Comments for Loveland City Watch http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org City Council Activities & Decisions Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:25:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Drawing the Legal Line in the Sand by rich mcfadden http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/26/drawing-the-legal-line-in-the-sand/comment-page-1/#comment-62 rich mcfadden Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:25:44 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=27#comment-62 Why wouldn't I vote YES on all three? Let's see, reductions in property taxes, state payroll tax and vehicle fees and registration. Yippee! The public sector and teachers union will propagate falsehoods to squash these three(Ugly 3)to protect their own at taxpayers expense. Truly deplorable. Gov't only grows and these three keeps Big Gov't in check as they go around TABOR. Vote YES! Why wouldn’t I vote YES on all three? Let’s see, reductions in property taxes, state payroll tax and vehicle fees and registration. Yippee! The public sector and teachers union will propagate falsehoods to squash these three(Ugly 3)to protect their own at taxpayers expense. Truly deplorable. Gov’t only grows and these three keeps Big Gov’t in check as they go around TABOR. Vote YES!

]]> Comment on Shotgun Approach to Downtown Revitalization? by rich mcfadden http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/08/08/shotgun-approach-to-downtown-revitalization/comment-page-1/#comment-61 rich mcfadden Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:18:32 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=80#comment-61 Re: Main St dream may be clouded by economy editorial on 9/12 Your editorial stated, “Is now the right time for Main Street?” I would agree that now is not the time to possibly burden Loveland taxpayers with $1 million more in expenses. Yes, this is contractually how much the Rialto Bridge project would cost the city’s Council Capital Reserve fund. This capital program is primarily funded by new residential and commercial development fees. We all know how uncertain those funds might be relied upon in the future as the housing bust might not ever recover. The economic outlook for city revenue is precarious at best. Why not save existing funds for necessary city services such as street and building maintenance, transportation, libraries and police and fire? The Rialto Bridge building plan features a space for a restaurant and a “green room” for performers and storage. As numerous restaurants have attempted but failed to operate profitably on 4th street, why add additional restaurant space through partial taxpayer subsidies? If people can’t afford to dine out, shall we subsidize their meals as well? Additionally, how would a ‘green room’ for performers and art display area drive economic development? Since the Downtown Development Authority purchased the Rialto in 1987, hasn’t the city continued to subsidize its operations? Finally, I agree with the editorial board’s suggestion that a “city employee” could be utilized to focus on downtown efforts, but only if this person is an existing employee. Hiring a new employee financed by Loveland taxpayers does not seem prudent right now. During this recession, the private sector has cut positions and increased productivity and efficiency from existing employees. Cannot the City Manager and other current city employees pitch in to assist in this area? Respectfully, Richard McFadden Re: Main St dream may be clouded by economy editorial on 9/12
Your editorial stated, “Is now the right time for Main Street?” I would agree that now is not the time to possibly burden Loveland taxpayers with $1 million more in expenses. Yes, this is contractually how much the Rialto Bridge project would cost the city’s Council Capital Reserve fund. This capital program is primarily funded by new residential and commercial development fees. We all know how uncertain those funds might be relied upon in the future as the housing bust might not ever recover. The economic outlook for city revenue is precarious at best. Why not save existing funds for necessary city services such as street and building maintenance, transportation, libraries and police and fire?
The Rialto Bridge building plan features a space for a restaurant and a “green room” for performers and storage. As numerous restaurants have attempted but failed to operate profitably on 4th street, why add additional restaurant space through partial taxpayer subsidies? If people can’t afford to dine out, shall we subsidize their meals as well? Additionally, how would a ‘green room’ for performers and art display area drive economic development? Since the Downtown Development Authority purchased the Rialto in 1987, hasn’t the city continued to subsidize its operations?
Finally, I agree with the editorial board’s suggestion that a “city employee” could be utilized to focus on downtown efforts, but only if this person is an existing employee. Hiring a new employee financed by Loveland taxpayers does not seem prudent right now. During this recession, the private sector has cut positions and increased productivity and efficiency from existing employees. Cannot the City Manager and other current city employees pitch in to assist in this area?
Respectfully,
Richard McFadden

