Some content from TimesCall.com
Our mayor point-blank says:
“…I didn’t want the scrutiny.” and “I didn’t want people picking everything apart like they seem to like to do. I wanted to stay out of that fray, and I did.”
One has to wonder about someone that put $4,000 of his own money into his campaign and yet doesn’t think the voters deserve to know what it was spent on. For all we know there were hired thugs blogging for him daily… hm.
A commenter on the story, George S. had this to say:
Bryan’s baum-shell: “I didn’t want the scrutiny.” That speaks volumes. Politicians who say that have something to hide, and whining that the Election Committee is biased against you is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Cockroaches run from a light. The Longmont Leadership folks, Wrongmont and Katie Witt didn’t want the scrutiny either. And their Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and developer pals sit there like the “see-no-evil” monkeys.
What a conundrum for the Times-Call. Baum’s buddies are your big advertisers and country-club pals. And yet you’ve editorialized forthrightly in favor of open government and sunshine laws for decades, and a statement such as “I didn’t want the scrutiny” should make your spidey senses go to DefCon 5.
So which will guide you, Times-Call editorialists? Your ad revenue or your principles? Unfortunately, I’m betting the former. Standing up for what’s right is uncomfortable, but I’m betting you’ll decide that getting the cold shoulder at Fox Hill is worse.
George S., Longmont, 1/20/2010 9:59 AM
and when the mayor’s wife attacked his assertions, he also had this to say:
Stephanie, “being scrutinized by his opposition as to who gave him what” goes by another name: openness. Wouldn’t you want to know that about your opponents in the next election? All declawing the EC does is protect candidates from scrutiny whose funding really needs to be scrutinized. If a council member votes to grant a big zoning change to the XYZ Widget Company or the First Tax-Sheltered Megachurch of Perpetual Profit, shouldn’t we as taxpayers and voters (and you as managing his opponent’s campaign) know if that council member holds stock in that company, is a member of that church, or has received contributions from those who do and are? Bryan said that HE didn’t want the scrutiny … but who else on his slate of candidates is he also protecting from scrutiny? If everything is so above-board, Stephanie Baum, I’m sure you won’t have any trouble, right here in this thread, naming for us the members of Council who are, for instance, members of LifeBridge church. For the record, so the electorate knows. If you dodge my queston, it’s yet another scrutiny-avoidance that will speak volumes.
George S., Longmont, 1/20/2010 2:59 PM
You know, I’d think the mayor’s wife would have the wits to stop trying to defend him, she’s doing more harm than good.
She’s also clearly as thin-skinned as her husband, leaving a comment about a post at my political humor blog ‘Whiskey Tango Foxtrot’:
Too all, please ignore my typo at the bottom of my earlier post – “t-shirts” became a mildly vulger typo. Some people think this is newsworthy enough to repost on their blogs. I would image the adults in the audience would recognize we’re all human and typos are just that. The children among us will giggle and point and make fools of themselves. Decide for yourself which group you fall in to.
Stephanie Baum, Longmont, CO, 1/20/2010 7:27 PM
That’s hilarious Ms. Baum. Your husband, the mayor, says something as childish as ‘…well I guess we should all get up and leave…’ when criticized by citizens and you call his opponents ‘children’.
Pretty obvious to the casual observer who needs to grow up.
Your hard-core partisanship during the election was obvious and hateful and your husband is clearly of the same stripe. The public is watching now and neither of you are acquitting yourselves well.
To view the documents, just click on the links below to view the PDF files for the Council Retreat. IMPORTANT: You MUST have the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system prior to selecting an item on the agenda in order to be able to view these files.
City of Longmont
2010 City Council Retreat
January 22-23, 2010
3100 Logic Drive
Friday, January 22
- Arrive/Continental Breakfast (8:00 a.m.)
- Welcome and Overview of Retreat 179kb (8:00 a.m. – 8:15 a.m.)
- Legacy Building Exercise (8:15 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.)
- Break (approximately 9:15 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.)
- Envision a connected City – Telecommunications 74kb (9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.) Attachments 1.1mb
- Lunch on site (11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.)
