Thursday, February 5, 2009

Still Kicking


Wow. So now I begin to see why LIFT is investing so much in the next election. They're working to get the sure-to-fail Union Annex to happen - no matter what it costs. Bankers must really be chewin on somebody.

I had hoped this temporary insanity had finally passed but the war drums are booming again.

Losing the Presidential election must have finally pushed that crucial final ball bearing off the track and now the LLF is cranking up for battle... again.

Well, if the referendum didn't teach 'em how strong the Progressives are, maybe a sound thrashing of their over-funded candidates will. It's one thing to blow a fortune on an election and win, something totally different to bet the farm and lose.

Remember, the Union Annex Referendum happened during the previous Council. If LIFT pays to wallpaper the entire town for weeks (much like the Times-Call did in Firestone) and turns out every single walker-pushin GOP voter and all the right-leaning independents to pack the council with screeching wingers it will not matter.

The town doesn't have confidence in the Union development.

People aren't stupid - they can see all the For Sale signs - and the For Sale PRICE REDUCED signs and the For Sale MUST SELL signs. They realize that building yet another development is a bad idea - especially now. The folks in Firestone will start to wake up when they figure out that all the 4C promises are worth the air they're made of and that their town is going to be sucked dry like a Black Widow's helpless victim. Then I'm sure the real fun will begin.

The 4C, TC and the LLF don't have unlimited resources (as I'm certain their bankers are reminding them during portfolio reviews) and can't keep up the assault forever.

Of course the footsoldiers will fight on - and lose.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Tri-Town Tempest in a Teacup

Gathered up a bunch of posts and comments from Tri-Town that fill in a lot of details. Enjoy.

From Tri-Town
Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:09 am

Been reading bits and pieces of the LifeBridge topics (no time to read it all yet). Boy are there some whoppers being told. Paul, that's a real nice yarn you're spinning on the purchase of the LifeBridge properties in Weld.

Anyone who wants to take a gander at the info on the Weld County Assessor's website will find some interesting information. There are three parcels that constitute the 348-acres of the project, each purchased at a different time from different people. LB purchased the squiggly piece (57.49 acres) closest to the reservoir from the Lawson's on 6/11/01 for $2,567,200. Two other chunks have a history that raises eyebrows.

There's the story of the Whitham property, the 98 acres that fronts SH 119. LifeBridge purchased the Whitham property for $5,082,200 -- not seven million and the sales date was 9/28/01. Longmont began negotiation with the Whithams and their agents in January of 2001, even before the 57-acre parcel was bought by LifeBridge. The city put down earnest money of $200,000 on a sales price of $3.8 million. The church got wind of the pending sale. Before the deal could be finalized with Longmont, LifeBridge slipped in under the radar and offered the property owner almost twice the amount of the agreed-upon price with Longmont . How do I know this. It's called an Open Records Request and anyone can do it. It's in the City of Longmont records. I've often wondered who the Judas was in Longmont who passed this information on to LifeBridge. That's probably such a well-kept secret that no one will ever know.

A 144-acre parcel shows a sales date of 7/10/03. That's the parcel close to the squiggly one. Guess what? The sales price is listed as zero dollars. What's that all about, Paul? You can get ownership histories from all the other properties but not this one. Who owned it, Paul? A church member/elder? Was it gifted to the church? The deed was quitclaimed. Pretty fishy transaction if you ask me. Care to level about this?

The people behind LifeBridge don't tell the truth. They obfuscate. They misdirect. And when they have dirty work to do, they get surrogates to do it for them or do it behind the scenes. Can't wait to see when, where and how this happens in Firestone. Now that they've been put on notice, maybe they'll decide to play fair. But I won't hold my breath.

Lots of people are gullible and fall for all of this. Why? Because they can't believe that a church would do it. Some do, and this church does.



Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:50 pm

Paul Sorensen wrote: I assumed they were a joint purchase with another parcel that has a price tag associated with it, or a land donation for tax purposes to the City or the church.

Paul, that may be the problem -- you assumed. If you read the "sale" dates closely you will see that they are roughly two years apart. These properties were not lumped under the same sale and same sale price.

