouldn’t talk ” smack” about Boulder, yet it’s alright for Longmont to do that to Firestone? Watch the 1/29/08 video again ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo7ZF3eKYU ) and replace Boulder with Longmont, and Longmont with Firestone in the appropriate places and context. I know some of you hate it when I point out total hypocrisy like this, but it speaks for itself here.

Then this outrage over the ” anti-religious” comment. Here’s the problem: On 1/8/08( http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~412831.aspx), Mr. McCoy made the point of his detachment from the Lifebridge issue as he said he and the other new members of council didn’t vote on Lifebridge. So in essence, he’s saying the new council had nothing to do with what happened to Lifebridge. If that’s the case, then why would he take offense to Mayor Simone’s inference that an anti-religious faction was to blame when THEY HADN’T EVEN BEEN ELECTED YET AND OBVIOUSLY COULDN’T VOTE ON IT, as Mr. McCoy himself made clear as his closing point on 1/8/08?

Mr. McCoy tried to make the case that other factors caused Lifebridge to pull out (remember the ” 600% of Longmont residents” nonsense?). He must not have believed that nonsense himself, most people I know didn’t buy it, and obviously the Firestone Board of Trustee’s didn’t swallow that line either. His anger over this comment revealed that his 1/8/08 comments were a whitewash, otherwise why would this sting so much?

To be fair, is it possible Mr. McCoy was truly outraged over being called ” anti-religious? Absolutely. I assume most public officials are concerned with the image they put out. They wouldn’t want to be publicly called ” anti-religious“, true or not, for fear of alienating over half of their constituents. Then again, insulting constituents is getting to be a regular occurrence for Mr. McCoy. Let’s now add leaders from other cities and the press to the list, the same press ( Times-Call) he bought ad space from during his campaign. Very consistent and principled, not.

What’s the point of all this? I know I won’t be popular holding these officials accountable in this fashion when it needs to be done, and I find no joy in doing it. But these are our elected representatives. They should avoid embarrassing themselves, and the rest of us, and I’m hoping they might look at and listen to themselves, and learn from it in the future. And you wonder why so many people (not just in Longmont) are apathetic to the issues and these officials? I’m trying to get more people involved, this doesn’t help.

Hyperventilating Hypocrites

The last Longmont City Council meeting of 2007 was so chock full of nuggets just waiting to be mined. Here’s one of my favorites, an example of “it’s alright for us, but not for you!”

Days leading up to this meeting, Lifebridge Church pulled their plans for annexation into Longmont. The question for the council was whether or not to leave the question on the ballot. Was there really any question? Seemed like a “duhh” moment to me, and I know they have to go through the formality of removing it properly, that’s not the issue. The issue was that some of the people, not all, that circulated the petition against the annexation strongly requested it stay on the ballot. A message needed to be sent, doggone it!

City Attorney Clay Douglas rightly pointed out it was pretty much a moot point, but that simple point was apparently lost on some people. One of the petition supporters rightly said that the end result was the same as if the question passed (as in NO to annexation), so the goal was reached, what was the point? Still missed on some. What some petition signers may not have known or believed (even though some of us have been repeatedly saying it) was that some of the petition backer’s motives were more than simply overturning the YES council vote on annexation.

They were after the punishment and embarrassment of Lifebridge and some members of City Council. Their request to keep this on the ballot is one example. The fact some of them said they’re now moving against Weld County on the Lifebridge issue is another. They also wanted there to be some kind of act of council to make it so Lifebridge couldn’t come back later and try again to annex. There were even some members of council asking the City Attorney about this ridiculous concept – so they bought right into this anti-Lifebridge mentality. Makes them no different than the angry mob that supports them.

Some have been writing lately that the new council had nothing to do with Lifebridge pulling out. The above is yet one example. Here’s another: remember the smiling faces of the people bringing the anti-annexation petition to the city clerk on the front of the Times-Call? I’ll give you one guess ( 4 actually) of who they strongly backed for city council. Who was leading that pictured group? Their current candidate Richard Juday, who was also, I believe, the campaign manager for one of the new council members. It’s all intertwined. If there’s any doubt, just ask one of the new council members or candidates where they stood, and where they stand, on the annexation, and Lifebridge in general.

So the people who wielded their right to petition government don’t want people they disagree with to have the same right to petition, which could include a church submitting plans and permits. They can muddy it up saying that’s not really what they mean, but that’s what it amounts to. City Attorney Douglas mentioned that when an annexation is denied there is a process to reapply and there may be some time restrictions. But this annexation was approved and voluntarily pulled. There is nothing stopping Lifebridge from resubmitting it or starting where they left off. Fat chance they will, so those against it can rest easy. Or can they? More on that in a bit.