]]> Comment on Low-Income Housing Project for Artists to Boost Loveland’s Economy by LB http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/08/21/low-income-housing-project-for-artists-to-boost-lovelands-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-36 LB Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:02:58 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=106#comment-36 Low-income housing brings crime. The subsidy is not the bigger cost. Increased police activity as the result of low-income and "off-the-grid" drifters and con men who will only hurt downtown more. People looking to have others pay the cost of their living while pursuing their dream are the kind of people we don't want around here. I wonder how many Loveland taxpayers would follow their passion in life if someone else just paid their housing. How about low-income housing for fishermen? Have you ever seen a real estate ad for housing that says And Crappy Low-Income Housing Next Door! Of course not. It brings crime. The Wall Street Journal just had a great piece on the website GOSECTION8.COM listing "affordable" subsidized housing across the country. Welfare mothers moving from Detroit to Las Vegas because they haven't wrecked the affordable hosing in Las Vegas yet - must read. Of course, they don't want to live around crime either but bring their little gangsta rapping out of control off-spring with them creating crime for everyone else in the once quiet neighborhood. Keep Loveland clean by getting the pot smoking art subsidizing liberals out of city hall. Whew - I said it. Keep up the good work Spooner! Low-income housing brings crime. The subsidy is not the bigger cost. Increased police activity as the result of low-income and “off-the-grid” drifters and con men who will only hurt downtown more. People looking to have others pay the cost of their living while pursuing their dream are the kind of people we don’t want around here.

I wonder how many Loveland taxpayers would follow their passion in life if someone else just paid their housing. How about low-income housing for fishermen?

Have you ever seen a real estate ad for housing that says And Crappy Low-Income Housing Next Door!

Of course not. It brings crime. The Wall Street Journal just had a great piece on the website GOSECTION8.COM listing “affordable” subsidized housing across the country.

Welfare mothers moving from Detroit to Las Vegas because they haven’t wrecked the affordable hosing in Las Vegas yet – must read. Of course, they don’t want to live around crime either but bring their little gangsta rapping out of control off-spring with them creating crime for everyone else in the once quiet neighborhood.

Keep Loveland clean by getting the pot smoking art subsidizing liberals out of city hall. Whew – I said it.

Keep up the good work Spooner!

]]> Comment on City to Offer Health Clinic for City Employees by Ronald http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/29/city-to-offer-health-clinic-for-city-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Ronald Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:35:13 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=75#comment-7 Looks great, I hope more people will review and evaluate the role/responsibility of government and the role/responsibility of private citizens. The distinction is so blurred. Looks great, I hope more people will review and evaluate the role/responsibility of government and the role/responsibility of private citizens. The distinction is so blurred.

]]> Comment on Drawing the Legal Line in the Sand by Ron Hopwood http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/26/drawing-the-legal-line-in-the-sand/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Ron Hopwood Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:48:18 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=27#comment-5 The tabor law was put in effect to support the taxpayer from government wasteful spending. I agree with Amendment 60,61 and proposition 101. Again they are in effect for protection of the taxpayer. If revenue is truly needed the taxpayer will support it with their vote. Ron The tabor law was put in effect to support the taxpayer from government wasteful spending. I agree with Amendment 60,61 and proposition 101. Again they are in effect for protection of the taxpayer. If revenue is truly needed the taxpayer will support it with their vote. Ron