Furthermore, I have found no evidence in the record that Longmont either knew of or had approached the Lawsons to purchase that property. The city's focus was on the Whitham property that they new was available for purchase. Also, were the Lawsons planning on selling their parcel or did LifeBridge talk them into it because of the plans to outbid Longmont on the Whitham property?

You've mentioned repeatedly that you are very active in your church, LifeBridge. In fact, months ago, before you were elected, you even told the posters to this site/subject that you went to LifeBridge for information. Since you have that ready source of information, I would think you could easily find the answer to who was the previous parcel owner and how much did LifeBridge pay for the property, if they paid at all. If it was donated to LifeBridge for a tax write-off as you suggest, who was the church member who did this and will they be financially benefiting from the property's development?

This is a question of the credibility of the church, and the credibility of everyone who lobbies for the church. I just don't think Firestone should have to take a leap of faith on this project -- or a leap of trust either, if LifeBridge can't or won't be candid about things. I'm not prepared to give them special quarter just because they are a church and call themselves Christian. That's just not good enough.

Scotty wants to know why we're talking about Longmont. How much property Longmont owns in Weld County has nothing to do with anything. As a Firestone trustee, you wouldn't give a rat's behind how much property Longmont owned in Weld if it wasn't for this project. When LifeBridge was trying to get into Longmont, it was only a curiosity, if even that, in Firestone. You care because you're a LifeBridge activist. I trust that you know why Longmont cares about open space and property in Weld County. I think it's very simple. Longmont owns 86% of Union Reservoir. It's their reservoir so the city and the people of Longmont care what goes on around that reservoir. That seems reasonable to me.

If the Union project gets built in this location, all of the people who move there will be using Union Reservoir recreation features and Sandstone Ranch recreation just down the street. Longmont taxpayers will be the ones paying for this. One of Firestone's planning commission members even mentioned her concern about an overload on Carbon Valley's recreation center with all of the new people. Then she backtracked and decided it was not important because they'd go to the Longmont Recreation Center anyway because it's closer. Again, Longmont would foot the bill. Seems to me that the people of Longmont have plenty of reasons not to want this development.

But that's neither here nor there. I just don't see anything of substance on this that proves it's not going to hurt the people of Firestone and cost money in the end. I'm a researcher and an analyst. I need proof, raw data, and the basis behind whatever assumptions are used in the analysis. So far all I hear is, "We're your elected representative, so trust us." or "We're a Christian church, so trust us." That's just not good enough--not for a project this BIG.



Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:44 pm

Hi, scotty. I've taken a close look at the Firestone documents also. There are NO SIGNED DOCUMENTS BY BOTH PARTIES to this annexation.

The Board of Trustees voted on May 8, 2008 on an annexation agreement that did not exist.

Prior to the adoption of the ordinances of annexation, the Minutes for the May 8, 2008 meeting of the Board of Trustees carry this statement:

"Union Annexation Agreement
Trustee Thomas moved and Trustee Walb seconded, to approve the Union Annexation Agreement. Roll call vote was taken. Motion carried."

The Firestone Municipal Code (1.08.040) makes the following requirement regarding annexations:

"Prior to the final adoption of an annexation ordinance, the petitioner shall enter into an annexation agreement with the town concerning matters relevant to the proposed annexation, including, but not limited to, such matters as public improvements,..."

I assume that you know that in a legal document, such as a code or statute, the word "SHALL" means a mandate. It does not allow for wriggle room.

The document referenced in the two ordinances that annex Union was a blank boilerplate of an annexation agreement that was created in 2002 (and even shows the name of then-mayor Rick Patterson), the same document submitted to the County of Weld as part of an Impact Analysis that is required by state statute. The closest Firestone gets to an annexation agreement is a reference in the ordinances to LifeBridge's Petition for Annexation. This document is merely an assertion that the annexation requested meets the conditions of eligibility for annexation.

When an Annexation Agreement finally became available to the public near the end of June, it was signed on May 20, 2008 ONLY by LifeBridge, which means that it's nothing more than a proposal by LifeBridge for an annexation agreement. It is still unsigned, and according to Sam Light (town attorney), it won't be completed because of the special election. So Firestone trustees and the town attorney are telling the people of Firestone to vote against the repeal of the LifeBridge/Union annexation without ever knowing what they are voting for.

