Tag Archive for renewable energy

ATP siege on Longmont

Cover Letter of ATP Candidate Survey

(ATP logo and organization name at top of page)

October 3, 2011

{Redacted}
{Redacted}
Longmont, CO 80501

Dear {Redacted}:

How encouraging it is that, across the nation, citizens are becoming involved in the issues affecting their communities like never before. No matter the political party or persuasion, I’m sure you’ll agree that everyone benefits with increased awareness of the effects of government policies.

Longmont is no different. American Tradition Partnership’s membership has grown by leaps and bounds since 2009. In fact, we are proud to say that for 2011, all of ATP’s issue education program is supported by local contributions! [ATP reported contributions of $665,725 on its IRS 990 Form in 2008, the latest available. Longmont’s radicals are committed, but not to the tune of six digits.]

We have enclosed your American Tradition Partnership (ATP) Candidate Issue Survey for the 2011 Municipal Election, as part of our nationwide program.

This survey features a brief series of questions regarding property, development, tax, and environmental issues. We do not assume that it addresses every aspect of the matters at hand; it will, though, provide citizens in your district – and the public – with important information regarding local issues.

ATP contributes to the social welfare by educating the public on candidates’ positions, and through grassroots lobbying. Our mission, to promote economically sustainable land, water, and environmental policy is characterized by our motto, “Rediscovering America’s Treasures.” [From the ATP website: “Dozens of radical eco-organizations … have set their sights on robbing Americans of the right to exist, achieve and produce.” With an assertion like this, who’s the “radical.”]

Surveys must be returned postmarked on/before October 10th.

Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at donald.f@americantradition.org, or you can reach me locally at 720-443-2870.

Thank you, and good luck!

Regards,

Donald E. Ferguson
Executive Director

American Tradition Partnership is recognized as an IRS Section 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organization, and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

[Here are the mailers that have been sent by ATP thus far.

And the report filed with Longmont’s City Clerk clearly indicates that their Independent Expenditure/Electioneering Communications activity was both to “support” and “oppose” candidates.]


Text of ATP Candidate Survey      [Emphasis added by FRL]

(ATP logo and organization name at top of page)

2011 Issue Survey for
{Redacted}, Candidate for Longmont City Council {Redacted}

    1. Will you oppose any effort to enter Longmont into a “revenue sharing” agreement with Boulder County, which would transfer control of Longmont development decisions and Longmont taxpayers’ money to Boulder? [ ] Yes [ ] No
    2. Would you support the City of Longmont spending taxpayer money for energy efficiency or so-called “green” projects, even if the project will never achieve the promised cost savings, or a measurable financial “break-even” point? [ ] Yes [ ] No
    3. Will you oppose any attempt to increase taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies or by any means raise consumer costs of energy for the advancement of so-called “alternative” energy sources? [ ] Yes [ ] No
    4. In 2010, Mayor Brian Baum and a majority on City Council blocked an attempt to give away $150,000 of Longmont utility customers’ funds to help provide $4,500 “stimulus” checks to a handful of residents. The funds were to be used to buy solar panels for private homes whose owners could afford the additional $25,000 cost. Councilmembers Sarah Levison, Sean McCoy and Brian Hansen supported the program. Do you support the Mayor’s and Council majority’s decision to oppose such publicly funded “bailout” money for “green” projects? [ ] Yes [ ] No
    5. Proposition 103 raises income and sales taxes for the claimed purpose of increasing funding for schools. Do you support or oppose Proposition 103? [ ] Oppose [ ] Support
    6. Twin Peaks Mall has become a front-burner issue in Longmont, and the loss of tax revenue from shoppers traveling to other communities is burdening the city. Do you support tax incentives and other proactive measures being offered by the city to induce developer Harvest Junction to redevelop the Twin Peaks Mall, so long as the measure is revenue-neutral or revenue-positive in in its early stages? [ ] Yes [ ] No
    7. Do you support anti-growth policies or maintaining high regulations and fees for homebuilding in Longmont, similar to policies in Boulder? [ ] Support [ ] Oppose
    8. The Audubon Society allows natural resource exploration in its wildlife refuges if such development is done in a safe and clean manner, in part because it means large amounts of revenue for the wildlife charity. Will you support resource exploration in any and all eligible areas if all aesthetic, safety and environmental standards were met, and if it benefit the city’s revenues? [ ] Yes [ ] No  [The national office of the Audubon Society had denied this assertion.]
  1. A detailed EPA report (available on our website) ties burdensome regulation to premature death due to destruction of economic opportunity – particularly for poor and middle-class communities. Do you agree that radical environmentalism and excessive regulation poses a threat to Americans’ health, rights, property and prosperity? [ ] Yes [ ] No  [More preposterous assertions of this kind can be found on ATP’s website.]
  2. One Longmont City Council member has advocated a homebuilding moratorium. Do you believe this type of policy would be detrimental to the city of Longmont? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  3. *Do you support or oppose the expansion of Longmont Municipal Airport? [ ] Support [ ] Oppose

– CANDIDATE AUTHORIZATION –

My signature affirms the answers given in this survey accurately represent my position on these issues as a candidate in the city of Longmont.