]]> Comment on Drawing the Legal Line in the Sand by neils http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/26/drawing-the-legal-line-in-the-sand/comment-page-1/#comment-4 neils Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:39:10 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=27#comment-4 Noah, Let's start with the point about my objectivity. I posted a little about myself on Lovelandpolitics.com, simply to tell a little bit about my experience and why I became interested in City business. If you knew who I work for, the type of work we do, what my position is and how I get compensated, you would find out quickly my 'interest' in City business has nothing to do with my job. I'm sure as this project progresses some of that information might come out. I will try to do my best to be objective, but keep in mind I will still be choosing what topics I write about and which side of the fence will be reported. I felt this story was pretty good, but if you look at the $50,000 story I'm clearly not reporting on how Downtown will benefit, the train of thought of past City Councils that came up with the grant program, or why this program is 'such a good deal' for all of us - my goal is to inform people enough that they become interested and gather their own information to fill in the details. The report is truthful, but by no means 100% unbiased, I caution all readers that no reporting is 100% objective - there will always be a side not reported on. Stereotyping me because of what industry I work in is just as bad as you stereotyping the 'purpose' of government, both are. . . well, stereotypes. The 20% reduction comes from the City of Loveland - I'll have to look back at my notes, but I believe I first heard it from John Duval during a Council Study Session in June. The 20% figure was also given to the individual departments from the City Manager's office - along with the four-year time frame. Again, objectivity issues based on the source of where my information comes from. Thanks for your comment and if you have additional information about 60, 61, 101 please feel free to post it. Noah, Let’s start with the point about my objectivity. I posted a little about myself on Lovelandpolitics.com, simply to tell a little bit about my experience and why I became interested in City business. If you knew who I work for, the type of work we do, what my position is and how I get compensated, you would find out quickly my ‘interest’ in City business has nothing to do with my job. I’m sure as this project progresses some of that information might come out.

I will try to do my best to be objective, but keep in mind I will still be choosing what topics I write about and which side of the fence will be reported. I felt this story was pretty good, but if you look at the $50,000 story I’m clearly not reporting on how Downtown will benefit, the train of thought of past City Councils that came up with the grant program, or why this program is ‘such a good deal’ for all of us – my goal is to inform people enough that they become interested and gather their own information to fill in the details. The report is truthful, but by no means 100% unbiased, I caution all readers that no reporting is 100% objective – there will always be a side not reported on.

Stereotyping me because of what industry I work in is just as bad as you stereotyping the ‘purpose’ of government, both are. . . well, stereotypes.

The 20% reduction comes from the City of Loveland – I’ll have to look back at my notes, but I believe I first heard it from John Duval during a Council Study Session in June. The 20% figure was also given to the individual departments from the City Manager’s office – along with the four-year time frame. Again, objectivity issues based on the source of where my information comes from.

Thanks for your comment and if you have additional information about 60, 61, 101 please feel free to post it.

]]> Comment on Drawing the Legal Line in the Sand by Noah http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/26/drawing-the-legal-line-in-the-sand/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Noah Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:23:34 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=27#comment-3 How did we come up with a 20% reduction? Even after full implementation, 10 or more years, not the falsely stated 4 years, the reduction would be no more than 1-2%. These are rate cuts not revenue cuts. The numbers are near impossible to pinpoint as they require growth rates and future revenue to calculate accurately. This is all scare tactics because government does not want a 1 cent cut, 1 dollar cut or 100 dollar cut. Their only purpose is to enlarge themselves never concerning themselves with efficiency. I question the author’s ability to be objective. The author does work in the heavy equipment industry. An industry that is famous for living off the taxpayer. How did we come up with a 20% reduction? Even after full implementation, 10 or more years, not the falsely stated 4 years, the reduction would be no more than 1-2%. These are rate cuts not revenue cuts. The numbers are near impossible to pinpoint as they require growth rates and future revenue to calculate accurately.

This is all scare tactics because government does not want a 1 cent cut, 1 dollar cut or 100 dollar cut. Their only purpose is to enlarge themselves never concerning themselves with efficiency.
I question the author’s ability to be objective. The author does work in the heavy equipment industry. An industry that is famous for living off the taxpayer.

]]> Comment on Loveland Handing Out Cash to Private Entities by Betty http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/2010/07/26/loveland-handing-out-cash-to-private-entities/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Betty Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:35:31 +0000 http://www.lovelandcitywatch.org/?p=34#comment-2 Saw you article on lovelandpolitics. Keep up the good work! Saw you article on lovelandpolitics. Keep up the good work!

]]>