Moreover, the language in the proposed annexation agreement is conditioned upon the execution of a "public improvements reimbursement agreement ("PIRA") in a form and in substance mutually agreed to by the the Parties,..."

There is no PIRA, signed or otherwise.[/u][/i] The Board of Trustees and city officials have gone into executive session a number of times to discuss the PIRA conditions and negotiating strategies. But there is no PIRA.

So there you have it, Scotty. There's nothing in writing signed, sealed and delivered by both LifeBridge and Firestone. It's up to each and every voter in Firestone to decide whether they want to accept the fact that their trustees, town attorney and town planner played fast and loose with the town code and state statutes. From your post, I gather that you won't find this behavior acceptable.



From Tri-Town
Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:33 pm

Nighthawk wrote: All we do know is a church wants to build, and a town wants to annex the land. No one knows anymore or any less.
Nighthawk wrote: I believe in a simple annexation.

This is not about the annexation of land and there is nothing "simple" about this. This is about a $700,000,000 project. No, I did not make a mistake with the zeros. $700 million is correct.

Nighthawk, you're trying to make this seem like no big deal and it's a very big deal. Have you looked at the Outline Development Plan? I have. And I've also looked at the Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat over in Longmont. (It's fundamentally the same project.) LifeBridge plans to build its own town! Everything identified in the ODP is pre-approved. Yes, some of the smaller details might remain unknown, but the big picture is already determined. So trying to present this annexation as land only and as simple shows that you either don't understand the project or you're spinning.

The LifeBridge/Union project's Outline Development Plan (ODP) was approved by the trustees in Ordinance 680. Here's what's included in the ODP:

Boarding, rooming houses
Family-care homes
Group-care homes
Group-care institutions
Residential rehabilitation facility
Townhome dwellings
Two-, three- and four-family dwellings
One-family dwellings
Bed and breakfast establishments
Medical and dental offices and clinics
All other professional offices
Day care centers
Day care homes
Commercial shopping center
Copy shops and printing services including typesetting
Gasoline sales in conjunction with other uses
Hardware, building materials or garden stores with outdoor storage or display
Hotels, motels
Personal service shops
Retail sales - less that 25,000 square feet
Retail sales - greater than 25,000 square feet
Rental and repair of medical drugs, supplies, aids or devices including pharmacies
Veterinary clinics
Veterinary hospitals
Business service establishments
Catering establishments
Commercial laundries, linen services, dry cleaning plants
Data, radio, TV or other broadcasting facilities (with and without outdoor transmission or receiving facilities)
General administrative offices
Medical, dental and optical laboratories and research facilities
Newspaper printing, publishing and production facilities
Publishing, binding, and engraving establishments
Wireless telecommunication facilities
Freestanding wireless telecommunication facility
Building or structure mounted wireless telecommunication facility
Colleges, universities
Convention and conference centers
Libraries, museums, or art centers, including accessory education facilities
Performing arts centers, auditoriums and other places of assembly
Places of religious assembly, with accessory schools, day-care center facilities, offices,
Public and private schools for kindergarten, elementary or secondary education
Special schools such as martial arts, dance or other similar personal skill instruction
Trade or vocational schools
Commercial recreation facilities
Indoor shooting range
Live entertainment with indoor and outdoor seating
Movie theaters
Private membership clubs for health, recreation, and athletics
Public and private play fields, courts; recreation facilities with associated dining facilities
Reception/banquet hall
Restaurants
Restaurants with outdoor seating
Restaurants, drive-thru
Social, fraternal clubs and lodges
Bus, rail and public transit terminal
Parking garages
Parking lots
Manufacturing and processing uses
Industrial uses where products are researched, designed, assembled, manufactured or produced
Oil and gas well facilities
Research facilities
Testing laboratories
Funeral homes
Cemeteries
Government administrative and services offices
Hospitals
Other community uses, services and facilities operated by a government or non-profit organization

I may have missed a few things, but not much. Does that mean that everything listed above will be in Union? No, of course, not. Its 350-acre size provides some limitations.

Does anyone still think this is simple? All of this is listed in the Outline Development Plan. I repeat. LifeBridge is planning LifeBridge Town.