- Prosperity to End Poverty 224kb (12:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.)
Attachment 1 109kb / Attachments 2-4 858kb
- Break/Snacks (3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.)
- Economic/Fiscal Sustainability 69kb (3:45 p.m. – 5:45 p.m.)
Attachments A-I 4.8mb / Attachment J 340kb / Attachments K-M 129kb
- Public invited to be heard and adjourn (upon break from last topic)
- Retreat Dinner at the Callahan House (6:00 p.m.)
Saturday, January 23
- Arrive/Continental Breakfast (8:00 a.m.)
- Economic/Fiscal Sustainability (8:15 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.) (see links above)
- Break, Teambuilding and Photos (11:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.)
- Lunch on site (12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.)
- Open Space 37kb (1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.)
Attachment A 8.4mb / Attachment B 56kb / Attachment C 4.1mb / Attachment D 13kb
- Develop Work Plan (3:30 p.m.)
A. Discuss with Staff Regarding Workload Impact and Resources Needed
B. Finalize Action Items and Timelines on Work Plan
- Review of Retreat/Input Regarding Future Retreats
- Public invited to be heard immediately following last item
2009 City Council Workplan Update pdf, 94 kb
2009 City of Longmont Accomplishments pdf, 95 kb
2010 Major Work Items pdf, 69 kb
Spotted something interesting by the mayor’s wife in the Times-Call comments.
Check it out at Whiskey Tango Foxtrot – the place for all of Longmont’s ‘WTF’ moments.
Wow. Mayor Baum simply does not like being criticized. Ever. At all.
Here’s the full remarks of the citizen who was so brusquely cut off:
My name is Judy Lubow, and I live at 106 Granada Court in Longmont. I’d like to comment on 3 topics so forgive me for speaking very quickly.
I am very concerned about the fate of Longmont’s Election Committee and the entire Fair Campaign Practices Act. Recent 4 to 3 votes of Council gutted the City’s defense of the Act in the lawsuit brought against it, and also raised the possibility of alternative roles – or no roles – for the Election Committee. It seems to me these votes indicate an objection on the part of the conservative Council majority to the very concept and goals of the Fair Campaign Act and the Election Committee. These goals are to fairly regulate the amount of money spent on political campaigns, and to make sure the campaigns are run according to fair and transparent reporting rules.
Personally, I believe the great majority of American people are heartily sick of the huge, wasteful and corrupting sums that are presently being spent on political campaigns. I believe our citizens want campaign finance limits such as those found in Longmont’s Act. I urge all members of Council to respect this longing for real reform, and support both the Campaign Act and the Election Committee.
The next comment concerns the proposed permit for Heaven Fest to hold a mega-festival, drawing tens of thousands of people to the Union Reservoir. It is my understanding that the City will only be charging the promoters a paltry $50 for the right to hold what amounts to be a 2 week event at the Reservoir – if you include the proposed set up and tear down time. I wonder: do any of you have any idea how much a commercial venue would charge for such an event? I have been finding out. So far, I have only been able to talk with the Red Rocks Amphitheater staff. Red Rocks would charge 11% of the entire gross, and would do that for merely a single concert of less than 10,000 people, and only for a one day rental. In other words, our city is giving away our Reservoir to the Heaven Fest operators for basically nothing, while commercial venues would be charging tens of thousands of dollars more – if not hundreds of thousands, for an equivalent mega event. That means, our city taxpayers are essentially subsidizing this event for a huge amount of money. I don’t think that’s right.
Lastly, I was distressed when, at last week’s council meeting, our Mayor castigated a member of the public who had a different opinion than the Mayor about solar energy rebates. Certainly, people can have differing opinions. But the mayor – a public official in his official capacity – should not be browbeating a citizen for having different views, and certainly should not be advising a commenter to move out of the City. In my opinion, such treatment was beneath the dignity required of the office and, hopefully, will never be repeated.
Longmont’s Left Hand Brewing Company will host a fundraiser to raise money for the victims in Haiti.
“Left Hand for Haiti” will take place on Jan. 21, 5-8pm, at the Left Hand Tasting Room. The event will include a live band, food, a silent auction, a representative from local nonprofit “Colorado Haiti Project” and, of course, beer.