Signed:

{Redacted}

Date:

Thank you for your participation. You may fax your survey to us at 202-204-6051 (or scan and email to info@americantradition.org); however, for results to be official, a signed hard copy must be returned as well. Please return completed, signed survey POSTMARKED BY OCTOBER 8, 2011 to:

American Tradition Partnership
Attn: Candidate Survey Program
P.O. Box 88
Denver, CO 80201

Government waste imperils environment

As seen in the The Longmont Ledger, March 27, 2011

By Tom Lopez, Longmont

Deriding government subsidies for renewable energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while ignoring the huge subsidies going to the oil industry, which is drowning in profit, makes no sense to any critical thinking person.

How short-sighted can people be to ignore the fact that man-caused carbon-dioxide levels are killing our planet? How many permanent ice sheets melted, dying coral reefs identified, ocean ph levels dropped, low-lying islands drowned and people dying from breathing foul air will it take to convince this talk-show tainted mindset that we have a perilous environmental problem on our hands?

Meanwhile, some make the ludicrous claim that every significant tax cut has resulted in increased government revenues. No one has ever supplied quantifiable evidence to support that claim. It is true, however, that any tax cut reduces government revenue by that exact amount so before anyone claims increased government revenue, he must first cover the revenue lost from the tax cuts.

Compare the $1.5 trillion cost of George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and his half-trillion dollar prescription-drug giveaway, plus the hundreds of billions annually to tax cuts for the well-off and the more than $2 trillion Wall Street meltdown to the cost of increased unemployment insurance for the out-of-work, food stamps for the hungry, the $200 billion program for renewable energy and health insurance for all that actually saves money and you will clearly see where the real government waste exists.

Longmont leadership lacks vision

Address to Longmont City Council, December 15, 2010

In 2009 I ran for an At Large seat on the Longmont City Council. I spoke of branding Longmont as northern Colorado’s Green City.

A core component of my campaign was the pursuit of a conservation, renewable energy business park. My website (www.kayefissinger.com) still exists and as part of the vision statements it says:

“I envision a light industrial/business park that can be the home of renewable energy and conservation businesses that will expand well-paying primary jobs in our community. “

Approximately 5,000 of Longmont’s voters embraced this idea by the votes they cast for me.

My opponents, who now sit on this council, pooh-poohed this pursuit of clean, green energy. They claimed that focusing on this as part of Longmont’s economic development was not warranted.

Since then, the community has seen this council reject an effort to hold a contest amongst businesses and others to encourage green residential improvements – at no cost to the city. We have seen this council reject matching funds from the state to add to the use of solar energy in Longmont.

The shortsightedness of this council and its long-standing group of economic supporters was made vividly apparent in an article in today’s Times-Call.

The print headline above the fold heralded Tech jobs on the way – Regional manufacturing park could employ up to 10,000.

The article covered the partnership between NASA and the State of Colorado to create a technology park likely to be about one million square feet of space with 10 percent committed to testing labs, and 90% for manufacturing. The park will focus on attracting small- and mid-size companies in the two fastest-growing industries in Colorado, aerospace and clean energy.

Towards this end Governor Ritter and NASA held a signing ceremony yesterday covering their agreement. The partners seek to establish this park in close proximity to CU, CSU, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the School of Mines.

Yet buried in the second to the last paragraph was a statement that Jody Cody of the Longmont Area Economic Council had not been contacted about potential sites for the park.

Not been contacted! Where is the initiative for which we have paid $150,000 to $200,000 to bring employers to Longmont? Are we to wait until we are contacted? This is unacceptable. Longmont has physical space. Longmont has talent. It should be aggressively pursuing the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of Green – Green Energy and its Green Money.

Has this council and its allies been sending the message that we don’t believe in green technology? That we will take it if it’s offered but we have no vision that includes its pursuit?

I certainly hope not. But if I’m wrong, there are those in our community who need a “come to Jesus” moment on this subject. We can’t win the game if we are not playing the game.