Before anyone gets too excited about all the possibilities for growth, reflect on this. LifeBridge has never produced even so much as a letter of intent for any of the businesses they would like to see in their town. Never.

This is what LifeBridge wants. Maybe Firestone does, too. But before you start counting property, sales, and use taxes, remember that infrastructure has to be there first. And that takes up-front money while everyone waits to see if homebuyers and businesses really step up to the plate. And remember, too, that no one has any idea how many of the possibilities listed above might actually be tax-exempt -- and LifeBridge has never committed and never will. Without that information, no financial impact analysis can ever be valid.

This is high stakes gambling, pure and--yes--simple. But that's all that is simple.

And before LifeBridge can pull any of this off, it will need one or more Metropolitan Special Districts (MSD). MSDs are quasi-governmental entities. The Union project can virtually govern itself.



Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:05 pm

Paul Sorensen wrote: Union would not be able to reply for annexation if the vote is against the annexation.

Paul, your statement above misleads. There is nothing in the state annexation statute that would forbid LifeBridge from reapplying for annexation. The statute only provides for a one-year waiting period.

Title 31, Article 12 is the "Municipal Annexation Act of 1965." Section 107(2) (e)(6) states:

"No proceedings for annexation to a municipality may be initiated in any area which is the same or substantially the same area in which an election for annexation to the same municipality has been held within the preceding twelve months."

I've been listening to people in Longmont. Some are very concerned that the LifeBridge project will come back to Longmont and others hope it will.

Ordinance No. 680 passed by the Board on May 8th was much more than a zoning matter as your post suggests. The Board approved the very detailed Outline Development Plan and in so doing granted permission for a project with all of the features detailed in my previous post. Did the trustees not know what they voted on, what they approved? Did they really study this project and ask their own questions? Or were they merely taking Bruce Nickerson's word that everything should be approved? The Board shouldn't just be a rubber stamp for the Planning Director.

Paul, you are a dedicated member of LifeBridge Church. You've been around this project for years. You know precisely what this project entails. Your can't simply take one hat off and put on another. It doesn't work that way. You want this project first and foremost because you are a church member. Your membership in LifeBridge precedes and supersedes your role as a trustee. When you speak, yours is the Voice of LifeBridge.



Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:29 pm

Paul Sorensen wrote: But this annexation isn't about a church it is about a development. You can twist it, conspiracy theory it, criticize it anyway you want, but it is just that simple.

Paul, apparently I've touched on a sore spot from the tone of your response. Not to belabor the issue, I just don't see how you can separate Paul the Person from Paul the LifeBridge Member from Paul the Firestone Trustee. Apparently all three are in agreement. People just need to be aware. That's all.

Yes, this is about a development. But it's a development designed by a church to further a church purpose. LifeBridge Church has a development arm, Corporation for Christian Community Connection (4C). The 4C principals are fundamentally the same people who are the church's elders. The Articles of Incorporation for 4C, which can be viewed on the Colorado Secretary of State's website, make it clear that 4C cannot act without the approval of the church's elders.

Why is that relevant? Because the church IS the developer, and the developer IS the church. And this has a financial impact on the project. Every facility that is a part of or becomes a part of the church's religious purposes is covered by a state religious tax-exemptions statute and the state's constitution. The ODP also lists the possibility of facilities that may be non-profit, if not religious. Both of these categories are exempt from property taxes. To determine the financial viability for the taxpayers and residents of Firestone, the numbers need to be run with a realistic and/or worst-case scenario. When that is done, then the numbers have meaning. We need to see not just a bottom line; we need to see the assumptions that produced that bottom line. If the assumptions are wrong, the bottom line will be wrong. That's fundamental to any analysis.

I understand that there are people on tri-town that want this project -- no matter what. So be it. It's just unfortunate that these people get agitated when financial information about the project and legal information about the annexations, both of which have serious ramifications and implications for Firestone, is offered to others.

It makes me conclude that the only message those people want is, "Don't think about this. Don't worry about this. It's simple. It's all good. Take our word for it." Some voters will take that message and run with it. It's the easy way. And it happens all too often. I can only hope that this time voters will dig deeper.



From Tri-Town
Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:47 pm

blues wrote: treat this like any other annexation instead of fighting it because of the church.