I assume some of them are steamed that they spent a bunch of their time and money on something that’s become moot and pointless, but they still got what they wanted. Apparently that’s not good enough, and I’m betting half of you that signed the petition didn’t sign up for a crusade against a church. Feel free to say as much publicly, embarrassed or not.

The rich and fragrant irony of it is this: I’m hearing rumors of other petitions and recalls. Not by corporations or churches, but just ” normal everyday people“, the kind the anti-annexation crowd claimed to be. Suffice it to say those people will not like these petitions, but who said everyone liked their petition? Who knows, maybe one of the petitions is in favor of Lifebridge, plenty of people have been writing in how they feel they were railroaded. What’s good for the goose, and all that.

But I do have one question, what if that question stayed on the ballot and people voted FOR the annexation? What then? It was baseless wishful thinking to assume it was a slam dunk, sort of like saying a ” blue tide” would sweep in Karen Benker as Mayor ( nope) and this supposed mandate from a new majority (actual votes say, again, nope).

Election Autopsy Pt. 2

This next part about the recent election has to do with who voted, and more importantly, who didn’t.

Roughly, half of the residents of Longmont are registered to vote, and roughly half of those actually did vote. About 17,000 people bothered to vote, that’s pretty sad. With a turnout that low, no one on either side can claim any mandate, message, or claim “the people spoke”. Barely anyone actually won by a majority (50.1% or higher). But, of those that did win in city council, the new majority comprises a different direction.

Which candidates won solely because they were part of a ” bloc” of candidates? Or how many got in because of an anti-incumbent or anti-good old boy network attitude with the voters? In other words, who didn’t get in based on their own merits? 1? 2? 3? You’ll have to decide that for yourself. If you say none, you’re fooling yourself.

LIFEBRIDGE ANNEXATION IMPACT
More than likely because of who got elected, and the comments they and their “supporters” are making, Lifebridge Church has decided against trying to annex into Longmont. So the special election in January will not include a question about this item.

Lifebridge says they’ll still build at the Union location, and even though Mayor Lange said that the perception that they are not welcome isn’t true, you can’t blame them for having that concern. This prediction is worthless now, but I believe a majority of the people in Longmont are not against this annexation or the church, but a majority of possible voters in a special election might have been. Again, you have to look at who voted and how they voted in November. Odds are only the truly committed (and many need to be) would have come out for a special election on this, and a lower number than the half that voted before.

So for now this issue isn’t one. Or is it? My claim all along is that these anti-annexation people weren’t just against this, and I’m either going to be proven right or wrong in the not too distant future. Based on some of their comments, many of them are outright anti-religion, anti-churches, anti-Lifebridge, you name it. They’re anti-a lot and not pro-much, except hearing themselves rant. Their next move: stop the entire project, period.

The way I see it for Lifebridge, this isn’t such a bad thing. Pull up stakes in Longmont, go to friendlier environs in Weld County, build as you like (probably cheaper with less regulations) and watch Longmont come begging in a few years for you to annex. Cooler heads usually prevail, and when these flat-earth no-growthers are through scorching Longmont with their great ideas, they’ll be replaced or be forced to adapt. Question is, when will their moonbat supporters turn on them – these types always do. Even when they win, they get angrier and start eating their own. It’s entertaining to watch actually.

JANUARY SPECIAL ELECTION
Well, now that the main event is off, there is an empty city council seat to be decided. You have a choice between Gabe Santos and Richard Juday. Mr. Santos lost the at-large seat in November, but pulled in 6,000 votes, no small amount. Mr. Juday didn’t run in ’07 but did in ’05 where he got about 900 votes. Does that point to a lopsided victory? Afraid not. Mr. Juday was part of the anti-annexation drive and helped get in this “bloc” of candidates.

You’ve seen my comments about the supporters of this, if you were against the annexation and liked that “bloc”, than Mr. Juday is your candidate. If on the other hand you were one of the many who slept through the last election only to cringe at what we ended up with, or if you are unhappy with the treatment Lifebridge has received – and now is about to leave Longmont for good – than Mr. Juday is definitely NOT your candidate. Mr. Santos was previously endorsed by the previous Mayor ( Pirnack) and the Times-Call, you have to decide if that sways you one way or the other.

Just make the effort to actually vote, it’s the only way to get a proper reading on what the citizenry is really thinking, not just some of them.