All donations, funds from the silent auction, tips for the band and $1-per-pint sold will go directly to the Louisville-based Colorado Haiti Project, which has given aid in Haiti for more than 20 years.
For information on Left Hand, visit lefthandbrewing.com or call 303.772.0258. For info on the Colorado Haiti Project, visit coloradohaitiproject.org.
January 2010 Yellow Scene
From the Times Call:
Longmont ice rink expects 11.5 percent profit from 2009
By Scott Rochat
© 2010 Longmont Times-Call
LONGMONT — The Longmont Ice Pavilion is becoming a moneymaker for the city.
According to preliminary 2009 numbers (which don’t become final until March), the ice rink took in $146,956 during the year while spending $131,752. That comes to $15,204 of revenue, or roughly an 11.5 percent gain.
“It was just awesome,” said city recreation manager Jeff Friesner.
“This is becoming the place to be in the wintertime,” agreed Mark Mann, who manages the ice rink.
The 2009 figures reflect the last half of the 2008-09 skating season and the first half of the 2009-10 season. The season ends March 14.
The news is a welcome turnaround for a rink that once was on the chopping block. In October 2007, the Longmont City Council cut the rink from the budget due to its operating costs; at the time, the ice pavilion was making back no more than 60 percent of its expenses.
A new council gave the rink a second chance that December. Skaters didn’t take long to make the most of it. The rink broke even in 2008 and drew an estimated 21,000 people to the ice for the 2008-09 season.
“I would comfortably say we’ll easily surpass that figure,” Friesner said of this season’s expected attendance.
Officials, neighbors talk about 2 previous Heaven Fest events
Event could bring 30,000 people to Longmont
By Rachel Carter
© 2010 Longmont Times-Call
BRIGHTON — John Jukkola is happy Heaven Fest won’t be in his back yard this summer.
And he doesn’t want to see the Christian music festival return.
“I’m glad they’re gone, and I hope they don’t come back, but Longmont needs to know what they’re in for,” Jukkola said Tuesday afternoon in his shop on his 60-acre property on Weld County Road 4, about a mile north of the field where Heaven Fest was held the past two years.
We’re just getting under way but you can expect much more content shortly! We welcome submissions of stories, photos and video. Use our contact page to reach our editorial staff.
One of the anonymously insane commenters at the TC blurted this out:
mfrede, sorry that you don’t get it. We have to rescue progress from the so-called progressives. We need a liberal, not a libertarian, social order with deeper values than material advances. Your idea all pre-existing traditions or values are by definition just so much unprogressive baggage is as philistine as it is laughable. Pseudo progressives pose danger of fanaticism, authoritarianism, abuse of power, exploitation or abuse of the old and the young, corruption, rigged elections and harm to minorities. In our confused discourse, some people who embody these very threats have disguised themselves as liberals. Their deep intolerance and intimidatory techniques in pursuit of license and power must be resisted in the interests of preserving a decent, fair and free society. That is why I am a progressive.
Wrangler, Longmont, 1/15/2010 12:21 AM
This is so twisted up logically it hurts to read.
The person behind this pseudonym should really seek psychiatric help immediately… obvious loss of connection to reality.
I mean, this person is so spooky they should be required to wear a yellow shirt with thick black diagonal stripes at all types to indicate ‘hazard’.
Anyone this mentally disrupted shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
The new Longmont City Council is sworn in – and at. These are images from Flickr.com and may take up to thirty seconds to load. Please wait.[flickr-gallery mode=”photoset” photoset=”72157622668572919″]
A few educational notes about public photography
- You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it. i.e. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.
- You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it. i.e. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.
- Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.
- Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. i.e. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.
- Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:
- accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
- children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
- bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
- residential, commercial, and industrial buildings
- Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.
- Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.
- It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.
- You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.
- Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.
These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you need legal help, please contact a lawyer.
Here’s a few more good references on photographer’s rights:
Video from Longmont City Council Open Forum January 12th, 2010. Listen to our new mayor’s remarks to a citizen asking for reconsideration of the solar tax credit.
Content being developed