Blues, the objections to the Union development are not because it is a church and because people are against churches. That is your perception and apparently the perception of a few others. But it cannot be denied that it is a church that has designed the development and is pursuing the development.

I've seen elsewhere where Senior Minister Rick Rusaw has stated that he has a "vision of a ministry community" for Union. That has immense implications both for taxation issues and for reasons others who have posted here have expressed.

The difficulty some are having with the perception of the LifeBridge development is that it is two things and those two things are essentially incompatible with one another. The project is a religious project. This project is a commercial project. The commercial aspect of the project is intended to enrich certain church members and elders individually who are developers. It is also intended to be a source of funds to expand the church. LifeBridge has indicated that it wants to have a congregation of 20,000 members.

People can understand building churches. People can understand residential developments. People can understand commercial development. But they have a lot of angst when it all comes together. And they should.

I've done some personal research on the issue of religious tax exemptions. The Colorado statute Title 39, Article 3 that covers religious property taxation exemptions was a real eye opener. Until the LifeBridge project was proposed I had given little thought to religious tax exemptions. I had a general understanding that churches and church schools were exempt from property taxes. I had no idea how broad the Colorado constitution and statutes were in allowing religious tax exemptions.

Article 3 of that Title pertains to religious exemptions only. Section 106(2) establishes the state's premise for enacting the statute. Here is what it says:

"In order to guide members of the public and public officials alike, in the making of their day-to-day decisions, to provide for a consistent application of the laws, and to assist in the avoidance of litigation, the general assembly hereby finds and declares that religious worship has different meanings to different religious organizations; that the constitutional guarantees regarding establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion prevent public officials from inquiring as to whether particular activities of religious organizations constitute religious worship; that many activities of religious organizations are in the furtherance of the religious purposes of such organizations; that such religious activities are an integral part of the religious worship of religious organizations; and that activities of religious organizations which are in furtherance of their religious purposes constitute religious worship for purposes of section 5 of article X of the Colorado constitution. This legislative finding and declaration shall be entitled to great weight in any and every court."

This is a sweeping religious entitlement.

LifeBridge Church has a number of "ministries" that most people wouldn't normally consider religious. They have a sports ministry; they have performing arts ministries. These are activities they "use in the furtherance of the religious purposes" of LifeBridge Church. The Union project has plans for a 150,000 square feet Sports Arena. The project includes a performing arts center. Not only does Colorado statute permit the declaration of these facilities as religious property tax exempt, but the statute affirms that "their religious purposes constitute religious worship for purposes of section 5 of article X of the Colorado constitution."

And if that isn't enough, the legislative declaration finishes with the statement, "This legislative finding and declaration shall be entitled to great weight in any and every court." The message to the courts is emphatic and direct.

Has the Colorado legislature gone too far? Is there a U.S. Constitution violation? Maybe. And maybe. But this is about Firestone. We have to live with what is and make our decisions on what is. And this statute IS.

The Board says that they are not going to finalize agreements until after the election, after the voter approval of the annexation that they have unequivocally said they want and hope to get. The town and the trustees are not allowed by law to campaign for the project. This is according to Sam Light, the town attorney. They are allowed to pass a "Resolution of Advocacy" and they have said that they plan to do this.

The election is five weeks from today. Will they change their minds and finalize the agreements before September 30th? I rather doubt it. There are too many issues that have to be determined and Firestone isn't the only entity involved. One of the previous posters mentioned he had concern about a PIRA showing up at the last minute and no one having an opportunity to analyze it or substantively address it. He made a very important point. I hope and pray that they don't try to play our community with a maneuver like that. If they do, that will speak volumes.



Inform Firestone Challenge
by truth*be*told on Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:35 pm

scotty wrote: Either the problem is that it is a church, or the problem is that it's a poorly executed annexation(my issue)
scotty wrote: This is no ideological discussion, this is a reality.

Scotty, I'm not having it both ways. LifeBridge is having it both ways. Don't blame the messenger for the message.

It's about having insufficient taxes generated by the project to support the project. If the entirety of this project were in the hands of a for-profit entity, it would not be as difficult to determine what would be subjected to property taxes. Because of the Colorado statute I mentioned, much of what has been declared as "commercial" (and thus taxable) could be converted to a "religious purpose" and become non-taxable.

The project came close to coming to a screeching halt in Longmont because of this. LifeBridge/4C was asked to commit that only the portion in their plans that was identified as religious/civic would be tax exempt. LifeBridge/4C refused. LifeBridge/4C stated in writing that they "will not be able to build this project within the City of Longmont" if they have to make a legal commitment as to what is taxable and what isn't. Do you think they will make this commitment to Firestone? Not a chance. Longmont had a great water deal for them, and they still would not do this. And the town trustees and officials are about to walk off a cliff over the water problems.

The Sports Arena could be tax-exempt. The performing arts complexes could be tax exempt. If there's a hospital, it could be tax exempt instead of for profit. The nursing come could be tax-exempt. Assisted living could be tax-exempt. If there are elementary schools and a middle or high school as mentioned in the ODP, they will certainly be tax exempt whether they are religious schools or public schools.

LifeBridge has described these and more as commercial. BBC Research and Bruce Nickerson accepted everything that LifeBridge has said as the assumptions when running the numbers. And it's mandatory to accept these assumptions to have any chance at arriving at revenue numbers that show a positive cash flow to the town. No other scenarios were used.

And that doesn't even include the other cost issues such as the costs of water and its infrastructure.

There are a great many reasons to reject this annexation/project. I've talked about more than one of them. Accepting one reason as enough does not mean any other reason should be excluded from the decision-making process. So, Scotty, if all you need is the reason of improper annexation procedures, no signed documents, and no PIRA, that's great. Just realize that there is more to the story than that alone.

This is not about religion, it is about a tax base that at a minimum supports the project. It should do more than that, it should bring in reliable revenue as well. I don't know how much more clear I can make that argument. Everything that I posted above and in my previous post is supporting information to say the tax base can't be believed or accepted.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Tick Tick Tick

No, I'm not talking about my latest camping trip (where we danced nekkid through the trees and sacrificed lil animals on flaming altars)(not really, but it's what the LF thinks I do, so might as well pretend)....

... I'm talking about the Referendum petition drive in Firestone.

They got the sigs.

They got em validated.

They gotta wait to see what Firestone's Council does.

I can imagine the antiacid budget for the 4Cs is becoming a serious 'line item'.

Looks pretty much a slam-dunk when it goes to election.

Ignore the stream of commericals, pottycasts, radio ads, pink flyers, sandwich boards, bullhorns, car signs and revival meetings you're likely to hear.

Just say no to the Annex and put this pig out of it's misery.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Careful What You Ask For

The FISA bill that's likely to go sailing through the Senate today could spell serious trouble for the country: especially folks on the right.

Imagine a Democratic President AND House AND Senate with that power.

Yeah.

Think about that.

Add in a nice 'nuclear option' (first threatened by Congressional Republicans) to shut off/up the filibuster and things start lookin mighty damn bleak for the elephant in the room.

The only option left would be the 'fourth box' and even that could be problematic since with all-you-can-eat wiretapping, any potential 'patriots' (laughs loudly) would be frog-marching before you could blurt out 'went a-courtin'.

Yeah. Think about that.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Kudos! - Whoopsie! Never mind!

I was just scanning through the local blogs and websites and came across something on XxxxXxxxxxxx that really heartened me.

I was recently corrected that the site in question did NOT support Jared Polis, didn't LIKE Jared Polis and the ad was purely coincidental.

So I've removed the reference.

However, if you really want to know WHO it was, you can always go dig through the garbage. Say hi to yer pals while you're dumpster-divin.

Here's what I saw on the right siderail:




Jared Polis is still kicking the living crap out of the other Dems in the race and will stomp his nearly-anonymous GOP opponent like a grape.

GO JARED!

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Google Knows

Machinations

Just curious, all that money that helped push Gabe Santos into office is still out there* just wondering what it's up to now - you can bet your bippi the gentry behind it want their 'cow'** back. I'm sure we're going to see a more-or-less continuous drumbeat of war against City Council from now until the next election.

It a funny thing about war, all sorts of things that folks don't want brought out into the light of day get dragged out. Just food for thought.

* and there's tons of it, make no mistake
** - 'cow' meaning metaphorically Longmont and their cushy no-tell consulting fees